The Danger of Being the Company Star

I'm reading the news about the almost certain new Apple's netbook tablet as well as the possible lack of health of Steve Jobs and I can't stop wondering about how can a company's superstar be so directly influential.

Obviously, until today, Steve Jobs is the human face of Apple. Those few keynotes presented by Phillip Schiller was lacking the magic and the brilliant communication of their CEO. He's charismatic and has the status of a superstar in their medium.
So, is this good for the company?
It went very well for Apple so far, but these news about his health made some doubts about the company's future. The investors are trembling every time some news about it is brought up. And people forget the fact that Apple is more than one person. The products are made by several thousands excellent professionals.

Same thing occurred when Bill Gates went absent from Microsoft. And still is connected as Chairman.
When a company or a brand is completely connected to one charismatic and famous person, it can be very good when things go well, but this umbilical string can be very damaging when some misfortune occurs to that particular person. Imagine that instead of Jobs or Gates it was Bernie Madoff, or even more recently Tiger Woods. Their actions can be decisive for their businesses.

Imagine the responsibility. Imagine that Sir Richard Bronson of Virgin International went rogue. So, the question is... the benefits of having a star as a leading commander of a company are more valuable than the potential losses from their actions or misfortunes?

By the way: I enjoy not being a star. ;-)