Say it ain't so, Steve

The New York Times has a blog by Saul Hansell that asks the unaskable:

What If Steve Jobs Doesn’t Come Back?
We don’t know what’s wrong with Steve Jobs, Apple’s chief executive. But it’s got to be serious. You don’t take a six-month leave of absence, as he is, just because you’ve got a stomachache. So that raises the question, for investors and customers, about whether Apple’s amazing record of innovation and financial success are at risk while Mr. Jobs is on leave— and even more so if he never returns. The answers in each of those two scenarios are very different.
In the short run, Apple is on a roll. It refreshed its notebook line last fall with a new technology. The iPhone has a lot of momentum, and we can assume work is well under way for a third hardware version and a stream of software updates.
There are several gaps in its product line. In the face of a serious recession, will the company compete harder to sell computers that cost less than $1,000? (Yes, there is a $600 Mac Mini, but it’s certainly not been a priority.) And can Apple develop the Apple TV product to have a stronger play in the living room? But it’s not clear that Mr. Jobs had any interest in taking action on any of these questions. And putting them off may not derail Apple, even if it misses out on some potential sales.
Also, here is a key line from the e-mail Mr. Jobs sent to Apple employees: “As CEO, I plan to remain involved in major strategic decisions while I am out.” So, assuming his health allows, Mr. Jobs will still keep his hand on the tiller.
But the risk to Apple is far higher if we imagine the grim possibility that Steve Jobs is unable to return to work. I’m not saying that because there is any shortage of good people at Apple. The company’s top management ranks are filled with some very skilled executives, including Tim Cook, the company’s chief operating officer, who will step in for Mr. Jobs while he is on leave.
But the essence of Steve Jobs— the obsessive visionary who involves himself in the smallest details of Apple’s products and advertising— has fostered what is in effect a corporate operating system that will need to be completely upgraded whenever a successor is named. After all, however talented the executives at Apple, one skill they all need is an understanding of how to work with, and when appropriate, defer to, the whims of Steve Jobs.
It’s almost impossible to imagine the next chief executive of Apple having the same sort of autocratic and impulsive personality. That’s not the style of the people who work there. (There’s only one queen in the hive.) And what outsider coming into the top job of a company doing as well as Apple would have the guts to be so strong-willed and independent?
Of course, Apple’s board should hardly look for a Steve Jobs clone if it needs to fill his chair. Executed with less than unnatural perfection, anyone trying to emulate the Jobs style risks being a bullying buffoon. I even wonder if some of the obsessions and paranoias that are part of Mr. Jobs’s worldview always work to Apple’s benefit.
Steve Jobs can be replaced, even if he can’t be duplicated. There are lots of ways to run successful and innovative companies. And Apple couldn’t be in better shape, financially or in its public image, to withstand a change. But the inevitable process of reworking the entire corporate operating system, changing the culture of how decisions get made and how executives relate to each other, entails enough risk that investors and customers are right to wonder whether Apple after Steve Jobs may lose its way.

Rico says as long as it isn't another John Sculley... (But, hey, isn't Bill Gates looking for something to do these days? Just kidding...)