Bertrand Serlet was already at NeXT. He designed Workspace Manager, so he must have been there since around 1988.

I think that makes Serlet one of Jobs's most long-term colleagues. His deep experience of software evolution processes may be one of Apple's most underestimated assets.

The NeXT platform has gone through seven different CPU architectures (by my count) and an enormous API merger with the Mac OS, yet shows no signs of getting bogged down. Most other companies can't seem to manage an operating system for even a decade before it loses its momentum under feature bloat and internal fighting over direction (c.f. Windows Vista, Symbian).

(edit -- I initially wrote that Serlet designed Interface Builder for NeXT, but that was another Frenchman, Jean-Marie Hullot.)

> Do you have a reason for doubting that? Steve Jobs has been an amazing leader for Apple but he's not an engineer.

And if people were flocking to Apple computers on the strength of their engineering, I'd agree with your point.

However, Apples' recent success has been because of its design sophistication which Jobs is rightly seen as the inspiration for.

At the time I got my MacBook 3rd gen in 2007, it was very good value (in terms of being well-engineered) for money. And it's still going strong, only had a memory and SSD upgrade since then. Particularly the battery is amazing, I still get 2-3 hours out of it.

I chose it over a ThinkPad at the time, which I considered roughly comparable, on account of the displayport. No other laptop in that price range had DVI out without an expensive dock.

The engineering sophistication is significant, but not in your face. Instead of cramming more electronics into the box, they work hard to reduce the parts count and increase battery life, among other things.

The engineering that went into the A4 is quite significant, but you wouldn't know it was there - except that the UI is very responsive, the unit runs cool, etc.

So you are right in a sense: people don't buy Apple products for the engineering - it's the design. But the engineering makes them not crappy. So they keep Apple products because of the engineering.

>"After working with Jobs' for 13 or 14 years you have to assume some of the magic has rubbed off."

Actually, I would assume that none of them are really cut out to be alpha dog. For Jobs it's been my way or the highway for close to 35 years (even if he was the one hitting the road at times). That's a personality type. None of them have a Pixar on their resumes.

If the future of Apple's success is depends on the transfer of magic between executives, antenna gate was a preview of the problems Apple faces. A deep bench is all well and good, but their can be only one successor.

Tim Cook is more than ready to be "alpha dog". The amount of money that he is getting is specifically to keep him at Apple and not be poached by some other company. Steve Jobs has instilled the culture and I don't see much of a problem, they seem really good at getting rid of people (even if they spent time / money to recruit) if they don't work out.

Cook has done a series of corporate gigs (including ironically employment at IBM in 1984). But there's no history of entrepreneurship - no Apple, Next, or Pixar. He's Prime Minister not an Emperor material.

Can you explain that analogy? Secondly, Apple is an established company, why does it need an entrepreneur at its helm?

Churchill defended Britain, Napoleon conquered all Europe. Apple can survive with Cook at the helm, but nobody will describe him as visionary and creative (even if he is). With Jobs gone, the press won't be afraid ask, "Ping? What were they thinking?"

The chips in the iPod came from PortalPlayer, but Steve Jobs had a huge role in creating the UI, he spent a lot of time tweaking it. I don't think any of the above persons have the same ability to tweak a (hardware) product into something very usable and useful.

(If usability is making a product easy to use, 'useful-ability' should be making the product fulfilling customers wants/needs.)

fwiw, Phil Schiller was responsible for the scroll wheel on the iPod

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/1...

The idea for the scroll wheel was suggested by Apple's head of marketing, Phil Schiller, who in an early meeting said quite definitively, "The wheel is the right user interface for this product." Schiller also suggested that menus should scroll faster the longer the wheel is turned, a stroke of genius that distinguishes the iPod from the agony of competing players.

Absolutely right and the software came from a company called Pixo which was founded by an ex-Apple employee (the company was acquired by Apple shortly after the iPod shipped). While the interface was mocked up by a guy named Tim Wasko (who I believe is still at Apple)

Jobs' role is best described like this (from History of the iPod: http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/origin-of-the-ipod.html#0)

Steve Jobs took a very active role in the project, scheduling frequent meetings with the directors from Fadell's group and PortalPlayer. During these meetings he would tell them in detail what issues he had with the device, whether it was the interface, sound quality, or the size of the scroll wheel.

This was rare for an Apple project at the time, and it reassured the leaders in the group that the project would not be axed immediately.

So while Jobs was absolutely involved and an influence he didn't "design the interface"

No, Jobs doesn't design anything. Although, he edits everything. And that part is as crucial as the design part.

In a large company there are few things designed by a single person. However, there are a number of things that Jobs has had a significant design role in: rounded corners on the Macintosh, the sunflower iMac, the glass staircases in Apple stores to name but three.

As a small amount of proof: http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...

I think you are right; the years immediately following Jobs' departure from Apple will be just fine.

Five or ten years after that though? When Jobs' influence and vision has faded a little bit, maybe some new blood has come on board, and maybe some of the guys there already have gotten more traction for ideas that would previously had been shut down by Jobs?

I'm not saying it'd be a disaster, just saying.. who knows what the admittedly brilliant senior vice-presidents would do if Jobs weren't there. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

I sincerely hope that Jobs' vision and obsession has rubbed off, because whether you like Apple products or not, their influence in the tech industry is sorely needed.

The thing is saying no to alot of stuff. If the voice of the new CEO isn't as hard as Steve Jobs, Apple might say yes to often, and make some not-so-great stuff.