Steve Jobs: One letter can raise shares almost 6%

Just about everyone knows that Steve Jobs is the face and lifeblood of Apple, and while some Apple-lovers claim that this is not the case, investors think otherwise. Following the last few keynotes and what seemed to be a final blow, investors felt "on ice" about Steve Jobs and the future of the company, and their money held in stock. Steve Jobs' letter to the public has lightened the hearts of his fans around the world and will allow the keynote at Macworld 2009 to be free of mourners and speculation about Steve's health.

But, what does this all mean? Apple's stock, just as basically all other stock, has been steadily falling, but this simple letter rose prices almost 6% - undoubtedly making investors some extra cash and Apple a considerable amount of money. The price is expected to go up in the next few days as well as new rumored products are announced and hyped. However, today's large increase signals a weak spot - Steve Jobs is highly tied to Apple and its stock.

While the letter was a short-run solution and a boost, the long-run situation remains the same - Steve will not be CEO forever. Phil Schiller's keynote will remind us all of that as we refresh our browsers continuously during the keynote, and read the news about the latest gadgets afterward.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Intel and Adobe to bring Flash to TVs

Next Story

Trojan, distributed over torrent, blocks torrent sites

16 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Man i was thinking about what letter could be so special that raises shares 6%.... Would it be Z? or maybe X! Yeah X is awesome!

Apple is a roller coaster, up and down all the time, a Steve Jobs health problem decreased the shares 6% and a lousy letter can raise 6%.

As someone who is NOT a shareholder, the fluctuation of Apple's stock price is a huge red flag to me. Yes, Stevie has got Apple to where it is today but here's a newsflash: He didn't do it alone. Thousands of people worked together to do it under his leadership.

The fluctuation in stock price suggests that the company's shareholders have little confidence in Apple without their beloved leader. Does that mean everyone else at Apple is talentless? That the company will suffocate and die without Stevie?

I highly doubt it. I'd like to think that Apple is at a place where it can continue to maintain or grow it's position. But the confidence of it's shareholders is very troubling.

Look: the man had Pancreatic Cancer (which he survived and recovered from) and now a hormone imballance which is keeping his body's protein metabolism from functioning properly. Give the man a break, and stop trying to spin this into being nothing more than a "stock manipulation ploy". I'm not a huge fan of Apple and it's products, let alone "The Steve", but since I've had my own bouts of medical & physiological problems to deal with lately I can 101% sympathize with him and his condition.

You shouldn't speculate less at what 'could be' just because you can sympathise with what someone has gone through. Its like saying you shouldn't treat people equally.

I agree to your general idea. there however two scenarios:

1 He just found out about this condition and went public with it, in which case he needs to be left alone to get better.
2 there is something else that is wrong with him and he is covering it up. The fact that he refused to acknowledge the existence of a problem for a long time only helps to add fuel to this fire.

You can't exactly crucify him for being really good at his job. Apple's just going to have to learn to survive without him.

MulletRobZ said,
Agreed. After all, Apple functioned without Jobs from 1984 to 1997.

not so great though, but it did function...however they almost committed suicide without him.

MulletRobZ said,
Agreed. After all, Apple functioned without Jobs from 1984 to 1997.

Functioned is a pretty strong word, considering how poorly they did. They just about lost all market share. Everyone knows how unstable "classic" Mac OS was and how virus-prone it was. I'd guess about 90% of the people who absolutely hate Macs are basing that on how Classic Mac OS performed.