Steve Jobs nearly died and lied about it

[acnpt]

Well if the shareholders are so unhappy, perhaps they should sell their shares.

Looks to me that the share price has hardly dropped since the news, and is now rising.

[Deadlydread]

This too, is a lie to get around what really happened. Steve Jobs did a software upgrade to Snow Leopard, as we know he's really a robot running on Apple software, and has been dead since Bill Gates assassinated him 20 years ago. The Truth must come out, and the public must be made aware of the fact that our holy leader Steve Jobs is nothing but an AI program, nicknamed Skynet.

This would also explain the high price of the "Apple" name on items, such as Macbooks, Ipods, Iphones, etc, as they do not have a Black Project fund, and cannot charge thousands of dollars for a Toliet, as the goverment does.

[shakey_snake]

OMG Lindsey Lohan nearly died and lied about it!!!111

Isn't that the point, that he has to disclose, because of the business?

Um, that's nearly the exact opposite of true in most workplaces in the US.

[bob_c_b]

he knew he needed a new liver and he lied to the public and more importnatly the shareholders....

You have no idea if he knew he needed a liver at that point.

[Simon Veteran]

They say he has a 9 in 10 chance of being alive in 2014 like those are terrible odds.

[ViperAFK]

So what if he did lie? has the man got a right for some privicy? ok im not the biggest fan of Apple and that bloke, but even still even if he did lie, im sure it was warrented, so back of telling people he lied when all he wanted was some privicy

qft

[Growled Member]

It doesn't matter what we think. It matters a great deal what the SEC will think. I feel sure there will be an inquiry into the matter. I understand he has a right to privacy and he is a private person. However, the company and the stockholders also have rights. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I think he should have disclosed more information.

[Hurmoth]

I wonder how many people here stating that he should be left alone are merely Apple product owners vs shareholders. I am an Apple shareholder, among many other companies, and I for one deserve to know how the company I partially own is being operated, and how the CEO is doing as he makes decisions that directly affect my profit in the company. Unlike a lot of CEOs, Steve Jobs is part of the company and the company is part of him. He makes most of the decisions that make the company what it is, therefore when he is missing from making those decisions the company starts to go down hill.

That hasn't been more truer since he returned than the last six months, and even the last year or two since his health started to decline. The company has produced increasingly minor updates, including the recent iPhone update and this can, without a doubt, be attributed to Jobs' absence.

When this happens shareholders start looking for other companies to invest their money, which makes my shares less valuable and forces me to consider moving my money to another company as well. I didn't, but that isn't the case with every other shareholder.

Stop looking at this situation from a personal point of view because it isn't. If Jobs wanted privacy he shouldn't be CEO of a company, he should be a private citizen far from media attention. But he isn't, he is CEO of a public company and therefore is at the mercy of the shareholders and we deserve to be notified of health issues, despite what everyone else may think.

When investing in a company, who the CEO is, the their health, the health of the company, the direction the company is headed in, etc. all play a factor when determining which company to invest in.

This simply isn't a personal privacy issue, it is a business issue.

[Xero]

There are some things he should tell and others he has every right to keep to himself. Had he said he was going to potentially die, stocks would plummet and he would be surrounded with media coverage. He didn't die, it would been have a waste of money and stress. Things that aren't certain shouldn't be publicly declared. If something is a potential it should be at their discretion. Steve has done a hell of a lot at Apple and in the general world of technology, his health is more important because of everything he's accomplished. No one likes standing by and watching someone/something great die. We'll always be eager to hear the details of someone we like or respect. But at the end of it all he's just another guy, he isn't a movie star, he deserves more than we give him. He could quit Apple tomorrow and I still wish him the best and I hope he can live for several more decades. People need to give him his space though. :/

I'm a shareholder as well, but like I said, it's up to him to choose what to disclose and what not to. He's still human just like all of us. Plus I think its obvious we know his health is a concern, you don't need definitive proof to plan your investments. While we're talking business, it would be bad for business to release such information without absolutely certainty. If he was given x number of days to live, yea he should tell it. If he was told he could die because of x illness he doesn't need to tell anyone.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Xero

[Hurmoth]

Why is this even being heavily discussed? Its steve jobs. ?!?! he doesnt personally affect any of us.

You don't buy Apple products do you? Steve Jobs is directly involved in a lot of the projects I buy, which does affect me. And look at how many companies are trying to mimic the iPhone and iPod, both of which Jobs directly worked on those projects.

And furthermore, you probably don't own shares in the company either based on that comment for the reasons I've already explained.

[Hurmoth]

Ha, i think its hialrious when people say Steve Jobs is apple, and apple is nothing without him.

That would only show how broken/crap of a company it is (if it were true), that the entire company only depends on one guy.

i don't believe it though, but i don't see how anyone who would believe it, wouldnt also believe that the company is pathetic then.

You need to read up on your Apple history then if you don't believe it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#19...:_Rise_and_fall

If Steve Jobs hadn't of returned, Apple would most likely be dust in the air by now. Jobs turned that company around and made it what it is today. Without him (and Microsoft), Apple would be nothing.

[edit] Think about how different the course of history would be without Jobs. There would be no iPod or iPhone, so most likely there wouldn't be any Zune or other MP3 players on the market, at least not like what there is. Most likely the MP3 player market wouldn't have taken off for years afterwards. There wouldn't be any DC for music, movies, TV Shows like what there is today (Hulu, Netflix, etc. wouldn't be around yet), etc.

Maybe I am giving Apple a lot of credit here, but they have helped shape the digital arena with music and movies unlike any other company. The iPod is #1 after all, and without Jobs Apple would have been stuck still with IBM's chips and probably not even considering the move to the Intel platform, and who knows what OS X would have looked like without Jobs.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Hurmoth

[Xero]

Jobs was very critical at bringing Apple to where it is today. He's built a solid foundation that they'd survive just fine without him. However, he has been monumental in bringing to light some of their best creations. He's the CEO, he's the captain of the ship. They have a great crew but without a captain they're sailing blind. Jobs has a very unique vision and helps direct that ship towards creating some really amazing products. Not just products but influence on the various markets they are involved in. They'd wouldn't be screwed without Jobs but with him they advance at a quicker pace.

[Hurmoth]

Yeah i know that they fired him before, and the company went under some.

i'm not a mac fan either, but if a company really depends on one guy, then that company really is doomed. It really just makes them look pathetic that they wouldnt be able to be successful without him.

LOL They didn't fire him, Jobs resigned from Apple and founded NeXT Inc. the same year.

The board took away his manager duties, but that is hardly firing him.

And there are a lot of talented people at Apple that can easily continue on without Jobs. Jobs is direction, leadership for the company.

The US would continue on without the President if something were to happen to him, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off with the Vice President leading the country. That's the reason they're in those roles to begin with.

Jobs was very critical at bringing Apple to where it is today. He's built a solid foundation that they'd survive just fine without him. However, he has been monumental in bringing to light some of their best creations. He's the CEO, he's the captain of the ship. They have a great crew but without a captain they're sailing blind. Jobs has a very unique vision and helps direct that ship towards creating some really amazing products. Not just products but influence on the various markets they are involved in. They'd wouldn't be screwed without Jobs but with him they advance at a quicker pace.

Exactly. Nicely put (Y)

[t_r_nelson]

This simply isn't a personal privacy issue, it is a business issue.

How far will you take that? If an employee gets H1N1, do you want to know about it? What about HIV? What if there is a person at apple that has a drinking problem? Any one of these can affect performance depending on where in the chain they are. Are you saying that publicly traded companies should release the medical records of their employees?

And what if Jobs did lie? How is that different from not saying anything. If he said it was a nutritional issue and he kicked off 3 months later, how is that worse than him saying "no comment" and him dying 3 months later. Either way, he dies and the company is in the same situation. You as a shareholder didn't know he was going to die in either scenario.

[Hurmoth]

How far will you take that? If an employee gets H1N1, do you want to know about it? What about HIV? What if there is a person at apple that has a drinking problem? Any one of these can affect performance depending on where in the chain they are. Are you saying that publicly traded companies should release the medical records of their employees?

Wow. You simply didn't read what I wrote or didn't care. Where in my post did I say John Doe in Accounting had a announce his medical status? I didn't, I stated STEVE JOBS. The leader of the company.

And what if Jobs did lie? How is that different from not saying anything. If he said it was a nutritional issue and he kicked off 3 months later, how is that worse than him saying "no comment" and him dying 3 months later. Either way, he dies and the company is in the same situation. You as a shareholder didn't know he was going to die in either scenario.

Did I say there was a difference between him lying and no comment? No I didn't, stop putting words in my mouth that I did NOT say. Trying reading what I said and then respond with something better than that.

[C_Guy]

If your an investor in apple, you have right to be upset if there any deception on Steve Jobs part.

If you don't own stock in apple, it shouldn't matter.

No, you don't. As an investor, your interest is in APPLE, not JOBS. If you have no faith in the company without Jobs then invest your money in Steve Jobs, not Apple Incorporated. The only "right" investors have is whether or not Jobs is fully capable and competent to perform his duties as CEO. That is a 'yes' or 'no' question, not a "provide us all your medical details" question. Not sure how some Apple investors got this entitlement to personal information complex.

Last time I checked, Apple didn't collapsed completely when Jobs took medical leave. Could that mean that Apple is capable of surviving without him? Gee, what a shock.

[Si_]

When it comes to something as private as your health, you have EVERY reason to keep it to yourself, if you so choose.

[Hurmoth]

When it comes to something as private as your health, you have EVERY reason to keep it to yourself, if you so choose.

Not when you are head of a company, you DO NOT. Check with the SEC, they disagree with you and everyone else saying it is a private matter: http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/...obs_health.html

[t_r_nelson]

Wow. You simply didn't read what I wrote or didn't care. Where in my post did I say John Doe in Accounting had a announce his medical status? I didn't, I stated STEVE JOBS. The leader of the company.

That is the point of my question. Should publicly traded companies start releasing medical records? To use John Doe is an extreme example, but with something like H1N1, it could spread through the workplace taking out a good chunk of the workforce. What about the board of directors? They have direct influence over a company? What about CFOs? What about CIOs? Where would you draw the line? Just with Steve Jobs?

Did I say there was a difference between him lying and no comment? No I didn't, stop putting words in my mouth that I did NOT say. Trying reading what I said and then respond with something better than that.

I'm sorry about this seeming like it was directed to you. It was directed more toward some of the earlier posts that said it was wrong for him to lie.

[plural]

IMO this is becoming just a stunt to hype the iPhone/OSX. Why now when we are so near Windows 7 RTM?

[t_r_nelson]

Not when you are head of a company, you DO NOT. Check with the SEC, they disagree with you and everyone else saying it is a private matter: http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/...obs_health.html

The SEC is starting an investigation. That's it. The rest is the opinion of Joe Wilcox.

[Hurmoth]

That is the point of my question. Should publicly traded companies start releasing medical records? To use John Doe is an extreme example, but with something like H1N1, it could spread through the workplace taking out a good chunk of the workforce. What about the board of directors? They have direct influence over a company? What about CFOs? What about CIOs? Where would you draw the line? Just with Steve Jobs?

If someone at Apple has H1N1 it will be reported anyway. Every case in the US has been reported like it is the end of the world. H1N1 is hardly anything to be concerned about in the US. Out of the people who have contracted it (23,254), only 122 people have died from it. That's less than 1%, and even 23K people getting it is less than 1%.

But if it was HIV, yes I think they have a responsibility to notify the shareholders if it is life threatening. I think for all executive staff (including the board) the shareholders should be notified if the illness prohibits them from doing their job. In Jobs' case, it prevented him from functioning so much that he had to get a liver transplant.

IMO this is becoming just a stunt to hype the iPhone/OSX. Why now when we are so near Windows 7 RTM?

You clearly have no idea what's going on. This has nothing to do with hyping a damn product. Go somewhere else if you're going to spew **** like this. Jobs' issues started long before this. Damn I don't even know how to respond to such a dumbass comment like this.

The SEC is starting an investigation. That's it. The rest is the opinion of Joe Wilcox.

True, but the point is SEC agrees enough to start an investigation. Shareholders should be notified of illnesses that hinder a CEO's job performance. If you aren't there, you can't perform and therefore your performance is effected.

[Subject Delta]

I can understand why he kept this private, it could have caused chaos if it came out

[Hurmoth]

I can understand why he kept this private, it could have caused chaos if it came out

This all could have been avoided if he had been open and honest like he should have been with the shareholders. No one said he needed to admit that his condition was life threatening. I highly doubt had he been honest that the stocks would have gone down anymore than what they did with everything be so secretive. They went down to $78.20 (52-wk low) with him being so secretive from $180.91 (52-wk high).

Had he been forthcoming with his condition when this started (August 2006), he might have avoided a job entirely. Maybe not immediately have stated anything, but the stock price started dropping a year ago (immediately following WWDC 2008), so he should have notified the shareholders then, but speculation of declining health started almost three years ago. Of course we'll never know for sure, but I'm positive that a lot of investors bailed because they were clueless as to what was going on.

[Growled Member]

When it comes to something as private as your health, you have EVERY reason to keep it to yourself, if you so choose.

When you place yourself in the public eye you lose some of your privacy. The stockholders own the company. Jobs works for them. In every situation that I've ever been involved with, your employer has every right to know if something has happened in your private life that affects your job performance. If you don't want to disclose it then you can always step down. The same applies to GM or IBM or any other corporation you can name. The stockholders do have a right to know.

That doesn't mean the media has a right to know. That also doesn't mean that non-stockholders have any right to know either.