The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Can The Apple Company Survive Without Steve Jobs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 19789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO and been replaced by the company's chief operating officer Tim Cook. In a resignation letter, Jobs, who has been on a medical leave of absence since January this year, said he could no longer carry out his duties.

The 56-year-old founded Apple in 1976 and is widely seen as the company's creative dynamo. He will remain at Cupertino as non-executive chairman.

In his resignation letter, Jobs said: "I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role."

The last time Jobs left Apple - under acrimonious circumstances in 1985 - the company went to the brink of bankruptcy. Jobs's return in 1997 heralded the era of iPod, iPhone and iPad products that have helped Apple to become the biggest company in the US. Commentators wonder whether Apple can continue its huge success without Jobs.

"Forceful bosses whose personalities shape everything about their businesses are going out of fashion these days, for good reason many would say," writes the BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones.

"But Steve Jobs is a rare example of a chief executive who is synonymous with his company, a perfectionist who obsesses over every detail and has been the public face of just about every major product launch in the past decade."

As an example of Jobs's style, Steve Lohr, in the New York Times, remembers when a journalist asked the Apple boss what market research went in to the iPad. Jobs replied: "None. It's not the consumers' job to know what they want."

So what does the future hold for an Apple without such a forceful personality at the helm? "The good news for Apple is that the product road map in this industry is pretty much in place two and three years out," David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School, tells Lohr. "So 80 to 90 per cent of what would happen in that time would be the same, even without Steve."

The real question, he says, is what happens after that road map runs out. Chris O'Brien in the San Jose Mercury outlines two possible futures: "One view holds that Jobs has built a deep bench of executive talent that will keep a steady hand on the rudder.

"The counter view is that following its decade-long reinvention, Apple is so optimised to serve Jobs that it is doomed to falter under anyone else's leadership."


I accept.

There have been several examples of companies surviving after their founder left or died or heyday ended. For example here are examples in the technology field:

1. Microsoft was still in operation after Bill Gates resigned. "Microsoft's revenues are still massive, and its core products still permeate the computer world with monopoly-level market share..."[1]
2. IBM had its heyday a long time ago, but it is still out there, making innovations, though less-known.[2]
3. MySpace's peak was in 2006, but even after the arrival of Facebook, the company survived.[3]

That should really be enough. Apple is not immediately going to crash and burn now that Jobs is dead. Apple's revenue and popularity may decline; however, this is a recurring phenomenon, there's nothing unexpected. Apple will still survive, and may even make a comeback, in the same way as Coca-Cola after New Coke or Jack-in-the-Box after the bacteria incident.[4]

Debate Round No. 1


Killin4Ever forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2


Killin4Ever forfeited this round.


My opponent did not respond to my arguments and forfeited.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kyro90 4 years ago
idk why but, Killin always forfits debate. No offense...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: on had better arguments, but he forfeited. but sources go to pro. and the sources changed my minds because they where viable. So you dont need the best arguments, but if your arguments are proven then yeah.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It should be obvious as to why Pro won, lol.