Apple: All of a Sudden, Steve Jobs Matters?

I questioned Apple's (AAPL) ability to innovate without him.

I second-guessed many of the moves Tim Cook made upon taking over for Jobs. Everything from issuing a dividend to apologizing for MappleGate to not having a clue about how to advance Apple's living room ambitions.

I went so far as to suggest -- on international television (CNBC) that, if he was still around, Steve Jobs would have fired Tim Cook over the maps fiasco.

I worried about future innovation. Would there be any?

This ongoing theme prompted what felt like an across-the-board trashing.

Hedge fund managers ripped me. Fellow financial writers labeled me a rudimentary, blathering twit. Commenters and emailers were relentless. One guy -- no joke -- sent a note telling me that if I came down with cancer it would be well-deserved.

All of this skepticism and venom as the stock shot up to $705.

Now, you can't type AAPL into the box at the top of TheStreet.com or at Yahoo! Finance without returning an endless string of stories asking the same questions and floating the same claims I have asked and floated since Steve Jobs prematurely left Earth.

If it wasn't all so pathetically irrational, I would feel vindicated, flattered and refreshed.

But, as I explained yesterday in Apple Sell-Off About A Year Too Soon, I cannot take credit for the early overreaction of a gaggle of class A analyst and media hacks.

That would be disingenuous.

My long-term bear case most always carried a qualifier: It doesn't kick in until sometime in 2013 or shortly thereafter. I still believe that. As such, I can't ignore how I feel just because much of the rest of the world decided to come late to the party with a co-opted and horribly misunderstood version of my bear case.