When Apple parted ways with Steve in the 80s, they did so because they changed the direction of the company and disagreed with his leadership vision. This time, it's the complete opposite and he will be remembered forever at the company in a positive light. This isn't an appropriate comparison since the situations of Steve leaving were completely different.

The first time Jobs left, he was pushed out, and had not left any kind of planning mechanism in place. (Plus, he had a lot less experience.)

But before Jobs left us for good, he spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to turn Apple into something that could continue without him.

The situations could hardly be more different.

Except in rare cases creative genius does not transmit well from individual to individual. It needs the appropriate level of talent and a shared vision. Thus far I see no evidence of such a transition. The level of performance could just as easily have come from an apple-centric version of 'Eliza'. Scripted and performed by actors uncomfortable with their lines...

Well, Steve Jobs didn't care about Apple being his legacy, so he left the administrators in charge and did not build up a successor (maybe out of choice, maybe lack of choice, maybe lack of time). He created his own legacy.

The evidence we have (his grooming of the executive team, his appointment of Cook, the existence of Apple University [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/business/la-fi-apple...], etc) seems to say otherwise. Apple's continued success after his death appears to have been extremely important to him.

I wonder how Oracle will look without Larry. Not like he's super young and known for building his successor.

We know how Microsoft looks without Bill.

And how will Google look without Larry and Sergey?

blablabla.

What a troll Larry is.

A super-wealthy, billionaire troll.