The news is still fresh (and painful): No Steve-Note at this year's Macworld Expo an no Apple from next year on. Reaction over the intertubes has been fast and in some cases furious. Here's a quick sampling:

  • Paul Kent of Macworld Expo responded with a non-response, which is probably all he really could do: "We look forward to many successful years of Macworld to come."
  • Jason Snell of Macworld Magazine (same parent, different company) thinks it might be better for the show: "And yet every year, those same companies schlep out to San Francisco to announce their next big products—and find their announcements completely washed away by whatever Steve Jobs announced on Tuesday morning. Completely washed away."
  • Jim Goldman of CNBC says the reasons are purely political, not health related: "Apple has been trying to separate itself from Macworld for some time, preferring instead to host its own "special events" a few times a year." (er... um, that sounds more strategic than political, but who are we to analyze people's headlines?)
  • Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo says Apple has always wanted out of Macworld, but thinks no Steve-note is just one more step on Jobs' road to retirement: "The simplest explanation, following previous events, is that canceling MacWorld and having Phil Schiller to present it is just another part of His Plan. This doesn't mean that he is leaving the company tomorrow, however. it is just one more step towards that goal, as I explained back in October."

Read on for more, after the break!

  • Harry McCracken of Technologizer points out that we now get the battle of the second stringers: Ballmer instead of Gates at CES vs. Schiller instead of Jobs at Apple.
  • BusinessWeek’s Peter Burrows cries health and asks: "Here we have a company with $27 billion in the bank, that gets massive, global exposure from a talk that rarely lasts two hours. If Apple can’t see the ROI in Macworld, what company can justify the tradeshow bill?"
  • Macalope drives mythical horns into his carcass and points out the stupid is beginning with: "Apple gets “massive, global exposure” when it sneezes. They’re the perfect example of a company that doesn’t need a trade show. Why go to all this trouble when all people have to do to learn more about your products is wander into one of your stores or open up a newspaper?"
  • Owen Thomas at ValleyWag speculates that Jobs' ultimate control freakishness is out of control, and was brought to a head by BusinessWeek's speculation: "Amidst that kind of worry, why would Jobs take the stage again? He'd have the fit of his jeans and the flushness of his cheeks debated on blogs in the kind of minute detail that used to be reserved for a new Apple laptop. Showing up in the wrong condition might be as bad for Apple as not showing up at all."
  • John Gruber at Daring Fireball brings back a post from the archives after Apple cancelled its participation in Macworld Boston/New York: "So, to sum it up, the twice-yearly Expos (1) cost Apple millions of dollars; (2) put a lot of pressure on the company to make major product announcements on the Expos’ schedule, not when the products are actually ready; (3) are not under Apple’s direct control."
  • Our own editor-in-chief, Dieter Bohn, worries that it will hurt the Mac community. The lack of Apple's participation could end the show, which would end an important venue for face-to-face time for new developers, smaller vendors, and the new generation of starry-eyed Apple fans just getting into the ecosystem.
  • TiPb couldn't help but notice Jobs and Apple bailed right after the DevTeam announced they'd soft-unlocked the iPhone 3G. Coincidence? Or "Apple announces that if you're not going to play nice with their iPhone Platform, they're going to take their conference and go home"
  • Lastly, some dark humor, pointing out Apple's next big move: Canceling Christmas.