亚当•拉辛斯基的大作《苹果解密》（How Apple Works）刊登于今年5月23日的《财富》杂志（Fortune）上。当时，这篇“内幕”报道引起了很大的轰动。直到上周，这篇文章的才在网上全文发布。文中我最喜欢的内容之一是它的组织结构图。这张图是在高级研究编辑多莉丝•伯克的指导下，由《财富》杂志的制图团队通力合作的成果。（点击此处观看高分辨率版。）

    这张组织结构图现在已经显得有些过时了。比如，零售总裁罗恩•约翰逊6月宣布，他将离开苹果，转投大型服装连锁超市运营公司J.C.Penney。

    现在，这张图即将发生重大改变，而苹果公司（Apple）在蒂姆•库克治下将如何进行重组将是后史蒂夫•乔布斯时代面临的首要问题之一。

    珍-露易丝•盖瑟曾在科技与媒体动态通讯“星期一评论”（Monday Note）的一篇题为《史蒂夫：现在谁来保护我们免受廉价平庸货色的骚扰？》（Steve: Who's going to protect us from cheap and mediocre now?）中暗示，苹果的权力核心将刻上库克的大名。但事情并不是这么简单。蒂姆•库克不是史蒂夫•乔布斯，他本人率先承认了这一点。

    “得了吧，代替史蒂夫？不可能。他是不可代替的。”拉辛斯基在2008年《财富》杂志上发表的人物专访《史蒂夫背后的天才》（The genius behind Steve）一文中曾经援引过库克的原话。“这是人们必须接受的现实。”

    那么，库克会搭建一个什么样的组织呢？他在苹果公司领导层网页上的官方个人简介或许能够提供一些线索：

    蒂姆2011年8月被任命为苹果公司首席执行官之前任职苹果首席运营官，负责公司全球销售与运营的全部事务，包括端对端管理苹果公司在所有市场和国家的供应链、销售活动、以及服务和支持活动。他还负责苹果公司的“麦金塔”（Macintosh）部门，并在战略分销商和供应商关系的持续发展上承担关键职能，确保灵活应对要求日益苛刻的市场。

    正如约翰•格鲁伯在周五的脱口秀播客中所暗示的《这一天已经到来》（That day has come），如果把库克担任首席运营官期间承担的职责列表给某个对苹果公司一无所知的人看，请他猜猜猜库克的头衔，大多数人都可能会认为库克已经是实质上的首席执行官了。

    但是，请注意他职责中所遗漏的部分。库克并不负责苹果公司的工业设计部门——而是由乔尼•伊夫直接向乔布斯汇报。同时也不负责iPhone和iPad的软件部门——这部分业务由斯科特•弗里斯托直接向乔布斯汇报。此外，他也不干涉营销部门（菲尔•席勒负责）、零售（罗恩•乔森负责）以及互联网服务（艾迪•库伊负责。）

    对我来说，这就意味着从现在开始的一年多时间里，苹果公司可能会从轮辐状的组织结构演变为更为传统的，由上而下的金字塔结构。

    可以肯定的是，在新的组织结构图里，库克的大名将位于顶部。但是，在他之下，那些副总裁的大名将成排出现，他们在公司权力体系中的地位得到提升，因为他们将比在乔布斯治下时期拥有更大的控制权和自主权。

    但是这仅仅是个猜测。也许多莉丝•伯克和她的制图团队某一天会向我们展示真正的变化到底是什么面貌。

    译者：清远

    One of my favorite elements in Adam Lashinsky's How Apple Works -- the "inside" story that created a sensation when it appeared in the May 23 issue of Fortune but was made fully available online only last week -- was the organization chart assembled by Fortune's graphics team under the guidance of senior research editor Doris Burke. (Click to enlarge the high-res version at right.)

    It's a bit out of date. Retail chief Ron Johnson, for example, announced in June that he was leaving for J.C. Penney (JCP).

    But now the chart is about to change in a more substantive way, and how Apple (AAPL) reorganizes itself under Tim Cook is one of the central issues the company faces in the post-Steve Jobs era.

    Jean-Louis Gasseé, in a "Monday Note" entitled Steve: Who's going to protect us from cheap and mediocre now?, suggests that Cook's name will move to the center. But it's not going be that simple. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, and he's the first to admit it.

    "Come on, replace Steve? No. He's irreplaceable," Cook is quoted as saying in Lashinsky's 2008 Fortune profile The genius behind Steve. "That's something people have to get over."

    So what kind of organization will Cook create? His official bio on Apple's leadership page offers some clues:

    Before being named CEO in August 2011, Tim was Apple's Chief Operating Officer and was responsible for all of the company's worldwide sales and operations, including end-to-end management of Apple's supply chain, sales activities, and service and support in all markets and countries. He also headed Apple's Macintosh division and played a key role in the continued development of strategic reseller and supplier relationships, ensuring flexibility in response to an increasingly demanding marketplace.

    As John Gruber suggested in Friday's Talk Show podcast (That day has come), if you showed the list of Cook's responsibilities as COO to someone who didn't know anything about Apple and asked them guess his title, most people would probably assume that Cook was already CEO.

    But take note of what's missing. Cook did not oversee Apple's industrial design -- that was Jony Ive answering directly to Jobs. Or its iPhone and iPad software division -- that was Scott Forestall answering to Jobs. Or marketing (Phil Schiller). Or retail (Ron Johson). Or Internet services (Eddy Cue).

    What this suggests to me is that a year or so from now, Apple may have evolved from a spoke-and-wheel organization into a more traditional, top-down pyramid.

    In the new org chart, Cook's name would be at the top, to be sure. But below him would be arrayed the names of the vice presidents who have risen in the organization as they assumed more control and independence than they ever had under Jobs.

    But this is only speculation. Perhaps Doris Burke and her graphics team will someday show us how it really turned out.