As most of you know, in his off-the-record conversation with a reporter at The New York Times, Steve Jobs supposedly laid to rest ongoing concerns about his health and ability to continue to perform his duties as Apple’s CEO. Yet, Apple’s stock price continues to take a beating as of early this week, so you have to wonder how much more the Street needs to feel reassured?

Understand that I think Jobs is totally wrong in his behavior. Instead of calling a newspaper reporter, chewing him out, and then giving him the information he wanted on background, he should have acted rationally. How so? Well, why couldn’t he just deliver all the juicy details for full attribution?

Better yet, why not send a letter and some medical records over to Apple’s board of directors — assuming they don’t have such documents already — and give them permission to disclose at least a summary of the basic information?

Why indeed!

Now I do understand that a private citizen should not be compelled to disclose personal medical information except, perhaps, to law enforcement in connection with a criminal inquiry. But when someone is a public figure, as Steve Jobs happens to be, and is also CEO of a multibillion dollar multinational corporation, different rules apply. Sure, Apple may be complying with the letter of the law as far as the SEC is concerned, as they always do. Unfortunately, questions about Jobs’ health clearly took on a life of their own, and this is a climate where personal gossip gets far too much emphasis.

On the other hand, even coming clean on the health of Steve Jobs may not be sufficient. When Apple lowered its guidance as far as profit margins are concerned, it was actually good news, not bad. Unfortunately, far too many financial analysts don’t see it that way, or perhaps they are going to benefit if the stock price is knocked down to their preferred level. But I really don’t have the patience to discuss such nefarious efforts at financial manipulation. I think you get the picture.

You see, Apple is promising a major product transition. When a newly-designed product is released, a company has to recoup its development costs and startup production ramp expenses. Initial purchase prices can be set higher as a result, and they would gradually come down as those expenses are amortized. Apple, however, doesn’t really cut prices very often. So, they would take the hit up front and then, over time, wait for profit margins to catch up.

If this new product is as big a deal as Apple implies, then this all makes sense. As I said, it should be good news, not bad. It’s not the same thing, for example, as a company cutting prices as a form of fire sale to move product that’s catching dust on the shelves. That’s something the financial world has a right to be concerned about, because it means the business in question may be suffering and is desperately seeking a solution to their financial woes.

Apple doesn’t have financial woes. They just keep making fatter profits, and they have plenty of cash on hand to fund acquisitions and, if need be, emergencies should they arise.

So that takes us to this spectacular new product that everyone’s talking about. Just what is it that Apple is being so coy about? In not saying anything several times during their session with the financial community, they, of course, fueled all sorts of speculation about what might be forthcoming.

Certainly there are existing product lines that might be in store for major upgrades. The MacBook and MacBook Pro, for example, have case designs that haven’t changed much from the original iBook and PowerBook versions.

But would new models that have more of the beveled look of the MacBook Air amount to major product transitions? Even something with a touch screen could still look very much the same as existing models, with perhaps larger trackpads to accommodate additional MultiTouch features.

All right maybe that’s not it, so where do we go next?

I can see where Apple might want to revise the iPod touch, to make it more affordable in light of the changes in pricing policy for the iPhone, but the look wouldn’t change significantly, would it? Or would Apple add a nano-based alternative with a lower price of admission and a smaller touch screen? But that doesn’t seem to represent something earth-shattering.

Some tech pundits are even suggesting that Apple has a new flat panel TV under development, which would integrate Apple TV and perhaps even incorporate some sort of built-in audio system that eliminates the need for a third-party product. But Apple doesn’t have a compelling history in providing great-sounding speaker systems.

But what if also Apple licensed TiVO technology, and integrated the new two-way CableCard capability, so you wouldn’t need your cable company’s set top box?

I’m not sure. I’m still having difficulty digesting a fully-integrated flat panel TV solution as something Apple ought to consider as a major product line. Of course, I also felt that the mobile phone market was over-saturated too, and then the iPhone changed the paradigm.

But I don’t mind when I’m proven wrong. Regardless, they sure got my curiosity.

Related Articles:

• Will Snow Leopard Arrive with the Snow?
• Can Apple Withstand the Recession?
• Can Apple Succeed in the Enterprise Without Compromise?
• Newsletter #468 Preview: A Casual Look at Snow Leopard Versus Windows 7
• Is Apple Auditioning Successors for Steve Jobs?

Just this week, as Microsoft was completing its latest round of corporate musical chairs, Steve Ballmer said they were going to try, once again, to create user interfaces that were easier to use, in the same fashion as Apple. That, of course, was just their latest attempt to graft the Mac look and feel onto their products.

Lest we forget, Windows has always been basically a Mac OS knock-off. They got away with it, because Bill Gates managed to hoodwink ex-Apple CEO John Sculley into licensing Mac technology. So Apple’s pathetic efforts to sue Microsoft into submission years ago got knocked down in the courts time and time again.

So rather than invent new operating system technology, Microsoft prefers to to make their bloated, buggy imitation more Mac-like. So much for the world’s largest software company’s constant claims that it only wants to continue to innovate.

Unfortunately, they need to choose their words with greater precision. There is a distinct difference between innovation and imitation. Maybe someone should hand Ballmer a dictionary.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.

Related Articles:

• Will Snow Leopard Arrive with the Snow?
• Can Apple Withstand the Recession?
• Can Apple Succeed in the Enterprise Without Compromise?
• Newsletter #468 Preview: A Casual Look at Snow Leopard Versus Windows 7
• Is Apple Auditioning Successors for Steve Jobs?

The way Wall Street reacted to recent rumors about Steve Jobs and whether or not he’s seriously ill certainly mirrors the common perception that the company he co-founded can’t possibly succeed without him.

I can surely understand the reason for this common conception, since we all know how bad things were at Apple in the 1990s before he returned to the company. To almost everyone, he’s credited with righting a sinking ship and for everything Apple has done right since then.

I wouldn’t for a moment suggest anything else. But Steve Jobs is not an industrial designer, nor is he an engineer. You can say he’s a master salesman, and you’d probably be right. You can also say that he has a confrontational management style, while no doubt jarring to one’s sensibilities if you don’t like to be constantly challenged, which happens to succeed within Apple’s specific corporate environment.

However, he couldn’t do a single thing without a talented staff of thousands of people who are prepared to take his vision to its ultimate conclusion, wherever it may lead. In interviews, Jobs has certainly done what he can to foster this impression, saying that people who can’t accept his way of doing things are welcome to leave.

Many of his most loyal staffers have been with him for years, some were even part of the NeXT team that came along for the ride when that company was acquired by Apple. A few, such as operating system genius Avie Tevanian, have gone on to other pursuits, or are simply content counting the riches they earned working for Jobs.

With his executive team calling the shots, in fact, Jobs was reportedly on vacation when Apple’s quarterly financials were announced this week. At the same time, published reports have it that Jobs is healthy, although he underwent surgery earlier this year to deal with a weight loss problem stemming from his original treatment for pancreatic cancer several years ago. During his WWDC keynote, he was, so Apple PR says, suffering from a “bug” and had, in fact, apparently considered skipping the event as a result.

But that might have invited even more unsavory speculation about his fitness to continue as Apple’s CEO, and no doubt that was one key reason why the show had to go despite the lingering effects of his illness.

More to the point, how many hours does Jobs actually devote to Apple these days anyway? Was their financial situation so unimportant to him that he felt he had the freedom to be somewhere else during the analyst conference? It’s not that he generally participates anyway, though he has in the past.

But certainly his executive team is well-trained, highly skilled, and knows how to toe the company line. They did a fine job delivering tantalizing hints of a forthcoming product transition of major importance, but without a single salient detail in sight. Predictably, the speculation has begun in earnest, and won’t stop until the official product announcement comes, as expected, in the next few weeks.

Returning to Jobs, does he still put in an eight-hour day these days, with occasional nights and weekends close to a product’s introduction, or does he just make a few token appearances to approve final design conceps, fire a few lackeys to continue to foster his fearsome leadership image, and get on with his life?

As a matter of fact, does he even make regular journeys to Disney headquarters, as that company’s largest stockholder, to check in on the progress of their movie projects, particularly those from the Pixar division? What about ABC television, the theme parks and other company holdings? Or does he simply place a few strategic phone calls, on his iPhone of course, and stay away until a board meeting requires his presence?

Of course, such a concept really goes against the widespread impression, fostered by Apple’s spin team naturally, that Jobs remains the hands-on micromanaging executive who has his nose in every nook and cranny of the business and knows what everyone is doing, and whether they’re doing it in accordance with his individualistic vision.

That may, of course, be true. Even if Jobs isn’t present at the Apple campus, he can easily communicate with his iPhone — or whatever successor product Apple has under development right now. I’m sure he also has people who serve as his eyes and ears, so if things aren’t quite moving in the proper direction, he can come over and take the appropriate whip-cracking action to set things right.

In other words, Jobs is definitely not a figurehead the company trots out strictly for meetings with the press and public.

On the other hand, Apple isn’t saying just how often Jobs comes to work these days, or whether he is, in fact, slowly phasing himself out of active participation in the day-to-day events. Maybe he has simply come to feel that his executive team is quite skilled at handling the mundane affairs, and even some of the important issues, without requiring his presence.

If Apple’s board is busy grooming possible successors to Jobs, such a situation would allow them to bloom outside of his shadow, so they can prove their mettle as far as leadership skills are concerned.

Or maybe none of this chatter has any basis in fact. Perhaps his extended holiday during the week when Apple announced quarterly record profits was just the long-delayed vacation he and his family wanted. Even now, he may be preparing to return and devote a typical 40, 60, or 80 hours a week to keep Apple moving in the proper direction, or at least the direction he deems proper.

Related Articles:

• Will Snow Leopard Arrive with the Snow?
• Can Apple Withstand the Recession?
• Can Apple Succeed in the Enterprise Without Compromise?
• Newsletter #468 Preview: A Casual Look at Snow Leopard Versus Windows 7
• Is Apple Auditioning Successors for Steve Jobs?