Founder's syndrome at Apple

This blogger that could would like to point to a previous post on Apple succession originally published back in January 2009. Here's an excerpt:

...It's a little better in iPod land from a performance point of view. But not necessarily at the board level. Apple has been forced out publicly recently with the hormone imbalance admission by Steve Jobs, which hardly quelled speculation that he will need to be replaced. For a board filled with high powered names such as Gore, Wexler, Jung and Schmidt, Apple's slate leaves a lot to be desired in the area of succession, which is arguably a board's first or second largest responsibility. Yes, we know Jobs is an icon and only he (or God) will decide his ultimate fate. But that doesn't negate a stronger need to show investors what the post-Jobs era will resemble. For every day that they obfuscate this issue, the board loses credibility and founder's syndrome takes deeper hold...

Bottom line: Apple is Steve Jobs; Steve Jobs is Apple. The personal and business/product brands are one. The company is a dramatically successful commercial enterprise, which tends to render the governance argument moot. That is until something happens to the brand, which in Jobs case, is an extended illness that everyone has known about for years. Why the board wouldn't take steps to reduce dependency on Jobs speaks volumes on where business is right now in the new New Normal.

Oh, and if you're wondering what we mean by Founder's Syndrome, then please review the attached link sometime: http://startitup.indieword.com/view/curing-the-founders.

Thank you,

JG

# # #