Steve Jobs nearly died and lied about it


Recommended Posts

While I agree that Steve Jobs is (obviously) entitled to privacy, just like we all are, there's also a big difference between having a "nutritional problem" and needed a full-blown liver transplant.

The issue at hand isn't about whether or not Jobs should have disclosed his full medical dilemmas. He doesn't have to nor should he. But he should have been direct, explaining that he was having a serious medial issue, as opposed to something "nutritional."

Firstly I believe that he is entitled to his privacy.

The "nutritional problem" was something about not being able to absorb proteins or something right? I believe that his body also failed to produce bile, and fats couldn't be broken down -- thus the weight loss.

But the privacy laws in the United States say that medical records are confidential unless the condition poses a risk to others (HIV, TB, influenza, etc.). The SEC can investigate anything they want, but there is no way they will ever be able to force medical records become public. The ACLU would have a heyday with this. As well as the medical profession, the health and human services departments.

And, Hurmoth, releasing details of certain afflictions/diseases would open them up for prejudicial behavior. HIV is better understood, but the homosexual aspect of the infection still lingers. What about something of a different nature, such as mental disorders?

You paint a broad brush with saying they should release this information, but when does it end? Do we find out that Bill Gates has E.D.? Do we hear about the guy at NBC that has thoughts of suicide? At what level does it stop? It's a dangerous slope to start saying release it all?

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.

Great post. Apple knows that it's stock is closely tied to Jobs' marketing skills and continued health. I'm all for personal privacy, but when you are the CEO of a major company that loves to go on stage two or three times a year and do keynotes and unveilings, you are in the public square. Don't want to tell them you're knocking on death's door? Fine. But don't come out and tell the shareholders that you have a nutritional problem when your liver is shot.

Since when does the SEC override the HIPAA laws? No one can disclose with out the consent of the patient, nor can you force someone to disclose their condition under the laws unless forced to by a court order... Jobs has NO responsibility to disclose his health conditions or treatments... nor does he have to tell anyone, Jobs is not the company, he just runs the company... especially since he did transfer the control of the company, he did not hinder the company in any way because of the control transfer... if the company requires Jobs to be a company, the company has bigger problems...

But the privacy laws in the United States say that medical records are confidential unless the condition poses a risk to others (HIV, TB, influenza, etc.). The SEC can investigate anything they want, but there is no way they will ever be able to force medical records become public. The ACLU would have a heyday with this. As well as the medical profession, the health and human services departments.

And, Hurmoth, releasing details of certain afflictions/diseases would open them up for prejudicial behavior. HIV is better understood, but the homosexual aspect of the infection still lingers. What about something of a different nature, such as mental disorders?

You paint a broad brush with saying they should release this information, but when does it end? Do we find out that Bill Gates has E.D.? Do we hear about the guy at NBC that has thoughts of suicide? At what level does it stop? It's a dangerous slope to start saying release it all?

Your argument, with all due respect, is extremely poorly thought out. First off, this has nothing to do with privacy laws. Look up SEC?s full disclosure regulations and you will see that Apple broke the law, plain and simple, by not disclosing Jobs' health issues. This isn't about privacy, this is about the head of a company. You can argue whatever you want, the law states he must disclose the information.

The SEC?s Regulation FD requires ?full and fair disclosure by public companies."

Secondly, HIV isn't caused by just homesexual behavior. People have gotten it from blood transfusions before, from doing drugs. Regardless of how a person got it, if they are making executive level decisions for a publicly traded company, they have a legal responibility to report this information to their shareholders if it affects their job performance.

I keep repeating this and it seems you keep ignoring me, but if it affects their job performance they have a legal obligation to report this to their shareholders. How would ED affect Gates' ability to function in the workplace? He isn't a porn star.

If there's an executive at NBC with suicidal thoughts and the network knows, they have an obligation to (1) get this person help and (2) release this information to their shareholders. You may not like it, but that is probably why you're not head of a public company. No disrespect meant, but when you are an executive of a publicly traded company you are no longer living a private life.

Just look at what that journalist is really saying; they're more worried about the value of their shares than they are about the well-being of the man. And to joke around about death like that isn't funny.

The day the glorious west put capitalism ahead of its citizens' right to privacy and well-being is the day the west is ****ed.

Since when does the SEC override the HIPAA laws? No one can disclose with out the consent of the patient, nor can you force someone to disclose their condition under the laws unless forced to by a court order... Jobs has NO responsibility to disclose his health conditions or treatments... nor does he have to tell anyone, Jobs is not the company, he just runs the company... especially since he did transfer the control of the company, he did not hinder the company in any way because of the control transfer... if the company requires Jobs to be a company, the company has bigger problems...

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

I for one just feel bad for the guy having to have this horrible op and live his life this way. Poor dude. Money doesn't fix everything, but I hope the money he has at least allows him to live a semi-normal life.

I own Apple products ... but I don't care about my iPod more than I care that the man is healthy. Jeez, he's a human being ...! If Apple collapsed without Steve in charge, no offence, but I'd buy a Zune or something next time and just wonder why Apple only ever hired one talented guy. But I'm pretty sure that Apple, as it has done lately, would run ok without him if it had to.

Did he lie or just exercise his personal privacy? The media is speculating that "no one knew" but I'd be willing to bet the "right people" knew and also the Apple legal dept and key board members. Additionally, I would not under estimate Jobs importance to Apple, but there are a lot of smart folks in the company and I'm sure as soon as Steve was sick there were contingency scenarios being built.

He didn't lie, but he went out of his way to not disclose the truth... There's a very thin line between these two. Honestly, though, I think the shareholders have a right to know... After all, they are charged with electing a CEO that is willing and ABLE to run the company, which Steve clearly is not. If he survives this, I'd be surprised. I doubt very much that he'll ever be running Apple from anywhere but a hospital bed or his own bed at home from now on. He's not going to be around much longer.

*Edit: nevermind, he did lie :p ... It's time he own up to all this and step aside so some new blood can breathe fire into Apple before Jobs runs it into the ground with his lies..... And his life.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

As I obviously don't work for the SEC nor read up on full disclosure laws, it's stuff like that which makes me never want to get famous or make a lot of money by starting a company... I would never want to have to disclose my life just because I run a publicly traded company...... if it was me and I had to do that, I'd just say fine, I quit with no one knowing about it so they can't trade stock in advance of it... but that's me...

but my real point is, if Apple can't stand on it's own without Jobs then they have huge problems that need fixed... a company should never be dependent on a single person being alive or in control...

He didn't lie, but he went out of his way to not disclose the truth... There's a very thin line between these two. Honestly, though, I think the shareholders have a right to know... After all, they are charged with electing a CEO that is willing and ABLE to run the company, which Steve clearly is not. If he survives this, I'd be surprised. I doubt very much that he'll ever be running Apple from anywhere but a hospital bed or his own bed at home from now on. He's not going to be around much longer.

I'm not convinced he didn't lie, or at least Apple. One week the press release states he has a hormone imbalance and then a little over a week later the condition is worse off and he is leaving for six months, then four months later he has a liver transplant.

Yes, it is possible that he didn't know how serious his condition was, but if there was transparency to begin with we wouldn't be wondering if Apple lied and there wouldn't be a SEC investigation.

So there is a real possibility that, at the very least, Apple lied if Jobs didn't to Apple. Remember Jobs didn't actually issue the press release, Apple did on Jobs behalf. I doubt the internal memo that was emailed to employees was even written by him, so it is possible that this is all on Apple and not on Jobs, but shareholders should have been notified though.

As I obviously don't work for the SEC nor read up on full disclosure laws, it's stuff like that which makes me never want to get famous or make a lot of money by starting a company... I would never want to have to disclose my life just because I run a publicly traded company...... if it was me and I had to do that, I'd just say fine, I quit with no one knowing about it so they can't trade stock in advance of it... but that's me...

but my real point is, if Apple can't stand on it's own without Jobs then they have huge problems that need fixed... a company should never be dependent on a single person being alive or in control...

I totally agree. I don't know how some CEOs do it and no one can argue that Jobs is definitely more in the limelight than the average CEO, but the rule is there for a good reason and it should be followed.

As for Apple standing on their own...

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.

That quote sums it up nicely as to what Jobs means to Apple. No one is saying Apple will fail if Jobs were to leave or pass away, but Jobs does mean a lot to the company.

I'd also like to point out that Apple is in an extremely better position today than what they were when Jobs first returned to Apple where they needed Microsoft to help bail them out. Jobs and Apple may pick at Microsoft, but that is at a conference that already has Apple fans and I think it is all meant in good humor. I highly doubt Jobs has any negative feelings towards Microsoft because he knows without them they'd be no where.

And if it wasn't for Jobs, Microsoft would never have invested in the company and probably wouldn't have restarted their Office product for the Mac platform, which eventually led Apple into making their own great Office product.

Jobs has done a lot for Apple, more than what most CEOs do for their company.

i am so speechless.

c'mon guys and gals...

his private life is of no concearn here, you have no given right to judge him because of what he does when he is not at the apple campus.

think about his family, for one time!

i havent read everything in this stunningly long topic and i hope someone has said that before, would be awesome if someone had some sympathy here.

if he is not at apple campus, he is just a man like you and me, who has a right not to tell those freaking apple fanboys what is going on in his life!

seriously... i am an apple fanboy myself to some extend, but this is just dirty...

your topic headline sounds like a reproach that he doesnt let you take part on his private life but that is his freaking RIGHT! he has not a single duty towards us so let him keep for himself what he wants to keep to himself.

geez, are you really serious?

we are talking about death here, the most personal thing in life!

sure, maybe shareholders deserve to know, but MAN! why are you so freaking cold?

afterall he is just a man and not that fancy half-god!

i am sorry if the topic already went in this direction, as i said, i didnt read the whole stuff but guys... come on!

if he is not at apple campus, he is just a man like you and me, who has a right not to tell those freaking apple fanboys what is going on in his life!

If you bothered to read the post, which you didn't, you would have noticed the case was not about "fanboys" but about people who own Apple stocks and are getting riled up because they might have lost their almighty dollars if Jobs had kicked the bucket.

Jobs should just move to Europe where we still have personal privacy - even if you're a CEO.

If you bothered to read the post, which you didn't, you would have noticed the case was not about "fanboys" but about people who own Apple stocks and are getting riled up because they might have lost their almighty dollars if Jobs had kicked the bucket.

Jobs should just move to Europe where we still have personal privacy - even if you're a CEO.

i did mention that aswell, if you had read my post you wouldve noticed.

still, i am still of the same opinion as stated above.

and indeed, in europe you still have personal privacy, even as a CEO. and in my opinion, well deserved, public figure or not.

Many people still believe that if Steve Jobs died or left Apple, Apple would go down the drain again like they did in the 90's. The company should be focusing on how to run by itself without Steve Job's "image", so in future, they can publicly talk about any future health problems without them worrying about their stocks being effected.

It's is personal life and problem not related to the business. If every public person need to tell the world all they do soon we should see that X went to the toilet at 6am to do a #2, Y was brushing his teeth around same time while Z was making love with W in plane bathroom. Ridiculous but personal matter are not made to the public, its his decision or not to make it public or not.

I am amazed that so many people would speak out about his life being personal and say to leave it alone. Jobs is the CEO of a publicy traded company. A company in which innovations such as the Iphone, Ipod and Macs are the lifeline of the company. A change at the helm of a company such as Apple can cause a discord with its investors/share holders in which stock prices can be affected. Unfortunately he represents Apple and he has to act accordingly to the position. When a new CEO is introduced to public companies and the CEO is not regarded as the right "FIT" you will notice stock prices go down sue to the markets beliefs that the "new" CEO might not be able to take the company the right direction. SO IT DOES matter that the stock holders(me) and the board members know what is happening. If Jobs were to pass away due to the cancer or a surgery gone bad then it would affect me and what I would do about my share of Apple stocks. I would short them in the market or sell them off. I can bet you money that the stocks would fall if he pass away or left. It would take a new CEO time before he is trusted to head a company like Apple into the future. There are not many Jobs, Gates, Buffets, or Welches of the world. They made a difference and without them at the helm for so long at their respective companies do you think they would have gotten as far as they did?

Being such an important figure in Apple, he has no right for privacy, I'm not a shareholder, but if I were to be one, I'd sure as hell want to know when Apple is about to die out.

No one wants to know how many times he has sex every week, who gives a crap ? No one wants to know what his personal issues with his mother or father, people who have a high interest in Apple need to know about his condition.

People said it themselves that if he dies then Apple will have a very hard time recovering, the share prices will drop obviously and it will be a mess - don't you think shareholders want to avoid it by selling their stocks BEFORE it happens ?

You rate privacy so highly for him as if someone really cares about other than if he dies or not.

Being such an important figure in Apple, he has no right for privacy, I'm not a shareholder, but if I were to be one, I'd sure as hell want to know when Apple is about to die out.

No one wants to know how many times he has sex every week, who gives a crap ? No one wants to know what his personal issues with his mother or father, people who have a high interest in Apple need to know about his condition.

People said it themselves that if he dies then Apple will have a very hard time recovering, the share prices will drop obviously and it will be a mess - don't you think shareholders want to avoid it by selling their stocks BEFORE it happens ?

You rate privacy so highly for him as if someone really cares about other than if he dies or not.

alright so to get this straight for me, i am not quite sure if i got it right...

you say that ... if he dies, the stocks drop? which might very well be right. okay. so far so good.

but are you ****ing serious putting STOCKS before a LIFE of someone?

ever thought of how his family feels like, if they had to read this?!

public figure or not, his bodily condition is of no concearn as long as he is not passed away.

if he passes away and we all thought of his family for one moment for this tragic loss, THEN we can talk about stocks dropping.

but before this day comes, its just so impious....

capitalism really did make mankind callous, i guess.

sad...

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. SEC?s Regulation FD were created to help thwart insider trading. Obviously the other executives would know about the issues Jobs faced, or at least that he had health issues. What if we didn't even know that Jobs was on leave, one of the other executives purchased a large sum of shares and then if Jobs did pass away, he sells before it hits the public and then boom he's made a ton a money while the other shareholders are left with nothing.

You can't think about this as Jobs being an individual. HE ISN'T, he a public figure and the shareholders deserve to know what is going on with THEIR company. The shareholders own the company and therefore are entitled to know.

Nowhere in the SEC's regulations does it say anything about revealing medical conditions. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was one of the most comprehensive overhauls to Full Disclosure says nothing about it. I covers everything from a reporting aspect, but it never even touches on medical.

You can complain about it all you want, but it's never going to happen. The SEC can file all the investigations it wants, but there is no way they're gonna get disclosure of medical records.

Many people still believe that if Steve Jobs died or left Apple, Apple would go down the drain again like they did in the 90's. The company should be focusing on how to run by itself without Steve Job's "image", so in future, they can publicly talk about any future health problems without them worrying about their stocks being effected.

That's true but I really don't see that happening again. Jobs has built a very good supporting team at Apple. They carried on brilliantly while he was out. I see no reason to think they couldn't continue to do so if they needed to.

Nowhere in the SEC's regulations does it say anything about revealing medical conditions. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was one of the most comprehensive overhauls to Full Disclosure says nothing about it. I covers everything from a reporting aspect, but it never even touches on medical.

You can complain about it all you want, but it's never going to happen. The SEC can file all the investigations it wants, but there is no way they're gonna get disclosure of medical records.

You can think that all you want to, but you are simply wrong.

Apple Broke the Law By Lying About Steve Jobs Health

Apple broke the law by lying about Steve Jobs health, says a top marketing professor.

But whether the Security and Exchange Commission has the “balls” to prosecute is unclear.

Paul Argenti, Professor of Corporate Communication at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, says that Apple’s communications about its CEO’s health violated the SEC’s full disclosure regulations.

The SEC’s Regulation FD requires “full and fair disclosure by public companies,” but Apple has done neither, says Argenti. At first, Apple said Jobs had a “nutritional imbalance,” but on Friday the Wall Street Journal disclosed that he has undergone a liver transplant.

“The difference between a nutritional imbalance and a liver transplant is huge,” said Prof. Argenti to CoM by phone. “If this is not a legal issue and a Regulation FD issue, I don’t know what is.”

Argenti said Apple clearly knew months ago that Jobs would have to undergo life-saving surgery and had a legal obligation to disclose that.

“The law is very clear — full disclosure of material information,” said Argenti. “If a CEO’s liver transplant isn’t material, what is? But whether the SEC has the balls to do something about it, we’ll see.”

The SEC is reportedly already looking into the company’s handling of Jobs’s health disclosures.

Experts argue that shareholders are legally entitled to information that has material effect on company — and that a CEO’s health is material, especially one as closely tied to the company as Jobs is.

In December, Jobs said he was suffering from an easily treatable hormone imbalance; less than a week later, he said he was taking six months medical leave because his medical issues were “more complex.”

Argenti said the biggest issue is the ethics and the reputation of the company. Apple has severely damaged its trustworthiness and credibility.

“Clearly, this is going to affect not only Apple’s customers but employees that were lied to or kept in the dark about what was going on,” Argenti said. “Apple is one of the most admired companies in America and this is how they deal with this kind of news? It’s unacceptable, unethical and irresponsible to all constituents.”

Argenti said Apple’s miscommunication about Jobs undercuts its slick marketing and hurts its reputation with consumers and investors. “As a communications strategy, it makes no sense.”

“It’s going to be a big issue in the next few days, I guarantee it.”

Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004, which appeared to have been successfully treated until 2008, when Jobs lost weight rapidly. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that he had received a liver transplant, suggesting that the cancer had metastasized to the liver.

So far, Apple has neither confirmed or denied the Journal report.

Professor Paul A. Argenti has a BA, Columbia University, 1975; MA, Brandeis University, 1979; MBA, Columbia University, 1981. He teaches of Corporate Communication at Tuck School of Business.

Edited by 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.

QFT

Keeping it quite and saying nothing about your heath is bad enough when you are the CEO of a publicly traded company, but lying about it? It really makes me laugh how many people in this thread are saying he did nothing wrong and he deserves his privacy. As Hurmoth pointed out above, Steve jobs is the CEO of Apple. Would the stock of tanked if he would have told everyone the truth? Maybe. But that is the stock holders right to know. It's their right to have all the information to make a decision about their investment, but instead they are lied to by the CEO. Then what if all of the sudden news is released that "Steve Job died on the operating table"? Can you imagine the outrage of an apple stock holder? When overnight they wake up and their stock is now in the toilet. Let's just say the Apple Lawyers will be working overtime.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I notice how you dodged the questions I had about the racism shown by ignorant, gullible, cowardly people when the Poles, like your partner, were the immigrants. Ahem. I wonder how you'd feel if native born Brits suddenly treated you as "dirty crooked immigrant" for being half Trump-American? If they ordered you to leave and "go back to your corrupt country" (on the other side of the Atlantic), would you go? The truth is based on facts as supported by evidence. As requested in your previous posts, I have used the facts in your own post to show everyone the truth.
    • US citizens are paying to their government, who could use that to fund healthcare and tuition and relieve the costs of these for citizens instead of making tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the rich. I'm not saying that tariffs are the correct solution, but what else would they be used for? What else could Trump have in mind for wanting them, if he hasn't figured out that labor costs are higher in the US?
    • I’m in need of a new chair and it sounds like the backrest cannot be locked? I also sat on a Herman miller and was devastated that it couldn’t be locked also, what is going on with chairs. I want to be able to lock the backrest into any position but not even the Herman’s do that
    • Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 Ergonomic Office Chair review: The Ikea of chairs by Steven Parker I've reviewed a few gaming chairs over the past three years or so and generally found them to score well in our reviews. SIHOO reached out asking if I was interested in taking a look at their flagship chair, the Doro C300 Pro V2. I never got the chance to check out its predecessor, but the V2 is described as an "Adaptive Ergonomic Chair." It became available to buy in April of this year. Let's get things rolling with a closer look at the specifications and features. Specifications Doro C300 Pro V2 Model Ergonomic Materials Mesh Back and Seat; Soft PU Coated Armrests Height adjustability 45.5 - 53 cm / 17.5" - 20.9" Seat (w+d) 52 x 43 - 47 cm / 20.5" x 16.9" - 18.5" (adjustable) Backrest 52 – 60 cm / 20.5" - 23.6" (adjustable) Lumbar support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Armrest adjustability 8D Bionic Armrests Rocking angle 105°, 120°, 135° (fixed) Neck support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Net weight 27.3 kg / 59.64 lbs Weight support 150 kg / 330 lbs Colors Black, White Warranty 5 years (upon registering) Price $499.99, $539.99 Introduction At first glance, it looks like a chair that in another life wants to be a Herman Miller; It certainly looks like my Aeron Remastered, but the Doro C300 Pro V2 has quite a few more features and costs quite a bit less. SIHOO says that it is made up of a "DynaCore" system that tracks your movement and synchronizes the headrest, backrest, lumbar support, and armrests as you shift, twist, or recline. They also say that the "SyncroFlex Backrest" molds to your spine, which kind of describes how the mesh fabric works in most ergonomic chairs, but anyway. Below are the meat and potatoes measurements for the chair. Here is the same tech sheet, but in inches. Durability I would be remiss to not talk about the various durability testing this chair underwent before coming to market, as this is claimed on the product page. First of all, the chair is BIFMA-, SGS-, and TÜV-certified. As for durability, the tests undergone were: 100,000 Castor cycles tested 120,000 Armrest cycles tested 120,000 Recline cycles tested 120,000 Gas lift cycles tested 60,000 Armrest durability cycles tested 120,000 Rotation cycles tested Nothing about weights testing, though. Now that's all disclosed, now onto my own personal findings. Assembly The Doro C300 Pro V2 came in two large boxes (1) (2), and everything was packed very well, protecting the different parts of the chair. In the box, there is a folded sheet that explains the 12 steps to assemble it; they are: Remove the bottom cover on the aluminum base; Insert the five legs into the aluminum base and use ten screws to fasten them; Insert the castors into the legs; Replace the bottom cover on the bottom of the aluminum base; Place the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder into the aluminum base; Screw the bottom part of the arm rests, taking care of the orientation using two screws on each side; Use three torx screws to fasten the footrest to the bottom of the seat; Fasten the backrest to the seat using four torx bolts; Fasten the armrests to the backrest using four Torx bolts (two on each side), taking care to note the orientation; Place the chair onto the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder; Insert the headrest into the top of the backrest; Use two torx screws to fasten the headrest to the backrest. There's also an online guide you can refer to. Carefully unpacking the two boxes took around 15 minutes because almost everything is wrapped in plastic and protective foam; the chair assembly itself took around an hour. I say in the above assembly steps to take note of the orientation, because it's not obvious which way around the bottom portion of the armrests go, and although there is an L and R on the bottom of the armrests, it also wasn't clear from the instructions which was actually left or right, facing the chair, or in the seated down orientation? Anyway, I ended up putting the bottom portions on the wrong sides, and after securing one of the armrests, I discovered that although it was on the correct side, the armrest base could rotate a full 360°, but not when bolted to the chair, so I had to remove it, rotate it, and then bolt it back on. Truly an Ikea experience! Also, to complicate things further, although all the parts are labeled from A to X (yes, that's 24 parts) unhelpfully, these letters do not appear on the parts themselves or the package with the bolts, screws, and washers. There's also a pair of protective gloves in the box, but I think they were made for much smaller hands than I have. Even my friend, who is 5.1, had difficulty putting them on. Once assembled, I needed to sit down. Anyway, as I said, it looks quite similar to my Herman Miller. And here is the back of it. If you look at the product page and on Amazon, it seems like a lot of thought has gone into the chair itself and what it's capable of, but there is no mention at all about the castors, and this is an area where I think the chair trips up quite quickly. I found it difficult to move the chair in any direction. I asked a friend who came to visit me earlier this week to test my findings, and she said that the wheels were "no good," so it definitely isn't just me. I am 6'2 myself and a big guy, I work from home and gained a few pounds from mostly staying in and the hell away from other people. However, the Doro C300 Pro V2 is rated for up to 150kg (330lbs), which in my case is used well within its max rating. Ergonomics The number of adjustments you can make, right up to setting it in nap mode — which I haven't fully tested yet — is what you'd expect from a premium chair. Yes, you can go up and down (max 7.5 cm adjustment), rock back and forth (with tilt adjustment), and lock the chair between three stages of 105°, 120°, 135°, which is not quite as flat as the AndaSeat I tested at 160°. Some thought has also gone into the "8D" armrests, too, which are cushioned but quite firm; you'll only know it if you press hard into the PU-covered tops, which give about half a centimeter, but it's enough to ensure your skin won't get awkwardly stuck to it in warmer (or sweatier) conditions. It almost feels like plastic and is very easy to keep clean. However, the armrest positions move far too easily, and I am not sure what that "elbow" function is. Maybe it is good for a short person with short arms, anyway, I never used it and kept it flat at all times. There are eight levels of adjustment for the armrests, they are: backwards, forwards, swing left/right, height up and down, tilt, and 360° rotation, which can be handy for desk clearance. As I said, the armrest pads shift far too easily, which could give off an ergonomic vibe, but who wants the armrest sliding when you are shifting weight? The height adjustability does lock into place when lifting and adjusting. Comfort This is ultimately what it boils down to at the end of the day, right? Quite a lot of reviews praise the comfort of this chair, and I don't disagree that the mesh seating is quite comfortable. I am used to the material from my daily Herman Miller. However, the backrest cannot be locked into place, and this is actually a feature; as you shift or recline yourself on the chair, the backrest moves with your body. It took some getting used to. The lumbar gives ample support, but I would have preferred an adjustable one built into the seat base, as this causes the backrest to move up and down at will. Again, as with my previous chair review, this chair is also rated for tall people, but nowhere in the product documentation does it say how tall. Being 6'2 myself, I'm happy to say that the backrest is tall and wide enough, and thought has been given to being able to adjust the neck rest, but as others have mentioned in their reviews, people as tall as 6.2ft is about the limit for the neckrest. Conclusion What I didn't like The footrest is rated for 15kg (33 lbs), which to me seems a bit light, and after looking online, it seems like a chair footrest for adults must be at least twice that rating. In all honesty, they are just hollow metal tubes, so it is not recommended to let a kid sit on them. I also feel like it doesn't really go out far enough for my height, so that kind of puts the dampener on me being able to use it regularly. I'll just have to continue to use my subwoofer as a footrest! I do not like the armrests being able to shift around as easily as they can, and they are a little too forward-positioned in the chair to comfortably sit close to my desk, because even in the lowest height position, they don't allow me to go under the desk like is possible with my Herman Miller. I also feel like this chair could have been delivered partially constructed, especially the armrests on the seat, and why the aluminum base wasn't already pre-constructed (without the castors) is baffling, considering it would have fit in one of the two boxes that way. The instructions also need to be clearer. On the pamphlet, there's an A to X listing (which is also used in the steps), but none of the physical parts use this lettering system! What I did like I'll be honest, I haven't used it for very long, just one week, and seating comfort is subjective after all! Any spills wiped straight off it, the stitching, and the lines look great, not a fray to be seen or stitch out of place. It looks kind of cool, too. My favorite feature of these seats is the nap mode. While you're not lying completely flat, it leans far back enough to make you easily doze off after a heavy gaming or working session. Overall, this chair offers plenty of comfort features. The MSRP does vary quite a bit depending on the region, at £549.99 in the UK, and €580 in Europe, and $599 before tax in the U.S. However, shipping is free, which is a bonus for such a heavy item. Is it worth it, though? At three years' warranty, I think it's a decent deal. Another firm out of Germany sent me a free replacement hydraulic gas spring for a chair that failed after almost four years, so it was well outside its two-year warranty. My advice is to always try, as you might have the same luck I did. If I could fault it at all, it would be the constant shifting of the armrests and backrest. Where to buy Although the footrest variant normally costs $539.99, it has been discounted to $469.99 on the official website in Black or White. In fact, the non-footrest variant is only $40 cheaper. On Amazon, it currently costs more at $499.99 links below. Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $469.99 (official website) Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $499.99 at Amazon US SIHOO provided a free sample without any review or pre-approval. Good to know This Amazon link is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      207
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      macoman
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!