Why wasn't Steve Jobs the owner of Apple? Why was he expelled by the board of directors?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Bowen Vaughn



Why wasn't Steve Jobs the owner of Apple? Why was he expelled by the board of directors?

It is a mistake to think that Steve Jobs was expelled from the company.

But before I explain that, here's why Steve Jobs didn't own Apple:

While Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started the company from their bedrooms and garage, once a company goes public, it does not have the same owners that initially started it.

Apple was a public company at the time this incident occurred and they were already huge. The company had hundreds of thousands of owners (shareholders) whose money was involved. And since it corresponds to the Board of Directors of the company to appoint the best people to run the company in or

Keep reading

It is a mistake to think that Steve Jobs was expelled from the company.

But before I explain that, here's why Steve Jobs didn't own Apple:

While Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started the company from their bedrooms and garage, once a company goes public, it does not have the same owners that initially started it.

Apple was a public company at the time this incident occurred and they were already huge. The company had hundreds of thousands of owners (shareholders) whose money was involved. And since it behooves the company's Board of Directors to appoint the best people to run the company in order to generate the most profit, they do what they believe is best.

That leads us to Steve Jobs getting kicked out.

Jobs founded the company and was one of the largest shareholders, so he had a lot to gain if the company was successful. But he was not the CEO (having hired John Sculley as CEO) and he also had to answer to the Board of Directors if the company was not performing well.

The legendary Steve Jobs was responsible for the Macintosh division that was not working well and which later led to a power struggle between John Sculley and himself.

The Board (naturally concerned about profits and not Steve Jobs's role in the company) sided with Sculley and decided to remove Jobs from the Macintosh project.

This was a huge blow for Steve Jobs. He founded the company, helped make it as successful as it was, and now he was being told to quit a project he loved so much. He had none of that.

He resigned and left the company, and sold all but one of his shares.

Therefore, he left the company out of spite and a feeling of being dominated. It was as if he had lost a power struggle for his own baby with a stranger and it devastated him.

But do you see how they never fired him from the company? They pulled him out of a project out of fear of further failure, but that was probably the best thing that could have happened to the tech world.

That one decision gave the world the Steve Jobs who went on to create the iPod and iPhone!

Hope this helps you better understand the whole saga!

Although other people have answered the question, I want to clarify how the structures of the company work, since I think that, fundamentally, that is what people do not understand about the Steve Jobs scenario.

Company structure

In most company structures, it has 3 levels:

  • shareholders
  • directors
  • employees

Most people think of the CEO as the most powerful person in a company. He is not.

He's just the top-level employee managing the staff below him, but all of his instructions come from the board of directors.

Directors are the true decision-makers in a company. Although the shareholders are the actual owners, they are the directors

Keep reading

Although other people have answered the question, I want to clarify how the structures of the company work, since I think that, fundamentally, that is what people do not understand about the Steve Jobs scenario.

Company structure

In most company structures, it has 3 levels:

  • shareholders
  • directors
  • employees

Most people think of the CEO as the most powerful person in a company. He is not.

He's just the top-level employee managing the staff below him, but all of his instructions come from the board of directors.

Directors are the true decision-makers in a company. Although the shareholders are the actual owners, it is the directors who control the company.

Shareholders

The main power that shareholders have is their ability to add and remove directors through majority vote of shareholders. A shareholder who owns more than 51% could do this on their own. Hence, he controls the company by controlling who is on the board.

Directors' voting rights

Voting in most boards of directors is not based on% ownership of the company. Each director gets one vote.

All directors vote and if more than 50% agree, it is approved. If there is a tie, the president gets a tiebreaker vote. There are some differences from business to business, but the above is more common.

So let's look at the above and look at Steve's scenario.

  1. Steve Jobs never had a majority of the company as a shareholder. In fact, the most it owned was 45% when Apple started. This means that he was unable to replace directors at will. Once Apple went public, you had even less control over who was on the board.
  2. Although he was chairman of the board, he only had one vote on the board. If the majority of the board disagreed with him, he had no control over the decisions the company made. Which means you could be fired as an employee. Move him to a dark corner in Apple and force him not to get involved.

From what I've heard, Steve wasn't technically fired, but as the founder the above happened to you, it's just as insulting. That is why he left.

We all know the end of the story, he came back, he only agreed to be CEO if the board was replaced by people he elected. He then went on to create the largest company there is;)

The Steve Jobs story is basically why most of today's tech companies are structured the way they are.

Zuckerberg, for example, only owns 23% of Facebook, but due to the share structure he actually owns the majority of the voting rights, so he actually counts as a> 51% vote, allowing him to control the vote. company at all levels.

I hope this helps.

WAS STEVE JOBS FIRED FROM APPLE?

NO !

Steve played a reluctant role in bringing in John Scully to "boost" Steve's leadership ability.

I was often hired by the Board of Operations and VC to replace an entrepreneurial founder like Steve under the guise of simply complementing the founder.

However, many times the truth was bypassing a disruptive and exploited founding CEO and bringing in a person with outstanding value, as well as an outstanding leadership record.

The Apple board did not want to lose Steve Jobs' contribution to the company.

However, the board was ill-equipped to accurately assess what Ap

Keep reading

WAS STEVE JOBS FIRED FROM APPLE?

NO !

Steve played a reluctant role in bringing in John Scully to "boost" Steve's leadership ability.

I was often hired by the Board of Operations and VC to replace an entrepreneurial founder like Steve under the guise of simply complementing the founder.

However, many times the truth was bypassing a disruptive and exploited founding CEO and bringing in a person with outstanding value, as well as an outstanding leadership record.

The Apple board did not want to lose Steve Jobs' contribution to the company.

Yet the board was ill-equipped to accurately assess what Apple needed and acknowledge that Steve Jobs was Apple.

They knew Steve was fickle, unpredictable, and didn't fit into any mold they had experienced.

Venture capitalists when faced with observations from a different CEO combined with poor performance have only certain tools and their set of tools.

What happened was that there was no room for two CEOs, and no one yet knew that Apple's success was entirely dependent on Steve's ability to apply talent-centric strategies to new product innovation.

I have:

• have known John Scully for a long time

• recruited John to spin off Christian & Timber's staffing software, Peoplescape

• Did all of Apple's retained search work during John's tenure as CEO

• Did Steve Jobs do the last two searches on the board?

• knew them well enough to make some assumptions, as well as to recognize what actually developed.

What happened after Steve left was that John incorrectly assumed that all they needed to focus on was building many of the ongoing innovations when he took over the reins of Apple.

Unfortunately for Apple, Steve would never have pursued what they were considering and would have eliminated most of the innovations John decided to bring to market.

Many of those innovations were later successful, but the technologies were not fully developed and were just conceptual ideas to consider at some point in the future.

What no one noticed or understood was that wherever Steve went, talent went, wherever talent went, hit products went.

Apple staggered. The Board realized that it was a mistake.

Steve had been gathering the best talents at Next Computer.

Steve was asked to return. Steve brought Next with him along with most of the talent that would innovate Apple's "Next" hits.

There were many reasons. One of the reasons was that Gates felt good about helping his old friend. One reason is that Apple and Microsoft signed a patent agreement at the same time. One reason is that Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser on Mac OS. One reason was that it could have eased antitrust pressure on Microsoft, although it didn't (the judge said Apple and Linux didn't have enough market share to import).

One of the main reasons was that Mac users were extremely profitable. Mac users bought millions of retail copies of Windows and bought millions of copies of Mic

Keep reading

There were many reasons. One of the reasons was that Gates felt good about helping his old friend. One reason is that Apple and Microsoft signed a patent agreement at the same time. One reason is that Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser on Mac OS. One reason was that it could have eased antitrust pressure on Microsoft, although it didn't (the judge said Apple and Linux didn't have enough market share to import).

One of the main reasons was that Mac users were extremely profitable. Mac users bought millions of retail copies of Windows and bought millions of copies of Microsoft Office for Windows or for Mac. (Mac users paid much more for Windows than PC users, who had it pre-installed, and paid quite a bit more for Office. Therefore, Mac users were worth more to Microsoft than Windows users, on average, although there weren't that many.)

When the Mac was released in 1984, Bill Gates appeared on stage with Jobs, and graphical versions of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint were developed first for the Mac. Microsoft Office also appeared first for the Mac. (The Mac didn't have as much software as Windows, so there was less competition and Mac owners paid higher prices for the software - it was a good deal).

Apple fans love to hate Microsoft, of course, but Microsoft was always Mac's biggest supporter, and Gates volunteered to help Apple make the Mac OS a global standard. Having Microsoft Office gave the Mac a huge advantage against the Amiga, Atari ST, Acorn Archimedes, and other rivals who didn't.

Not necessarily ... but let me explain.

Let's take a look at some products Apple released after Steve Job's death in 2011.

iPhones:

• 4s (Siri entered)

• 5 (4-inch screen for the first time !!!)

• 5 s (Touch ID)

• 6/6 + (bigger screens!)

• 6s / 6s + (3D touch)

• 7/7 + (water and resistance!)

• X (Face ID, almost bezel-less design, OLED display)

I know that the 5c (iPhone 5 plastic) and the 8/8 + (7/7 + with glass) did not live up to expectations, but were instead alternatives to the flagship models at the time.

iOS:

• 7 (drove the entire industry crazy with a new modern flat design)

• iOS 8–11 (gradually improved and made the ecosystem move

Keep reading

Not necessarily ... but let me explain.

Let's take a look at some products Apple released after Steve Job's death in 2011.

iPhones:

• 4s (Siri entered)

• 5 (4-inch screen for the first time !!!)

• 5 s (Touch ID)

• 6/6 + (bigger screens!)

• 6s / 6s + (3D touch)

• 7/7 + (water and resistance!)

• X (Face ID, almost bezel-less design, OLED display)

I know that the 5c (iPhone 5 plastic) and the 8/8 + (7/7 + with glass) did not live up to expectations, but were instead alternatives to the flagship models at the time.

iOS:

• 7 (drove the entire industry crazy with a new modern flat design)

• iOS 8–11 (gradually improved and making the ecosystem more powerful than ever)

Apple deliberately slowing down devices is a shame, but at least they made a public statement. Oh yeah, Apple Maps ...

iPads:

• Mini (what? A smaller iPad ??? Cheaper!)

• Retina / Air / Air 2 (thinner, lighter, but amazing displays)

• Pro (Apple Pencil enabled to help artists and engineers draw on an Apple device ... shots against Microsoft)

MacBooks:

• Retina (content really looks better!)

• 12-inch model (USB-C!)

• TouchBar (I can scroll to find emojis and switch between tabs faster, not to mention more precision with FinalCut Pro)

Unfortunately, for the best experience, you need to shell out your wallet for dongles ...

Others:

• Apple Watch (eye-catching accessory that can monitor training and health)

• Apple Music (not as good as Spotify but it is a very good alternative)

• AirPods (damn, the best wireless headphones on the market and they sync with your device in less than 3 seconds ???)

• HomePod (home speakers ???? Let's wait and see)

I can go on, but you get the point.

My point is that the world in 2011 is obviously not like 2018. The things that Apple got right with Steve Jobs was a matter of perfect timing. Sure, the original iPhone and iPad blew me away.

But you know what?

So did the iPhone 5, Retina MacBook Pro, and Apple Watch.

Apple is a different company without Steve Jobs, I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but is it losing innovation?

No! Just because Apple isn't releasing a new product every two years doesn't mean it's lost on innovation.

Their goal is to create and improve existing products that we (the consumers) would queue for hours to buy, knowing full well that a better product will be released the following year.

Apple is not a perfect company. Not every company is perfect, even if Steve Jobs runs it. But they sure know how to make products.

Go ahead and switch to a PC, I guarantee that you will be bombarded with random software updates that is Windows 10. Not to hate on PC but it's a different ecosystem unlike MacOS.

Call me a fanboy or whatever but you can't deny that when an Apple product sells out for months, it's not because Apple stopped innovating. It's because they did something that excited the consumer to buy their products like hot cakes.

Who knows, maybe if Steve Jobs was alive we might not get the current products we have today or better yet, we could still be using iPhones with 3.5-inch screens and a skeuomorphic-designed iOS in 2018.

Apple is a new and brighter company now with Tim Cook, valued close to a trillion dollars. If Apple stopped innovating, then they sure as hell would have disappeared all time ago.

If one thing's for sure, their viral and marketing campaigns have evolved tremendously since 2011 and in my opinion they are Apple's most innovative year after year.

TL; DR: NO! Apple is still Apple!

To answer your question, yes, Steve Jobs owned Apple as a shareholder and co-founder of Woz.

Mark Markulla also owned Apple during the founders' stage.

Apple had a successful IPO and Woz handed over founder stock to those who were lost due to Jobs' decision.

Now Apple had a president named Arthur Rock. I thought the CEO was the most powerful person in the company until I attended a general meeting and that's when I learned that the CEO of the company has a lot of power to hire and fire CEOs.

Jobs also hired John Scully, then CEO of Pepsi, to be CEO of Apple because IBM became a player.

Keep reading

To answer your question, yes, Steve Jobs owned Apple as a shareholder and co-founder of Woz.

Mark Markulla also owned Apple during the founders' stage.

Apple had a successful IPO and Woz handed over founder stock to those who were lost due to Jobs' decision.

Now Apple had a president named Arthur Rock. I thought the CEO was the most powerful person in the company until I attended a general meeting and that's when I learned that the CEO of the company has a lot of power to hire and fire CEOs.

Also Jobs hired John Scully then CEO of Pepsi to be CEO of Apple due to IBM becoming a player in the personal computer market and to ensure Apple's position in that market.

Jobs and Scully had numerous disagreements and Scully violated Jobs space by interfering in his work. I think it was the Macintosh Jobs wanted it at a price that everyone could afford even though the R&D expenditure went through the roof. The reason being was that Jobs could see his product being used by the everyday American whilst Scully being a salesperson wanted to cover those costs so increased the price of the Macintosh and thus crushing Jobs dream. This is when it all unravels when Scully couldn't control Jobs and Apple was I think losing money on the Macintosh. It was chaotic at Apple during this time it was Jobs vs Scully.

To cut to the chase Rock told Scully fix your problem with Jobs if you need to fire him the Board will have your back except for one Markulla, who still had a connection with Jobs. So when Scully decided that he had to fire Jobs and bring it to the board. The board unanimously sided with Scully including Markulla which tore Jobs to pieces because he viewed Markulla as some sort of a father figure to his early faith in Apple.

Tim cook

Chief Executive Officer

Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple and serves on its board of directors.

Prior to being named CEO in August 2011, Tim was Apple's chief operating officer and was responsible for all of the company's worldwide sales and operations, including Apple's end-to-end supply chain management, sales activities, and service and support in all markets and countries. He also led Apple's Macintosh division and played a key role in continuing to develop strategic relationships with distributors and vendors, ensuring flexibility in response to an increasingly demanding market.

P

Keep reading

Tim cook

Executive Director

Tim Cook is Apple's CEO and sits on its board of directors.

Prior to being named CEO in August 2011, Tim was Apple's chief operating officer and was responsible for all of the company's worldwide sales and operations, including Apple's end-to-end supply chain management, sales activities, and service and support in all markets and countries. He also led Apple's Macintosh division and played a key role in continuing to develop strategic relationships with distributors and vendors, ensuring flexibility in response to an increasingly demanding market.

Prior to joining Apple, Tim was Vice President of Corporate Materials at Compaq and was responsible for acquiring and managing all of Compaq's product inventory.

Previous to his work at Compaq, Tim was the chief operating officer of the Reseller Division at Intelligent Electronics.

Tim also spent 12 years with IBM, most recently as director of North American Fulfillment where he led manufacturing and distribution functions for IBM's Personal Computer Company in North and Latin America.

Tim earned an MBA from Duke University, where he was a Fuqua Scholar, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from Auburn University.

Based on my understanding and as far as I can tell (based upon publicly available information), i "think" the answer is yes. 1

According to Apple's last filed Proxy Statement, as of December 2010, the late Mr. Jobs owned approximately 5.5 million shares of the company.


1 There is something called a Beneficial Owner Object (OBO). An objectionable beneficiary is a security holder who does not give a financial intermediary permission to disclose the owner's name and address to a public company in which he or she has invested, in order to receive proxy emails and other shareholders. .

Keep reading

To the best of my understanding and as far as I can tell (based on publicly available information), I "believe" the answer is yes. 1

According to the latest proxy statement filed by Apple, in December 2010, the late Mr. Jobs owned approximately 5.5 million shares of the company.


1 There is something called Objecting Beneficial Owner (OBO). An Objecting Beneficial Owner is a security holder who does not give permission to a financial intermediary to release the owner's name and address to a public company that he or she has invested in, for the purpose of receiving proxy mailings and other shareholder communications. If there is an OBO out there (outside the group listed above) with more than 5.5 shares in AAPL, the information will not be public.

  • AC Markkula Jr. = vice chairman Echelon Corp, trustee Santa Clara Univ
  • Peter O. Crisp = various boards US Trust, American Superconductor
  • Philip S. Schlein = Napa wine business, son at Kleiner Perkins Caufield
  • Arthur Rock = venture capital Arthur Rock & Co
  • Henry E. Singleton = died in 1999
  • John Sculley = venture capital Rho Ventures


http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/06/05/the-men-who-fired-steve-jobs-where-are-they-now.html

Steve Jobs' death is irrelevant to who owns the shares. Jobs himself owned a very small fraction of Apple stock at the time of his death. Those shares went to his wife or into a trust, depending on what was stipulated in his will.

For the most part, the shareholders in Apple are the same before and after Steve Jobs death, with minor fluctuations as shares get sold and bought. So to answer your question directly: the same people own Apple after the death of Steve Jobs who owned it before his death: the shareholders.

Because they weren't his board of directors.

Rick Chapman
Managing Editor and Publisher, Softletter
Author: Selling Steve Jobs' Liver. A Story of Startups, Innovation, and Connectivity in the Clouds ”
“ In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters ”
“ SaaS Entrepreneur: The Definitive Guide to Succeeding in Your Cloud Application Business ”

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.