The people who manage Samsung’s mobile division aren’t feeling the love these days. First, they are being sued across the world by Apple for alleged intellectual property violations. Apple has also claimed a few victories in holding off sale of Samsung tablets in Australia, and blocking the sale of Samsung Android smartphones in parts of Europe.

Then there’s Google. Samsung has clearly staked a lot of their mobile device success on the Android OS platform. So what does Google do? They buy up a rival handset maker, Motorola Mobility. So even though, the theory goes, Google will treat all Android OS licensees fairly, and those licensees have even signed on to press releases praising the move, it’s clear that’s not how it’s going to work in the real world. How could it be otherwise? So, Samsung may already be looking for alternatives.

Just last week, there was a report that Samsung was considering expansion of their Bada platform, previously used mostly for embedded software in feature phones, to replace Android in their smartphone lineup. Indeed three Bada-based smartphones have already been announced.

Of course, wanting to develop an operating system and succeeding at the task are two gaps the may never be closed. I’m sure Samsung’s management is aware of that, for otherwise they would not have licensed the Android OS and Windows Phone 7.

Now there’s a published report that Samsung might be going after the failed WebOS. Now understand that the originator of WebOS, Palm, could not survive as a separate company. Although their first WebOS smartphones were highly praised, they were still way behind the iOS in features and performance, and failed to catch on in the marketplace. Despite the inability to demonstrate the success of Palm’s newest products, HP opted to spend $1.2 billion to acquire than anyway. Evidently they had hopes that they could pump enough cash into the division to make it successful, not to mention offer HP an OS alternative for smartphones and, in fact, for PCs.

In all fairness, buying a company that comes on hard times, or is failing to realize their full potential, doesn’t mean the acquisition is a bad idea. Remember that NeXT wasn’t doing so well when Apple came a calling in 1996. NeXT had ditched their hardware, and had decided to focus strictly on software, but there’s no indication they were succeeding so well there either.

But Apple saw the potential — or acted out of sheer desperation — so they decided to spend $427 million, a sum that, in turn, brought NeXT’s talented development staff and Steve Jobs to Apple. Indeed, it took several years to actually build a salable and relatively useful OS even then. Attempts to just graft a Mac OS user interface onto the NeXT OS were stillborn when key Mac developers, such as Adobe and Microsoft, balked at having to totally redesign their apps to become compatible.

There’s no point, though, in recalling the history of Carbon, a method to ease the transition of older Mac OS apps to Mac OS X, Cocoa, and all the other fineries of Mac OS X. The fact of the matter is that everything worked out just fine in the end. Indeed, Apple’s Unix-based OS became the basis for the iOS, the very system that has turned the entire mobile device industry on its head, as more and more companies decided to attempt to imitate rather than innovate.

If Samsung were to buy WebOS, it would also be a move of desperation, or at least one to increase their options should the Android OS become a less viable option after the Google purchase of Motorola Mobility closes next year. But WebOS is a two-time loser. If HP, the largest PC manufacturer, couldn’t make a go of it, what guarantee is there that Samsung will fare any better, should they deceive to take that leap of faith?

This doesn’t mean that I don’t want to see viable iOS alternatives, or better tablets. Yes, Android OS succeeds today on volume, and smartphone makers are attracted to it because they don’t have to worry about rolling their own, or paying license fees to Microsoft (although some have to do that anyway even on Android gear). But if Android’s presence is reduced because disgruntled handset makers go elsewhere in the wake of Google’s decision to acquire an in-house manufacturer, the OS’s market share will quickly drop too, as more and more mobile handsets are upgraded. There’s no indication that Bada can become a better OS, nor any indication that WebOS would magically advance should Samsung or some other company choose to take it over.

In the end, leaving Apple with clear and almost unchallenged dominance of the most profitable portions of the smartphone market, not to mention serious dominance of the tablet market, can have unfortunate consequences. It may even slow innovation. Sure, Apple updates products on a regular basis, but the extent of those upgrades must surely be influenced by market forces. Yes, Apple is known to break the mold, but if there are few companies nipping at their heels, those changes are not going to be as frequent.

But I wonder if the tech industry, hoping to be as good as last year’s iPhone or iPad, will ever figure out a way to become better.

Imagine if Steve Jobs resigned as Apple CEO several years ago, when he was first diagnosed as suffering from cancer of the pancreas. Remember that there was no iPhone then, nor an iPad, though both were being designed in Apple’s testing facilities. Mac sales were growing at a reasonable clip, but they were still using PowerPC processors. Intel Inside was nowhere in sight, other than another Apple lab where a version of Mac OS X for Intel was being tested.

Yes, if Jobs departed Apple then, the company might not have had the strength or vision to become number one in the tech industry and the largest company in the world by market cap, ahead of Exxon. Nobody knows.

Without possessing the inside details of Jobs’ actions after his illness was discovered and revealed to the board and key executives at Apple, it would seem sensible that they devised succession plans in earnest. Maybe there were there previously, but the reality of Jobs departure became a near-certainty.

Continue Reading…

As most of you know, Steve Jobs is an extremely private person, someone difficult to know well, but certainly described as loyal to his friends, family, and trusted coworkers. The forthcoming authorized biography will reportedly include not just interviews with Jobs, but with others as well, supposedly with no restrictions on the questions being asked.

It’s fair to say I was never on his speed dial list, so any opportunity to speak with him ought to be considered a gift, or a lucky break.

Back in 2001, less than two months before the 9/11 tragedy, the family and I spent a week in New York City, primarily to attend a Macworld Expo, and also to catch up on long-delayed visits with my nephews. Well, Apple was opening a new retail store in the SoHo neighborhood in New York, in a building rebuilt from a former post office, I believe. Apple scheduled a special event on the eve of the grand opening for so-called VIPs and members of the press, and I was lucky enough to snag an invitation.

That evening, I was having a long chat with actor/comedian Tim Allen, an avid Mac user, when Jobs and some other Apple executives, including VP Philip Schiller, strolled in. I was nearby, and managed to snake my way to the front the crowd, where I asked Jobs a few questions about some of the matters he raised during his keynote. He responded politely at first, and began to use a technique that enabled him to easily extricate himself from an uncomfortable situation. As he was answering my final question (or what he chose to regard as my final question), he simply walked away in the other direction at a fast speed, realizing full well that I’d consider it impolite to follow him. Well, he was right, though I suspect others might feel otherwise.

Some years later, at a San Francisco Macworld Expo, I was again just a few feet from jobs, who was greeting some of those who attended his keynote. Again, I approached him, asked a brief question about some minor issue in his keynote and, once again, he responded by speaking and walking away at a fast rate.

Understand that nothing he said could be regarded as quotable, though I might have written it up in an old blog at the time. It was clear to me, however, that he was uncomfortable in a public setting when he didn’t have full control of the presentation. Yes, he would do interviews on occasion with selected members of the press at keynotes, media briefings, or even on a cable news program. The most you’d get out of him was a carefully scripted response, although his appearances at an AllThingsDigital conference often provided far more illuminating information. But you know those responses were rehearsed there too.

Yes, when Steve Jobs appears in any public setting, he is always in full control, even if you wish it were otherwise.

Now I would certainly hope that I’d be able to speak with Jobs at greater length on a future occasion, but certainly his sudden, but not unexpected, decision to step down as CEO of Apple Inc. has reminded many of his mortality. His resignation letter states clearly that he is not up to the task of working full time at Apple, and being Chairman of the Board affords him far more flexibility. To me this means that others can do the “grunt work” as it were, and he can focus on the larger picture, plotting and helping to execute Apple’s strategy. Indeed, Jobs reportedly spent a day at Apple’s headquarters shortly before his decision to resign became public, so it’s not as if he is necessarily at death’s door, though his condition appears to have weakened him considerably.

Unfortunately, some members of the media have treated the Jobs story as a sort of eulogy, reciting his history and speculating on how Apple will fare on the post-Jobs era. However, the state of affairs at Apple today is little different than it was months ago, when Jobs took his extended sick leave. Then and now, Tim Cook performed the CEO chores. Then and now, Jobs made occasional public appearances, came to the office from time to time, continued to plot strategy and make deals. In other words, at least for now, nothing has changed at Apple other than to formalize an arrangement that had already, in fact, existed. Indeed, Wall Street, after an initial drop in Apple’s stock price, appears to be calming down.

But I do agree with others that the clock is ticking, and that Jobs will ultimately give up the Chairman post as well. One hopes, however, that his health isn’t still deteriorating and that CEO Tim Cook will get the wish he voiced some years ago, that he would see a gray-haired Steve Jobs, in his 70s, still plying his trade at Apple Inc.

And maybe, just maybe, Jobs will be a little more forthcoming next time I have the chance to speak with him, and I am optimistic enough to believe that will happen some day.

After the markets closed, a letter from Steve Jobs was released Wednesday afternoon, in which he said he’s immediately resigning as CEO of Apple Inc., but will remain Chairman of the Board and an Apple employee. As expected, COO Tim Cook is assuming the CEO position full time; he had served as interim CEO during Jobs’ extended sick leave. While the news is saddening to users of Apple’s products, I wasn’t surprised to hear of this decision. Some might even suggest that Jobs’ illness has grown worse in recent months, but that information hasn’t been made public. I would also hope that this isn’t the reason why publication of Jobs’ authorized biography was moved up to later this year. In the meantime, since Jobs will remain with Apple, no doubt he’ll continue to be involved in strategic decisions, particularly new products. Indeed, his resignation letter states: “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.” At the same time, I do expect that Apple’s stock price will take a dive for a while until the market has a chance to assess the meaning of this decision. But it will probably go back up again soon, since no other tech company seems able to compete with Apple head on. In the meantime, it’s unfortunate that some of the articles about Jobs are reading more like eulogies than profiles. Let’s hope we can look at his career with a more sensible perspective, considering it’s not actually over.