Why Mark Zuckerberg might be Steve Jobs’ heir

Who is the next Steve Jobs? It’s a question that Apple shareholders will be looking at during their next meeting, where they’ll vote on a proposal to create a written policy on finding a new CEO.

In a filing released today, Apple’s board of directors opposed the proposal, arguing that it would give competitors unfair insight into Apple’s “confidential objectives and plans.” The board also said that publicly identifying CEO candidates might make those candidates a target for recruiters, while non-candidates would feel that they’d been passed over.

Since Apple is so reticent to talk about its next CEO, we’ve come up with one possible answer — Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.

Now, that probably sounds like a big stretch, but let’s look at where both companies stand. Pundits have been wondering about who will fill take Jobs’ place for a while now. They’re big shoes to fill, with the company’s success in the past decade largely attributed to Jobs’ return, particularly his product perfectionism and the “reality distortion field” he creates around the company.

Meanwhile, the current executive lineup doesn’t offer many obvious candidates — when Jobs took a leave of absence for health reasons in 2009, chief marketing officer Phil Schiller gave the company’s keynote at the Macworld conference. The verdict? Schiller’s fine, but he’s no Jobs. And chief operating officer Tim Cook kept the company running during those months, but it wasn’t until after Jobs’ return that Apple launched its next major product, the iPad. Jobs was reportedly the key figure leading the iPad’s development.

This is one area where Apple may be looking worriedly at Microsoft. When founder Bill Gates stepped down, he was replaced by longtime company executive Steve Ballmer. In the decade since Ballmer took over, Microsoft stock has fallen nearly 50 percent. (Last year, Apple passed Microsoft in market capitalization.) I’m not saying that Cook or Schiller are just like Ballmer, but there’s clearly a danger in replacing a company’s visionary leader with someone who’s competent but less inspired.

So where does Facebook come in? Well, as of October, Apple had a massive $51 billion stockpile of cash. When asked about what he plans to do with that money, Jobs said, “We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we’re in unique opportunity to take advantage of because of our cash.” Which immediately led to speculation about “Who is Apple going to buy?” And now, coincidentally, Facebook just raised $500 million at a $50 billion valuation.

Of course, it’s no secret that the big tech players have been interested in Facebook for a while now — but Apple, its profits supercharged by the iPhone, may be the one company that can still afford the deal.

What’s less certain is whether Facebook — and by Facebook, we really mean Zuckerberg — would be interested. He controls three board seats, and prizes his ability to shape the company’s direction. It’s looking increasingly likely that Facebook will hold a public stock offering in 2012.

So what would actually convince him to sell? Well, how about the chance to run the combined Apple-Facebook?

Aside from the glory of running the most valuable tech company in the world, there’s the strategic logic. The mobile and social worlds are colliding. Facebook has been trying to figure out how it can thrive in a world where platform makers like Apple and Google increasingly integrate Web services directly into devices. There have been rumors of a so-called “Facebook phone” — but with 60 million monthly users on the iPhone, isn’t Apple’s mobile device already the Facebook phone?

Zuckerberg is hardly the polished CEO that Jobs has become, but he’s improving. Last year, we looked at the ways that Zuckerberg had come into his own as a CEO. This year, he seems much more comfortable and charming while speaking to the media or in public. And although Apple employs legendarily talented designers, the recent lackluster launch of the company’s music social network Ping suggests that Zuckerberg understands the one key area that Apple is still struggling with — social networking.

We already know that Zuckerberg wants to be the next Steve Jobs. Would he turn down a chance to make that literally true?

[Filing spotted via AllThingsDigital]

  • http://twitter.com/ros_jo Jordan

    I wonder who thought to hang on to Microsoft stock.

  • http://www.techthirst.com Anuj Ahooja

    I disagree completely. Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs are two completely different people. One works on a web-based project while the other doesn't even touch web-apps; in fact, Apple is the most hardcore native-applications advocate to exist in the world of technology. Furthermore, Zuckerberg wouldn't be a good fit at Apple at all; there's a big difference running a private company and a public company the size of Apple. Facebook's leader loves the power he has as a private owner, but he would hate public ownership. He's a power-seeker and at Apple he'd have significantly less power. Unless Facebook plans on going public this year, a deal with Apple is a long shot.And this isn't even looking at the close relationship Facebook has with Microsoft. They're working hand-in-hand currently and Facebook even refused a buyout/merger in the past. What relationship do Apple and Facebook have? A fall-through on Ping which has yet to be tamed, a dinner date between Zuckerberg and Jobs, and iOS apps? Yeah, long shot once again.I highly doubt Apple would even consider Mark Zuckerberg the future leader of their company, and it's pretty foolish to think so. Just because Mark wants to be the next Steve Jobs doesn't mean he wants literally to run Apple, he simply means that in a metaphorical sort of way. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Mark isn't a great leader, he definitely is; but he'd bomb at leading an engineering company the size of Apple.

  • TheYeasayer

    Sorry, but comparing Apple to Microsoft is once again, comparing (pun intended) apples to oranges. Under Jobs's (I regret to say) bold leadership, the company consolidated its efforts into around 30 products, while Microsoft maintains what? 5x that amount? At least? Apple's comprehensive rebranding in 2007, which included shortening the company's name to just Apple Inc., was merely the finishing touches on what Jobs had started when he returned in 1997: a return to walled garden ecosystems, this time in mobile and entertainment. Microsoft, under Ballmer's leadership, has actually grown 8 new $1billion properties, expanded their dominance with enterprise, added their own credible entertainment platforms, while maintaining 2 (not counting legacy) OSes, and other premium office suites. Gates was absolutely right when he remarked that Google was the most Microsoft-like company he had seen besides Microsoft. They both do much of the same thing.Now, while Facebook has much of this same walled-garden approach, let's not forget that Zuckerberg is still young and has plenty of room to err. Remember the whole point of Jobs' story? Well, it's really a tie between learning maturity and persistence pays off… because you see, it was the same old Steve in the 80's who got thrown out of Apple. Now he's come back and he's still the same old Steve… but the times change. The case remains to be seen with Zuckerberg. As he gets older, his potential will be spent.Furthermore, Facebook, while hardly on the best of terms with Google right now, has shown more courage with them than Apple. And speak of the devil – Microsoft trumps them both and in fact was the closest to buying out Facebook a few short years ago. This is a fantasy scenario that I can't see aging well, but it sure makes for a great puff piece.

  • tylernol

    watcha smokin' Anthony?This will never happen. Facebook will not let itself be bought by anyone and Apple is not interested. Ives is the likely Jobs successor.

  • bslayerw

    LOL!! Funniest story I've read all month. Mark Zuckerberg couldn't CEO his way out of a paper bag. Mark Z just got REALLY lucky. SJ actually worked really hard (and smart) to get Apple were they are today.

  • http://josephrooks.com Joseph Rooks

    Anyone who watched Zuckerberg's meltdown at the D8 conference knows the kid is completely void of charisma.But you know how to make linkbait, VentureBeat.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Have you seen his more recent appearances, like at Web 2.0 or on 60 Minutes? Zuckerberg is certainly no Jobs but he's getting much better.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Fair points on Facebook-Microsoft and private-vs-public. Though as mobile has become more important to Facebook, I think it's less meaningful to call it a Web company or a native app company — it's both.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Well hey, at least I made you laugh.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Yes, obviously, there are huge differences between Apple and Microsoft — I was just focusing specifically on the transition. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that a) Jobs and Gates have been compared a bunch of times in the past, and b) that there's some shareholder discontent with Ballmer's performance. (See the link in the story, for example.)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GDHFAXUSNQHEHYP253JWCYBNEI Steve B

    Most ridiculous blog post I think I've ever read

  • http://www.facebook.com/kenberger Kenneth Berger

    Can't figure out what planet TheYeasayer is from but to think that MSFT has expanded anything substantive in the last 10 years is crazy. MSFT's hold on key markets has been ok – but with the exception of buying Xbox market share what have then done the equates with the iPod let alone the iPad and Itunes etc.Balmer should be fired and MSFT should break up into smaller more functional companies to become competitive again.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Approve.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Approve.

  • http://ucentric.org ϋCentric

    Anthony, did you really just write this on your own or is this PR for Facebook?You normally write objective posts but this is just rubbish.

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Oops, the last comment was me screwing up the Disqus email interface. And further confirming your belief that I'm an imbecile, I'm sure. Oh well.

  • http://ucentric.org ϋCentric

    What at lying?He could not answer a single difficult question. He has clearly received coaching for his performance.This guy obviously has zero morals but I guess that dont count…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OBLBYVMRKOPSV7HO2EUEMAKKHY M2

    Ditto Steve B's comments. If we're grabbing names out of hat, why not see if Oprah wants the job?

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Anthony Ha

    Not sure if that's a serious question, but yes, if you think it's rubbish, the blame is all mine.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_633ZVH2TR53YL5ZGIDYN5YKZGU Jerry

    One fad web site does not a Steve Jobs make.

  • TheYeasayer

    Dude, if you really want to unequivocally state once and for all that Apple and Microsoft are still in the same fields, be my guest. Maybe you work at Apple and you get brownie points for rubbing dirt in some Microsofties' eyes every now and then. But that kind of blatant denial of facts has no business here.There is no question that Microsoft has a great deal of corporate inertia, but that was never the subject of my post. In fact, the same could be said for IBM, Oracle, HP, Google… APPLE (with their Mac department)… just about any large tech company. It is a natural phase of maturity that all companies go through, even non-tech companies.The truth is that Microsoft's marketshare has remained mostly flat, but Ballmer should correctly be lauded for diversifying Microsoft's main properties from a crash like the one that kicked off a decade of stagnation after the dot com bubble. But I know, the only thing that means any goddamn thing is what Microsoft makes for its shareholders. Yes, the world revolves around that, doesn't it?Funny, I thought up until Apple eclipsing MS in market cap, that wasn't a valid point of comparison. Have fun, hypocrite.

  • TheYeasayer

    I don't disagree with the point about the shareholders at all, but there are still several exceptions to Microsoft as I pointed out. Not only that, but the fact that they give out dividends whereas most tech firms do not, the fact that only 10 years ago, their only 2 significant products were their OS and office suite (they're still significant, but they're not the only ones), and that the truth is that their shares have mostly been stagnant. I'm no apologist for Ballmer though, and I think he still doesn't get certain emerging trends. But it's kind of unfair to paint him as a failure when his goals are nowhere near the same as Steve Jobs's.

  • zota

    Apple's first major innovation was popularizing the personal computer, followed up by popularizing the GUI, with designs imitated by all subsequent interface designers. Followed in later years by creating the dominant personal media player and the dominant mobile computing platform, also with universally imitated designs.Facebook's major innovations were monetizing Friendster with borderline-abusive games, and not sucking quite as badly as MySpace. Kudos on their good fortune. But if Zuckerberg has any skill as an innovative designer, he keeps it well hidden.

  • Commentingfun

    Native code kicks the ass of web apps and will for a few years to come.

  • Commentingfun

    Don't worry, don't take uCentric too serious. He's relatively unbalanced and goes on commenting rants against Mark Zuckerberg somewhat frequently under the same name, on different blogs.Psst, uCentric, I showed Mark Zuckerberg one of your nucking futs rants from earlier this summer. He loved it.

blog comments powered by Disqus