The sudden resignation of Steve Jobs yesterday (August 24th, 2011) sent people into a tizzy about the fate of Apple as its iconic (and iconoclastic) CEO takes his hand off the rudder. Apple’s Board of Directors moved quickly to accept Jobs’ recommendation that Tim Cook take the mantle, arguably a succession he has been groomed for for some time. Markets and pundits wring their hands over the fate of Apple, arguably the worlds most powerful and influential brand, in the aftermath.

The following is excerpted from an email discussion between Stephanie Coleridge and I on the topic shortly after the announcement.

SC: I will not ascribe to the idea that Jobs’ departure spells the end of Apple. I’m concerned that from this point on if there’s a dud-product, people will point to Jobs’ resignation as the reason for the dud. But there were dud-products from Apple while Jobs was CEO [e.g. the G4 Cube]. There are exceedingly bright and visionary people all over the place; Jobs is not the only person who can be CEO of Apple.

After Alexander McQueen committed suicide, people wondered what would happen to the label he founded; 18 months later, Sarah Burton has taken over the design house and has more than adequately filled his shoes.

DH: Jobs’ main contribution to Apple’s success has been a vision of what computing should be and an unrelenting drive to produce amazing shit. I honestly think that any decently-sized tech company could do the same things that Apple does; the difference is no other company would go through the rigour of actually making products like Apple without a megalomaniac at the helm. I have worked for companies where engineers shrug and say “that’s impossible” or accountants claim “costs are too high”: companies that sacrifice excellence for expediency. These companies make banal devices with designs based on series of compromises rather than something that starts and finishes with what first seems like an unachievable idea.

The best comparison I can draw to Apple in the last decade is that of  NASA in the 60′s developing the tech for the Moonshot: smart people working in uncompromising ways. I’m not saying that Apple building consumer computing devices compares to the hard science and national prestige of the Apollo program, but both have a singular vision (whether Jobs or Kennedy) backed by near zealous goals and significant resources.

There are no committees at Apple—there is Jobs, who no doubt pores over things like an angry god before approving designs. Jobs cared deeply about some things, and more importantly, didn’t give a fuck about many other things (e.g. paying out dividends) which allowed Apple to rise from a nearly bankrupt company in the mid-90′s to supremacy today.

Tim Cook is a good business manager, and Jonathan Ives is a great designer. As long as there is some good tension between them Apple will survive, albeit they may lose some of the fierceness and singularity of direction. Apple may lose its way over time without a strong visionary at the reigns but things are safe for now: I suspect Apple’s roadmap and product development is well defined for the next 3-5 years and projects underway will continue relatively unabated. No plastic iPhones or MacBook Pros with multimedia buttons for a while.