Apple chief Jobs settles health worries

[AppleInsider]

In a rare discussion of his personal health, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has privately revealed to a journalist exactly what conditions led to his overly thin appearance at the Worldwide Developer Conference this year.

After receiving multiple statements from Apple's press relations that simply echoed the company's official position that Jobs' health "is a private matter," the New York Times' Joe Nocera received a personal phone call from Steve Jobs that appears to have settled some of the doubts about his physical condition.

The company luminary insists that the precise details be kept off the record, but according to Nocera has virtually confirmed earlier reporting by the Times' John Markoff that claims Jobs had new surgery earlier this year to address a nutritional problem causing weight loss.

The particular issue is a "good deal more" substantial than the "common bug" Apple spokespeople have used as their most detailed explanation, but is described as far less disastrous than perceived by some shareholders, who triggered a stock sell-off this past week.

The circumstances "weren’t life-threatening and [Jobs] doesn’t have a recurrence of cancer," Nocera says.

Nonetheless, the journalist also questions why it requires a direct yet unspecific intervention from Jobs to settle concerns rather than more official channels. Reiterating the claims both of Markoff and of analysts, Nocera maintains that companies have a responsibility to disclose key executives' illnesses when they will clearly influence the day-to-day operations of the company, even if they believe health is normally something to be kept from the public.

This is seen as especially crucial for an electronics maker like Apple. As much of the company's success in recent years has been attributed to Jobs' direct management of many facets of the business, a sudden resignation or worse would be immediately damaging to share value, even if the company reveals a succession plan.

For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.

"You would think he’d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Virgil-TB2]

Nocera is a slime bucket though. You can read his sliminess between every line he wrote.

He makes out like it's a big mystery why Jobs doesn't want to broadcast the details of his illness to the world and implies that it's irresponsible, when the explanation is much simpler than that. The surgeries in question involve hugely embarrassing questions. It's tantamount to talking about ass surgery.

How many men want to talk about prostate exams and the exact consistency of their stool relative to their diet, or detail the inner workings of their digestive systems? How about talking about it on the evening news or in the newspaper? It's hardly rocket science why Jobs doesn't want to get into the nitty-gritty details of this.

Also, how many top execs of Fortune 500 companies have had similar surgeries or digestive complaints? Probably a large proportion given that the majority of them are males in their 40's, 50's and 60's.

If it's not cancer, and it's not life threatening, then Jobs is right in saying it's basically none of anyone's business but his own IMO.

[ascii]

I don't think it's baffling that it's a personal phone call instead of a press release. If Apple regards Steve's health as a personal matter (which they have repeatedly said) then any reports about it would *have* to come from him.

[Brendon]

I hope for Noceras' sake he verified the source. And if fabricated at least had the presence of mind to have a friend call his phone. A call then would be documented on the date and time he said the conversation occurred just in case a court would like to see that information. If SJ had called me I would have just sit on it just because it is an area that is private personal information. Also if one thing that is reported is incorrect or misunderstood and reported, that could spell big problems for the one doing the reporting. So let's say one of this guys "friends" called from California as a joke and it got reported, both or at least one is bang in trouble.

[Foo2]

Sure, it was "a good deal more" substantial than a "common bug." Otherwise Nocera would have to declare that he had actually been wrong. Jobs had corrective surgery earlier in the year, in order to stem his weight loss. Nocera is implicitly focusing on that surgery in order to maintain his ego.
However, most likely it was a common bug that created the tipping point, that made Jobs look particularly gaunt and almost caused him to bow out of appearing at WWDC.

[mattalex]

I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

[PG4G]

He's not a vegan, he's a pescatarian. That is, someone who only eats seafood, right, as well as vegies ???

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

companies have a responsibility to disclose key executives' illnesses when they will clearly influence the day-to-day operations of the company

Uh, well obviously Steve's health issues didn't affect day-to-day operations now did it!? Just an ass tying to get an answer to a question that was clearly none of his or anyone else's damn business. If Steve was still able to function and Apple is still running as normal, then THERE IS NO ISSUE! Being concerned is one thing. Being a nosey prick is another matter altogether. So, every time someone 'believes' Steve is sick, he's supposed to make an announcement? I don't think so. The stock holders should sue the freaken analysts who dreamed this whole thing up. It's funny how they're never held accountable for screwing with the market.

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by mattalex

I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

You can't!? Such as?

As far as I know, people can be perfectly healthy as a vegan. In fact it is more unnatural for humans/mammals to consume dairy products after infancy (mother's milk), than it is to live on a vegetarian diet.

[columbus]

OT: I'm not a Vegan, but plenty of Vegans live perfectly healthy lives. If you get things wrong nutritionally then it can lead to health problems, but that applies equally to whatever you eat.

I think Steve was a Vegan at one stage, however this is no longer the case.

[nothowie]

Apple did the right thing in not commenting on Job's health. If they would have, their would have been no stopping the press in asking everyday for an update on his health. He and Apple
got tired that the click loving press would not let this story die...so let it be know in several ways that he was OK...indirectly to the press and then directly to this writer.Didn't this writer know
that Apple investors would find out when he disclosed the conversation?

And why do articles, including this one, suggest Apple was lying when it said Jobs had a "common bug"...well, from reports I've read, he actually did have the common bug for a week or two before
the presentation and that likely did not help him in the looking healthy department.

Apple probably should have disclosed the cancer surgery he had a few years ago earlier, but that was then and this is now. Now let's concentrate on the exploding sales and the problems Apple is having growing their business at such a rapid pace.

[Malokata]

If it wasn't life-threatening, and didn't affect his long-term capacity to serve, it did not need to be disclosed. Period.

[BIGDAWG]

No company can give out personal health information without a signed release from that person. Maybe these reporters should learn about the Laws in the US.

Basic Principle. A major purpose of the Privacy Rule is to define and limit the circumstances in which an individual’s protected heath information may be used or disclosed by covered entities. A covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except either: (1) as the Privacy Rule permits or requires; or (2) as the individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes in writing.

Steve has the same rights as any American! That doesn't change just because he is head of a computer company.

[Fast Fred 1]

If it wasn't life-threatening, and didn't affect his long-term capacity to serve, it did not need to be disclosed. Period.


However...... Since the world is all about how things are perceived. And Steve at WWDC look like he was at death's door to me. Someone had some "splainn
to do Lucy". We all know he is a god. But he would not be if not for the stock holders.

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by mattalex

I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

oh, bruder.

With the mentality of people, I'm really sorry Jobs felt compelled to reveal anything about his health at this time.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by BIGDAWG

No company can give out personal health information without a signed release from that person. Maybe these reporters should learn about the Laws in the US.

Basic Principle. A major purpose of the Privacy Rule is to define and limit the circumstances in which an individual’s protected heath information may be used or disclosed by covered entities. A covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except either: (1) as the Privacy Rule permits or requires; or (2) as the individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes in writing.

Steve has the same rights as any American! That doesn't change just because he is head of a computer company.

It is apparently (very) slightly different if the individual's contribution in question is a major factor in the value of the stock. There are some SEC regulations regarding notification if the health affects a CEO's ability to serve, but they still get privacy protection in terms of not being allowed to give any clues or details at all about what is wrong and how it's treated without permission. Apparently it's not really enforced much, if at all, but the regulations are there. But clearly, those demanding to know anything about what's going on or even physician physicals are just out of line with regards to the law.

[Walter Slocombe]

So its quite possible "Journalists" broke the law? is that what people are saying?

I wonder what other "Journalists" will take it upon themselves to write frantically about this possible break in the law.. considering the same frantic link bate "Journalism" that went on round the time of the options enquiry..

My bet is absolutely none.

anyone agree?

[Hoss]

I remember when people used to read the New York Times. Didn't they just report an 82% drop in profit? Next week Joe Nocera will say that Jesus called him. This guy's a desperate print pimp. What a jip!

[lundy]

This guy Nocera really is a jerk.

Sure, I'm happy to hear Steve is not having a recurrence.

But this issue of the "shareholders" is bullshit. So if he IS having a recurrence, the stock is going to drop anyway when it finally is announced. Announcing it now is his own business and serves no purpose but to let the greedy bastards try and dump their shares before the other guy does. Screw that.

It wouldn't "help the shareholders." It would only roll the dice so that some of them would have a chance to screw the other ones.

I want Apple to continue, and Jobs to continue. Whether some greedy asshole makes money by shorting or selling is not something I care about.

[trevorlsciact]

Originally Posted by mattalex

I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

That's not an opinion, that is a [wrong] fact. Either a diet can sustain a person healthily or it can't. And veganism can, so you're wrong. No opinion about it.

[blackmarlin]

"I remember when people used to read the New York Times. Didn't they just report an 82% drop in profit? Next week Joe Nocera will say that Jesus called him. This guy's a desperate print pimp. What a jip!"

Does anyone ever expect the truth about anything from the New York Times? I enjoy watching the writhing death throws as they belly-up and flame out. They've left a lot of victims in their wake.

[markspain]

Originally Posted by lundy

I want Apple to continue, and Jobs to continue.

Amen, and the best way for one to boost one's health is to:

(1) get onto the ancestral diet, as described by Dr. Joseph Mercola, at:

http://www.mercola.com
http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/index.htm

(2) take three bottles of ViaViente per month

http://www.viaviente.com/
http://www.12weeks.info/

A vegan diet can be healthy, but often is not, depending on who the vegan is. When animal products are replaced with processed food, of which there is an abundance in America, all bets are off.

Some vegans take a step or two forward by getting meat, loaded with antibiotics and growth hormones, out of their diet, but then add soy-based products, sugar, and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

[Captain Jack]

I'm glad this has finally been put to rest, it was just being used as phony ammunition by wankers trying to short the stock, you know the types - they will stick a headline on Digg like Steve Job does not have CANCER, and capitalize the CANCER instead of not. What foul creatures.

FINALLY, we get on to the interesting stuff, like the new Macbooks or mystery product!

[BIGDAWG]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It is apparently (very) slightly different if the individual's contribution in question is a major factor in the value of the stock. There are some SEC regulations regarding notification if the health affects a CEO's ability to serve, but they still get privacy protection in terms of not being allowed to give any clues or details at all about what is wrong and how it's treated without permission. Apparently it's not really enforced much, if at all, but the regulations are there. But clearly, those demanding to know anything about what's going on or even physician physicals are just out of line with regards to the law.

These two regulations don't over rule one another. the SEC just states that they report if there is an ABILITY not to serve. Not if he has a medical condition. Many folks have medical conditions and work every day. So unless there was mental instability or was in a coma no inability to serve.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

As far as I know, people can be perfectly healthy as a vegan. In fact it is more unnatural for humans/mammals to consume dairy products after infancy (mother's milk), than it is to live on a vegetarian diet.

You have to be quite well educated in health and what you are eating to eat healthy as a vegan. If you lack this knowledge you are definitely not eating what your body needs. Certain things like protein require a deliberate effort to take in at proper amounts for someone with this type of diet. Our bodies are not designed to eat this way. It can definitely be done, though, and done well.

[bsenka]

Originally Posted by mattalex

I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

The human body is amazingly adaptive. Sure, veganism is far from an optimum diet, but many people who eat mostly but junk food somehow manage to live reasonably healthy lives too.

[bobajoul2]

There is a syndrome called malabsorption that can occur when the small bowel is shortened that can cause several things to happen- including profuse GI symptoms and weight loss. Personally I am relieved that Mr. Jobs is healthy and doing well. As to all the public comments, there is a federal law called HIPAA - Health Information Privacy Act, which make it a federal crime, punishable by a $10,000 for any healthcare person to divulge personal information- that was put in place because privacy is privacy. This does not relate to SEC issues, but the whole issue of privacy is a serious one that should be respected. AS long as his health is OK and his board is OK with what is going on, that should be good enough for everyone. The guy seems a bit over the top on privacy, since he loves to manipulate the press, but how or whether to announce his health issues IS his perogative.

[bobajoul2]

Finally (forgot to post earlier) there is an issue of taxes, if he had cancer, he would be selling stock for his family because capital gains are much less than estate taxes, although a clever estate lawyer can help with that. And that has to be disclosed.

[ouragan]

For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.

"You would think he’d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."

This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.

But, apparently not.

Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?

[skottichan]

Originally Posted by ouragan

This is yet another way for Steve Jobs to dismiss his responsabilities. Given that he appropriated more than $1 billion for himself in illegal, backdated stock options, and another $1 billion to reward his hand picked Vice-Presidents, one would think that Steve Jobs could feel a duty to obey the law and show some respect to the shareholders who made the dreams of a high school graduate possible.

But, apparently not.

Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?

WTF?? Are you that much of a catastrophic tool? He's been cleared of all crimes by the SEC on the backdating issues. More importantly, he doesn't have to reveal any health issues as it's protected by law, all they have to report is his ability to serve as CEO, that's it, period, end of argument.

Christ, you make my head hurt.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by ouragan

T Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?

If not telling the truth is what got your products and your stock where it is today, please Steve, do more of the same!!!!!!

In the meantime, I'll just bask in the afterglow of the (obviously phony) stock price rise since the time you retook Apple, and the (obviously phony) product introductions such as iPhone, iPod, MBP/MB, MBA, Intel processors, iLife, iWork, and OSX.

[artiefufkin]

Ughh, this thread makes my head hurt. I'm going to do this in bullet points since some of you are clearly reading impaired.

1) Apple is Steve Jobs.

2) Jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of Apple.

3) If you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether Jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, Apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.

4) It's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given Apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.

5) Of course the NY Times reporter verified he spoke to Jobs, otherwise Apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.

6) The NYT is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but Fox News, i.e. state sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the NYT, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.

7) Those of you who think Jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think OJ was innocent. 'Nuff said on that.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

FINALLY, we get on to the interesting stuff, like the new Macbooks or mystery product!

Wishful thinking. It will back to 10 iPhone threads daily which is an incurable disease in itself so it seems.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by mattalex

The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.

Yey, there's a bright contribution! Its true, all those sickly skeletal gaunt glassy eyed people walking around in a daze... they're all vegan. They are usually feverishly hungry (for MEAT!) and tend to make REALLY bad decisions, a symptom of constantly living in utter denial. Really it's true, as my five year old would say.

I wonder what a 'natural' life style would be in this day and age? Hey, Matt Alex, any thoughts?

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by ouragan

Steve Jobs is the same man who was so deluded that he truly believed that a special diet could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. Would you trust such a man to tell you the truth?

What Steve Jobs must have believed was that the surgical cure would be horrific and would have significant, lasting effects, not to mention a short-term 1-3% risk of death from the procedure. Steve Jobs did everything he could to avoid the surgery. Pretty smart and responsible, in my opinion. It doesn't require "true belief" that a dietary solution will necessarily work, just well-placed fear of the surgical approach and a desire to try an alternative therapy for an unusual form of cancer.

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by artiefufkin

ughh, this thread makes my head hurt. I'm going to do this in bullet points since some of you are clearly reading impaired.

1) apple is steve jobs.

2) jobs' health is materially relevant to the future of apple.

3) if you were a stock holder you'd want to know whether jobs, a cancer survivor, was in trouble again. He dies, apple stock would, rightly or wrongly, crater. His fate matters, and it's the house he built.

4) it's a gray area about whether such issues are required to be reported, but given apple's culture of secrecy, it's doubly-difficult to know what's going on there.

5) of course the ny times reporter verified he spoke to jobs, otherwise apple's flacks would have shit a brick and there'd be a big fat retraction in the paper. Come folks, don't be so stupid.

6) the nyt is a complicated institution, but this reflexive press bashing is scary. It's as if you want to live in a world of nothing but fox news, i.e. State sponsored propaganda, delivered unquestioned. I've got my beefs with the nyt, but thank god it and other newspapers exist.

7) those of you who think jobs was innocent of the backdating thing probably think oj was innocent. 'nuff said on that.

Yahtze!

Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.

Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges.

[mh71]

Originally Posted by bobajoul2

Finally (forgot to post earlier) there is an issue of taxes, if he had cancer, he would be selling stock for his family because capital gains are much less than estate taxes, although a clever estate lawyer can help with that. And that has to be disclosed.

I think you are off-base here. Converting stock to cash doesn't by itself get it out of his estate. Both cash and stock are just as easily manipulated by a lawyer. It is a vastly complicated subject (here in the US). Lack or presense of action is not a good indicator of anything.

A possible exception would be to sell high. This is of course insider trading and would lead to all kinds of problems for both him and estate.

[artiefufkin]

Originally Posted by Foo2

Yahtze!

Jobs couldn't do sh!t without all of the talented people at Apple. The NY Times is blogging the subject of Jobs' health, not investigating. If I was a shareholder, I could do a better job of investigating than those dweebs.

Comparing Steve Jobs to OJ Simpson is like comparing Apple to Orange. As if you know it all because you saw all of the evidence presented at Steve's trial on the options charges. Oh, wait, there was no trial and there will be no charges. idiotic.

You went back and edited your comment and this was the best you can do?

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by artiefufkin

You went back and edited your comment and this was the best you can do?

Will that be your last silly question, sir?

[iVlad]

This is horrible. This is so private and should not had exploded into this size. This is just as bad as showing Hollywood life on E! or Access Hollywood. ohhh media in this country.....