People like to say that Apple will be fine in the post-Job era, while simultaneously paying him credit as one of the most amazing CEOs in history. But I find this an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance.

Either Steve was the key to Apple's top-notch products and meteoric rise, in which case Apple has lost their magic; or he wasn't, in which case Apple will be fine. It really can't be both ways.

It can. As CEO, one of his responsibilities was to create an organisation that would endure. Apple itself may be Steve Job's greatest creation. The test of the next 10 years is to see if that is true.

As far as we know he didn't even organize his own succession, which is one of the most basic responsibilities of a CEO of a multinational. Even when he knew he was terminally ill. So I don't see much hope that he organized the rest of Apple as some great enduring company either.

Where do you get that? He recommended in his resignation memo to the board of directors that they make Tim Cook CEO, as per their succession plan.

Steve didn't make his succession plans public, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Publicly announcing your succession plan has no upside and lots of downside. Just ask Jay Leno or Brett Favre.

So the theory here is that the greatest CEO of all time was able to mind-meld his vision, drive, creativity, discipline, and all his other forms of genius into the corporate structure of Apple? Oh brother. Do you guys hear yourselves?

Are you saying Steve couldn't train others in what is impotent and what is not? The only choices are "Steve was the only Apple employee" or "Steve had no influence at all"?

None of the Apple execs are the same people they were 10 years ago. This is a joint interaction between them and Steve. Those changes have the potential to continue to guide Apple successfully (but it is by no means certain).

It's not different than my kids following my beliefs if I died today.