Wanna' Be the Successor of the Apple Cult?

Please don't think I'm on some kind of vendetta against Apple. I'm not. But the decade-long run that might be ending for their stock and company is quite unique in the history of the gadget industry. Are you likely to see something of the same kind and degree during the rest of your lifetime?

If you pay any attention to the gadget industry or the stock market, you might be getting tired of articles about the rise/fall of Apple. I am getting several such articles per day and I haven't even asked for them from SeekingAlpha.com . They don't seem badly written. They are the professionals -- I am just an amateur. (Hence, you should never take anything I say about investments as the basis for buying or selling anything.)

So what can an amateur expect to accomplish by writing about stocks, or Apple stock in particular? Some of the professional analysts seem like young whippersnappers who spend too much time playing with a spreadsheet program. They take the published financial results, subtract off This, add That, divide by Whatever, until they reach column ZZ in the spreadsheet. Then they present a slick-looking graph with too many curves and illegible legends. With all that math it looks scientifically-respectable and professional.

But the more quantitative a financial analyst tries to be, the more he drives the car by looking in the rear-view mirror. Would a quantitative analysis, based on past numbers, have caused you to be optimistic about Apple Inc. and its stock during the first year of the iPod, a decade ago, and made you rich?

Let us leave the spreadsheets to the professionals and ask ourselves what they are overlooking. What considerations or interpretations are outside their "jurisdiction?" Let's apply this to the Apple Cult. 
__________________________________________________________________________

By chance I happened to read a book about non-mainstream religious sects, cults, and alternative religions. Most were founded around that seminal era of 1820--1830, or later. The book was "the new Believers", by David V. Barrett. He accomplished the difficult feat of discussing each sect with as little prejudice as possible. For instance he does not start off with the idea that a non-mainstream group is inherently crazy because they aren't "average" and conventional. Nor is he out to bury religion in general. When history gives us  a semi-solid -- and usually lurid --  fact about the group, he tells it bluntly, rather than trying to sugar-coat the history of the sect.

According to Barrett and others, the crucial time in the life-history of a new religion is the death of the founding Prophet. (Chapter 6, "When the Prophet Dies") Can they hand off his or her authority to a successor without losing momentum or fracturing into a dozen pieces? The founding prophet typically squirts charisma out their ears and eyeballs. Charisma is tied up with Authority and believability.

Why should the Successor be as charismatic as the founding Prophet? Maybe the founding Prophet doesn't even want him to be, lest the Successor upstage the Founder in reputation and legend, and then feel impudent enough to alter the religion. Or perhaps a powerful and charismatic underling would never get that far up in any pre-existing hierarchy in the first place; he would make too many enemies and rivals. Thus the Founder can only choose from cautious "committee men". If safely bland, their annointment as successor might not split the religion. This type of person is unlikely to provide any new "visions".  In that case, the best the new religion can do is coast along with the momentum that the Founding Prophet created. The religion might not even want the gift of prophecy to be given to He who Follows.

The usual course of evolution for a new religion is from "prophet" to "priest", and from a visionary individual to a committee of administrators and bureaucrats.

Another possibility is that a competent -- but non-charismatic and non-visionary -- successor will walk the new religion back to the mainstream.
________________________________________________________________________

Now think about poor Tim Cook, Steve Jobs's successor. No matter how expertly he manages headcount, supplier relations, finances, or anything else, he will come off as mere caretaker, a mediocrity. No small success, nor a long sequence of such, will matter to the iFlock. Only blockbusters will! And how many form factors are left? The video/movie content industry is wary of Apple. Verizon and ATT are sick of paying tithes. Competitors are everywhere.

Tim Cook took a big step towards the mainstream when he introduced the mini-iPad. If he chases the larger screens of the iPhone to 5 inch "phablet" status, he will be following the industry -- he won't be parting the Red Sea, like Charlton Heston. There will be endless criticism that the visionary, Jobs, would never have done that. It would be boring and trivial to take the "tech" news literally. But it really adds perspective to look at the mythology that lies just under the surface.

Clearly the "magic" (Authority) of Steve Jobs has not been transferred to his successor, as happened from Moses to Joshua, and from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young. Tim Cook is seen as a mere mortal, born of woman. If this is the final result, it will be a missed opportunity. Steve Jobs was not killed like Socrates, Jesus, and Joseph Smith, but he did die relatively young. In that sense, a myth was begging to be born, such as what happened with entertainment industry stars who died too young in airplane crashes or by drug overdoses.

Another way of walking the Apple Cult back to the mainstream of the electronics industry is falling profit margins; the fear of that is what has spooked investors the last few months.

But what if Cook did try to have a "vision", that is, came out with a high-risk, high-gain device that flops? The criticism will be even more severe.