Steve Jobs' resignation as Apple Inc.'s CEO might seem like a step out of the spotlight at the world's largest company. But it is possible that little may change with the executive shuffle at Apple. 
 
 As CEO, Jobs' bosses -- who he had to answer to -- were technically Apple's board of directors and shareholders. Jobs was also a member of the Apple board, but recently Apple had not listed anyone as Apple's official chairman. Instead, Apple listed two co-lead directors of the board; Andrea Jung, chairwoman and CEO of Avon Products Inc., and Arthur D. Levinson, chairman and CEO of Genentech Inc. Now Jobs is the chairman of the board. 
 
 Photos: Steve Jobs and Apple's influence 
 
 Jobs hasn't been running Apple's day to day operations since January, when he handed over those responsibilities to Tim Cook, the company's former chief operating officer who has been voted in as CEO by Apple's board. 
 
 Despite being on a leave of absence for medical reasons, the details of which have remained private, Jobs has remained involved in some of Apple's biggest decisions this year. For example, it was Jobs who unveiled the iPad 2 in March, not Cook. 
 
 As for who will announce and show off the iPhone 5 or iPad 3, Cook or Jobs, that remains to be seen. 
 
 In being promoted from COO to CEO, Tim Cook has also been given a seat on Apple's board, just as Jobs had. 
 
 The addition of Tim Cook to the board ups the number of directors from seven to eight. All other directors remain. 
 
 Besides Jung and Levinson, the other directors are William V. Campbell, chairman of Intuit Inc.; Millard S. Drexler, chairman and CEO of J. Crew; former Vice President Al Gore; and Ronald D. Sugar, former chairman and CEO or Northrop Grumman Corp. 
 
 RELATED: 
 
 Steve Jobs resigns as Apple's CEO 
 
 Apple publishes Steve Jobs' resignation letter 
 
 Tim Cook era begins as Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO 
 
 -- Nathan Olivarez-Giles and Thomas Suh Lauder 
 
 twitter.com/nateog 
 
 Photo (top): Apple's then-CEO and current chairman, Steve Jobs, holds the iPhone 4 during the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference last year in San Francisco. Credit: Paul Sakuma/AP Photo 
 
 Photo (bottom): Before and after screen shots of Apple's board of director listings. Credit: Apple Inc. ||||| The only thing surprising about Steve Jobs's resignation—which Apple had telegraphed several times already—was the timing. Why now? Because of health concerns, maybe. Or maybe because now, right now, is the perfect time for the company to transition. 
 
 When I say now, I'm not talking about the dusky timing of the press release; the cardinal rule of bad news is that you bury it as late as you can. I mean now in the broader context of Apple's future. And if the company's going to not just survive but thrive without Jobs, he couldn't have left any sooner. And he definitely couldn't have waited. 
 
 Apple has literally never been stronger. A month ago they reported record quarterly earnings in a period with no significant product releases, no back to school or holiday boost, all amid what turned out to be a grotesquely challenging three months for competitors like Dell and HP. They were, for a brief period, the most valuable company in the world. Incredible. 
 
 And a month from now? They'll be releasing their next iPhone on America's three major carriers. And very possibly something altogether new: an affordable iPhone, a handset for the masses. If that device does emerge, Apple will have transitioned from yuppie luxury to unprecedented populist value. 
 
 So that's where Apple sits now, cratered between two mountainous achievements. If they'd waited any longer, the iPhone 5 announcement would've been fully shrouded in memories of Jobs; with a month's distance, new CEO Tim Cook has a chance to stand on his own. He can bask in the reflected glory of the iPhone instead of languishing in Jobs's shadow. The company will feel like it's in good hands. Because it is. 
 
 What's easy to forget is that companies have long, long product cycles. The iPhone 5's been done for months; ditto, likely, iPad 3. And iPhone 6 plans are well underway. They'll all have a touch of Jobs in them. Even products with a longer horizon, future generations of MacBooks with sick-skinny bodies and flash storage and no optical disc, AppleTVs teeming with apps, will have Jobs's imprimatur. Especially since, uh, guys? He's staying on as Chairman of the Board. He's involved. 
 
 So yes, there is a chance that Steve Jobs is resigning now because his medical situation has become so severe that he has no other choice. But we certainly hope not. And sincerely don't think so. Because this feels calculated, in the best possible way, to happen at the best possible time. Now. 
 
 You can keep up with Brian Barrett, the author of this post, on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+. ||||| ANALYSIS 
 
 He may still be chairman of the board, but in the eyes of the world Steve Jobs has ceased to be the heart of Apple. 
 
 The succession plan, one of the most closely guarded secrets this side of D-Day, is running. As it has been running for at least two years; the date of Jobs's departure may not have been known, but that it was approaching most certainly was. 
 
 These past couple of years have been the strongest test yet of Jobs's famous reality distortion field, his ability to convince everyone he works with that what he says is either true or can — must — be made so. But some realities are not to be denied. 
 
 Apple without Jobs is now one of them. Like any empire without its Caesar, what the next Apple will be, what it does and how it does it, depends on which of the factions within gains control. 
 
 Many Apples 
 
 For there are many Apples. One is that of new chief executive Tim Cook, who is as much responsible for Apple's success as Jobs was. He turned the business of actually making the goods into an imperial machine, controlling suppliers and manufacturers with unmatched ruthlessness. Making close to 100-percent margins on consumer electronics in an austere, hyper-competitive market is as miraculous as anything ever demonstrated in a keynote. 
 
 Then there's the Apple normal people know and write about, a company capable of producing an endless stream of new products with pitch-perfect cadence. It is a marketing powerhouse — for how else do you account for Apple's coronation as king of all things technology, when all it makes is a mobile phone now on its fourth incarnation, a mutant mobile phone too big to put in a pocket, and a few laptops? Put that way — a valid analysis that seems heretical — Apple's success is even more miraculous, more reality defying, than if it had been more like Sony with its huge range of products. 
 
 And there's the innovatory Apple, which lives well beneath the radar. With the exception of the ghostly presence of Jonathan Ive, this is an invisible and unknown force. The products and services appear, companies are swallowed up, and the star players leave. The big decisions are no longer what chip to use, what new hardware features are too cool not to have, but what deals can be done with media companies, what marketing advantage can be gained by rounding up which supplier. 
 
 Success through control 
 
 The signs are strong that Tim Cook's Viking armies will prevail, and without a struggle. It's where the money comes from, and where any attack is to be resisted by any means necessary. Apple of late has become self-righteously litigious, a terrible temptation for any company with fewer ideas and far more money than once it had, but nearly irresistible for one that's learned that success comes through control. If you can't out-think the competition, then it can be controlled through lawsuits — and if you lose a few, it doesn't matter. The damage has been done. And Apple of late has been run by Cook. 
 
 Apple of late has become self-righteously litigious, a terrible temptation for any company with fewer ideas and far more money than once it had. 
 
 Looking beyond the iPhone and the iPad, both of which can only be refreshed so far, there is only uncertainty. Apple in the cloud is Apple unproven. Apple as innovator without Jobs is Apple unknown. Apple in a market where everyone else can do what it does, but can do it cheaper, is unApple. 
 
 Apple will play to what strengths it has, and that looks like a marketing-led, litigiously-active, cash-rich giant determined to protect what it has over building out what comes next. 
 
 For with Jobs, there was always a 'next', even if we didn't know what it was going to be. As one part of the company's history was maturing, Steve Jobs would always be there on stage, unveiling just one more thing: the Mac, the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. 
 
 That won't happen again. Apple's future depends on the new next, and the longer we have to wait to see what happens, the less likely it will happen at all. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
– Steve Jobs revolutionized Apple in his second go-round with the company, taking the stock from a split-adjusted $6.05 per share in 1996 to $376 today. But with Jobs resigning as CEO, everyone is wondering what the future holds for Apple. Some reactions: What will change? Not much, write Nathan Olivarez-Giles and Thomas Suh Lauder for the LA Times. In his role as CEO, Jobs had to answer to two groups: shareholders, and the board of directors. Now he's at the helm of that board. It was the perfect time to go, writes Brian Barrett for Gizmodo, noting that the coming release of the iPhone 5 and more affordable iPhone 4 should buoy the company and give CEO Tim Cook a chance to step into the spotlight. "If they'd waited any longer, the iPhone 5 announcement would've been fully shrouded in memories of Jobs. ... This feels calculated, in the best possible way, to happen at the best possible time. Now." Apple has lost its core, writes Rupert Goodwins for ZDNet, and only time will tell how this plays out. The iPhone and iPad can only be updated so many times, and with Jobs "there was always a 'next.'" But "Apple as innovator without Jobs is Apple unknown." Its future "depends on the new next, and the longer we have to wait to see what happens, the less likely it will happen at all."