Originally Posted by myapplelove
You are wrong, privacy is a right he's earned.
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Privacy does not have to be earned. It's pretty much a birth rite. It's sad that our mass media can't seem to understand such a simple concept.
Originally Posted by sip
Having been diagnosed with ESLD (end-stage liver disease) about five months ago, I have had to learn a hell of a lot more about the liver than I really wanted to. ...
This disease literally turns your life upside down -- day becomes night and night becomes day. ... liver disease can come back even if you've had a transplant.
This is the kind of disease that any decent human being wouldn't ever wish upon their worst enemy, so I just hope that whatever SJ's problem might be, that this discussion doesn't end up in the gutter with snide comments about the man himself or the impending demise of Apple Inc
Agreed about the "snide comments about the man himself"... ...and feel for your own living hell... ...nonetheless....
...if Apple were a privately held company, the owners would have every right to be as private about the matter as they wished, but it is not and only the two posters below seem to have any
idea how the real world of public corporations works and why...
Originally Posted by dukemeiser
Not sure how you can run a company with the second largest market cap and expect your life to be "private".
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Pretty much agreed with you until the last paragraph. The reasons you don't hear about the health of those other CEOs is because they don't have cancer and haven't needed organ transplants. If any health issues threatened to take them away from the company, then you might very well hear about them. The question of whether the health of a CEO is material information to investors is a matter of discussion, not ridiculous on the face of it, not by a long shot.
During Steve's last leave of absence, people familiar with corporate governance rules and SEC regulations came down on the side of more complete disclosure than the extremely sketchy information which Apple deemed appropriate. I think they're going to have similar problems with this announcement, which is awfully vague on the details.
Maybe an analogy will help some of you get that this is more than a matter effecting only the man and his family: If the style, involvement and vision of the men at the top didn't matter, NFL, NBA and MBL coaches would never get fired - and while no coach can make a silk purse out of the wrong team or org, an ineffective coach can quickly bring a talented group down to mediocrity - or help it rise to the heights by the players buying into the vision and being willing to run through walls for the team.
And the value of publicly held stocks wouldn't vacillate so much around board room news, whether leaves of absence, hirings or firings of CEO's and Presidents. Because leadership does matter.
For example, if the White House were to announce that President Obama had taken a leave of absence from his job for undisclosed health reasons and that Joe Biden was in charge of the country for the interim, would you still all say it was a private matter between he and his family, and that's all we need to be told? Public lives have public as well as private responsibilities.
The CEO of Apple's ability to function and likelihood to return to work is a matter directly effecting the lives and welfare literally tens of millions of people and thousands of other companies to one degree or another, and Apple, if not SJ personally, faces tremendous pressure to disclose what they know about the seriousness of the health concern and some kind of best projected timeline for when or if it might be resolved to all of these stakeholders, even if not every gory detail.
That said, like virtually everyone else here, this is sad news and he is wished all the best.