"Does Rupert Murdoch’s Times know something we don’t? Is Apple PR paving the way for Steve Jobs’ succession?
No, no, no and no. If you read the Times story closely you will see that it is what journalists call a write-around — a profile written without the cooperation of the main subject or his handlers."
Yup... it's total crap, and Philip Elmer-Dewitt wanted to play Captain Obvious on it and get some eyeballs. So he titles his article:
"Will Jonathan Ive replace Apple’s Steve Jobs?"
Pretty provocative title, doncha think? Now why would he do that?
"With nothing new to say and no access to Ive,
why run the story at all?"
My thoughts exactly.