My guess is they have, just not publicly. (Easy to argue the merits of that.) Pancreatic cancer doesn't leave too many survivors so I am sure the management team thought a lot about life without steve, at least at that time.

I agree, but I think it's less of an internal logistics issue and much more of a public image issue: Steve Jobs is so much the face of Apple as it sits currently, every time there's news about his health the stock fluctuates and that isn't good.

The market needs to figure out Apple sans Jobs.

Which is only going to happen if a post-Apple Jobs continues to excel. Might take a few years for the markets to be convinced.

You don't think Steve will have prepared his company for this? He treats Apple like his own child, and rightly so.

> like his own child

It might not be a good thing, then.

> In California, my mother had raised me mostly alone. http://valleywag.gawker.com/357073/lisa-brennan+jobs-on-her-...

> She briefly raised their daughter on welfare when Jobs denied paternity, claiming that he was sterile; he later acknowledged paternity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Personal_life

As far as one can tell, it looks like she turned out OK (the little I've read of her writing is hella good) ...

to be candid, if it was a short-term situation I don't think it would have been announced, based on previous Apple practice.

thoughts are with them, as was mentioned above, tech things are more interesting when Steve is doing them.

stay hungry, stay foolish... (Steve's commencement address 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc&feature=playe...