This article is just utter trash. I usually stay away from "technology reporting" in the "traditional media," and this is a great reason why.
The author is simply a cheerleader for Apple. I was expecting an actual argument as to why Apple "needs Jobs back now." The author even uses the language used to deride Jobs (Dear Leader, etc) but nonetheless succumbs to the propaganda.
As far as this line from the article:
"I would go farther and argue that not only does Apple need Steve Jobs—the world needs him. In an age when the pace of technology innovation keeps accelerating so much that we often feel overwhelmed, we need someone who can package new technology, make it accessible to us, and deliver it to us in a way that makes it simple, useful, and reliable."
I find less cult-like propaganda in Scientology commericals than this drivel.
Also, not to defend Microsoft but to engage in a FUD campaign by stating that their latest beta OS because it supposedly crashed is totally ridiculous and bias does not begin to describe it.
I think to those not already converted (not "switchers," but those converted to the Apple/Steve Jobs cult) this article is just totally laughable.
One would be wise to not take the article at face-value. It is written by Daniel Lyons, famous for his parody of Apple fanaticism in the now-defunct blog Fake Steve Jobs. When Steve took ill, Daniel quit that blog and attempted to start one under his real name, and it was one of the most spectacular flameouts I've ever seen on the web.
The guy can be a great writer at times, but I wouldn't trust him to be genuine.
I was vaguely familiar with that. To me that kind of stuff is basically 4chan jibberish.
The problem with this position, for me, is that all of those kinds of justifications are irrelevant as this is a Newsweek article. As well if this was such a sarcasm or parody, I would expect a little more of it and more wit. Here, it is just "Bad argument... prattle prattle ... Windows 7 crashed ..."
I'm not sure I understand your use of the word 'justification'. (I'm don't know anything about 4chan or what someone there might try to justify.) I was certainly not trying to make apologies for the author by warning you away from the apparent meaning of the text. Quite the opposite: I thought the article had no value whatsoever - but because of the subtext and the context.
It is hyperbole, certainly, but I think the conclusion that Apple needs Jobs is the correct one.
One point Lyons does not make is that the brilliant team that kept the ship running smoothly while he was gone were all recruited personally by Jobs. I've written before that recruiting brilliant people may be Jobs single most important skill. I am sure that Apple will need to continue to recruit brilliant people in the future in order to sustain its current level of success.
The point Lyons makes about all of his contacts, emails, etc. on his new phone before leaving the store should not be underestimated, either. This kind of thing is part of the culture of near-insane attention to detail established by Jobs. Apple comes close to removing the fear of learning, configuring, and migrating to a new piece of technology. There has always been a certain nagging dread of what can go wrong when updating to a new Windows OS. Even if its better than what you have now, the expected pain leads to putting off the purchase. It might be possible to sustain this culture without Jobs, but I and other Apple shareholders don't want to find out.
Lastly, I do not think this is true of only Jobs, but founders in general. I don't think Microsoft is the same company run by Ballmer as it was under Gates. Without Jobs, Apple became the definitive case study of how a company can still lose with superior technology. (I know there are other examples of companies losing what made them successful when the founders left, but I'm drawing a blank on remembering them right now.)
Just a side note. Few companies that are mentioned in Jim Collin's "Built To Last" are examples of companies that are going great even after the founders left. 3M, P&G, Disney, Walmart...
I tend to stay away from tech reporting in the traditional media, too. When I first saw this article I was about to read it, because for a moment I had confused NewsWeek with BusinessWeek. When I saw it was NewsWeek, I figured I'd go to the comments section instead.
The author is simply a cheerleader for Apple. I was expecting an actual argument as to why Apple "needs Jobs back now." The author even uses the language used to deride Jobs (Dear Leader, etc) but nonetheless succumbs to the propaganda.
As far as this line from the article:
"I would go farther and argue that not only does Apple need Steve Jobs—the world needs him. In an age when the pace of technology innovation keeps accelerating so much that we often feel overwhelmed, we need someone who can package new technology, make it accessible to us, and deliver it to us in a way that makes it simple, useful, and reliable."
I find less cult-like propaganda in Scientology commericals than this drivel.
Also, not to defend Microsoft but to engage in a FUD campaign by stating that their latest beta OS because it supposedly crashed is totally ridiculous and bias does not begin to describe it.
I think to those not already converted (not "switchers," but those converted to the Apple/Steve Jobs cult) this article is just totally laughable.