Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?
To answer you question, "No. No. And no."
Quote:
Apple's board has taken one step toward independence. Early last year, the board named Ms. Jung as its co-lead director alongside Mr. Levinson. Ms. Jung replaced Mr. Campbell, a longtime friend of Mr. Jobs and a former Apple executive.?
But investors and governance experts said the company has a long way to go. Most of the current directors were handpicked by Mr. Jobs and are loyal to him, said people familiar with the situation. Mr. Drexler, a veteran retail executive, admires Mr. Jobs and considers him a genius, according to an individual familiar with Mr. Drexler's thinking.
One has to wonder where the so-calledinvestors and governance experts were during the latest Wall Street debacle.
Obvious some of them would have endorsed the following Board. The certainly appeared to be 'independent'?however that is defined
Quote:
ENRON's Board of Directors
Robert Belfer (1, 3) New York. Chairman, Belco Oil & Gas Corporation.
Norman Blake (3, 4) Colorado Springs, Colorado. Chairman, president and CEO, Comdisco. Former CEO and secretary general, US Olympic committee.
Ronnie Chan (2, 3) Hong Kong. Chairman, Hang Lung group.
John Duncan (1*, 4) Houston, Texas. Former chairman, executive committee of Gulf & Western Industries.
Wendy Gramm (2, 5) Washington. Director, regulatory studies programme of the Mercatus centre at George Mason University. Former chairwoman, US commodity futures trading commission.
Ken Harrison Portland, Oregon. Former chairman and CEO, Portland General Electric.
Robert Jaedicke (2*, 4) Stanford, California. Professor of accounting emeritus and former dean, graduate school of business, Stanford University.
Paulo Ferraz Pereira (2, 3) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Executive vice president, Group Bozano. Former president and chief operating officer, Meridional Financial. Former president and CEO, State Bank of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Frank Savage (3, 4) Stamford, Connecticut. Chairman, Alliance Capital Management Inte[B]rnational (a division of Alliance Capital Management).
Jeffrey Skilling (1) Houston, Texas. President and CEO, Enron. Resigned August 2001.
John Urquhart (3) Fairfield, Connecticut. Senior adviser to the chairman, Enron. President, John Urquhart Associates. Former senior vice president, Industrial and Power Systems, General Electric.
John Wakeham (2, 5*) London, England. Former UK secretary of state for energy and member of the House of Lords.
Herbert Winokur (1, 3*) Greenwich, Connecticut. President, Winokur Holdings. Former senior executive vice president, Penn Central Corporation.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
AppleInsider should say that the WSJ ALLEGES Mr. York said these things. Unless the WSJ publishes audio recordings to substantiate this, they have no credibility, in my opinion.
Well, the WSJ lost all credibility about five minutes after Rupert Murdoch purchased them IMHO.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
Good question. The only correct answer is: It is not clear under current law. The SEC offers no guidance either, and experts go both ways.
True, but the laws do require that public companies provide stockholders with information that may be material to the value of their investments. Other companies have handled serious illness of top executives in a much more transparent fashion than Apple did. You find the view expressed that Apple should have done more stated far more often among people who are familiar with the spirit of the law, than you see the view that they had no disclosure obligations whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Legally, his health records are private (read up on HIPAA). He had no obligation to release his health issues.
There is a weak argument that if the information is material that it should be disclosed but that's purely a judgment call - and since Apple did just fine under Cook, it would not be easy to make the case that Jobs' absence was material, anyway.
For some reason someone always brings HIPAA into these discussions. Why is a mystery to me, since nobody has ever seriously suggested that medical records must be disclosed.
A judgement call it may be, but not a weak argument. As we know now, Steve Jobs nearly died, but nobody knew that until much later. Publicly, Apple was always minimizing his medical condition, which today looks to have been possible prevarication. The weak argument is that his death would not have had a material impact on shareholders. We all know full well that it would. This is what Jerry York is trying to tell us, from beyond the grave so to speak.
Last I heard, the SEC was investigating Apple's handling of the Steve Jobs medical condition disclosures.
York is dead? Good riddance. We don't need people of his ilk on the board of directors. He was a traitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleRulez
If he disagrees with Steve's vision, he had no place on the BOD.
You guys need to make some use of the various 'smile' icons... Without them people might think you actually THOUGHT that way!?!?!
A BoD filled with nothing but yes men gets you a rubber stamp on anything and everything your little heart desires but it also lets you make some REALLY BAD decisions that could cause the downfall of the company.. With NOBODY on the BoD having the testicular fortitude (thats BALLS to the uninitiated) for the men and/or intestinal fortitude (thats GUTS for the uninitiated) for the women directors, who's gonna stand up and scream 'THIS IS WRONG' at a potential illegal and/or potential violation of the SEC or other government (local, state, national or international) law.
I'm NOT saying you want people that will disagree with you on EVERY concept, idea and vision however, having a diverse BoD who might hold differing opinions certainly makes for a more USEFUL body, since the simple act of 'defending/presenting' ones idea to a 'devils advocate' who isn't surgically altered to only smile and nod in the affirmative when looked at, is a great way to spot possibly issues that weren't previously known or considered. Now where/when would you rather have the previously unconsidered 'issues' become known? At a BoD product discussion OR as the units are already rolling off the assembly line?
Also remember that the BoD are usually built with people with vastly different business sectors. Look at Apple, they have now or had in the past, BoDs with extensive knowledge of the retail store sector (for obvious reasons), genetics/medical (again a no brainer), multilevel marketting (Avon), hardware & software (of course), internet sector (now vacant), communications, government officials - aka: the inventor of the Internet - oh and seem to remember him a frequent visitor to the White House in a previous life...
Oh yea... I forgot one... hmmm he was a 'soda jerk' in his previous life right?!?!
Anyway... this 'we need everyone to agree without thinking' is not a good environment to wish on Apple... Steve gets away with too much crap as it is.. he doesn't need ANY MORE yes men enabling or condoning bad and/or questionable behavior.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?
It was the opinion of Jobs (and, presumably, the Board - since no one resigned from the board over the issue) that the risk was minimal, so there was no reason for disclosure. In retrospect, the fact that Apple did just fine under Cook confirms that they were correct.
Furthermore, there's no consensus that Jobs would have been required to disclose the information even if he HADN'T believe that Cook could do the job.
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.
Throughout this episode, Apple was minimizing Steve's health issues. Later, it turns out, he was in fact very close to death. This kind of thing gets the SEC's attention.
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
Precisely. The public statements made by Apple and Steve also come into question, given what we learned later about the seriousness of his condition.
Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.
Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.
As a shareholder myself, I am glad they didn't issue a press release on the matter, as it would have destroyed the stock. The risk-reward balance was not there.
Yeah, the idea that it would have been good for the shareholders doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Steve was actually doing his best to look out for the shareholders, and if anyone was hurt by his lack of disclosure, it was the people who bought shares after Steve knew but before the news came out. I suspect Steve was hoping it wasn't as serious as it turned out to be, and he didn't want to make people (and the market) panic unnecessarily. Whether the shareholders find out now or a week later doesn't make much difference, unless they can sell before everybody else finds out, which would basically be insider trading.
You could argue that he should have disclosed the information to protect potential buyers of the stock, but in that case there's also lots of other relevant info that they could disclose in real time, like sales figures, that they only announce periodically.
The only argument I can think of that holds some water is that he's setting a precedent, and in the future there will be less general certainty about his well-being on a minute-to-minute basis, because he won't be trusted. Still, what matters to the company, and in the end to the shareholders as well, is that he is there doing what he does best, and no amount of disclosure is really going to change that.
Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.
So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?
Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.
So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?
Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.
I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
How do you know that? Were you there?
All we know is that the Board was notified.
No one on the board resigned. No one on the board raised any kind of public fuss (they could not have legally released Jobs' health, but they could have said they had concerns about his ability to continue in his role). Yet, as board members, they have a legal obligation to do so.
The fact that no one spoke up and no one said anything suggests that the board was in complete agreement with Jobs. Unless you have information proving something different, you're just blowing smoke.
While people argue that Jobs is uniquely responsible for Apple's success, that's bull. A very large part of Apple's success is the powerful, talented management team that Jobs has put into place. The fact that Apple did so well while Cook was in charge is evidence of that.
Was Steve's vision important? Absolutely. But there's no reason to believe that there aren't others there today who share that vision - and could continue it if Jobs died tomorrow.
Agreed, what has been Apple's problem in the past, is that they picked the wrong person to lead the company (Michael Spindler, Gil Amelio). Alot has been fixed at Apple since those days, and Jobs has picked the right people to be is right hand men.
How exactly would you know dying from a brain aneurysm that you had failing health?
Well the chances of dying suddenly are much greater at age 71 than someone who is 55. So no one should be surprised by York's death. If dying is detrimental to a companies existence maybe we should impose forced retirement.
Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?
no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:m ad:
Comments
Not knowing much about these types of business situations, was Jobs under any moral, ethical or legal obligation to disclose his personal health issues?
To answer you question, "No. No. And no." One has to wonder where the so-calledinvestors and governance experts were during the latest Wall Street debacle.
Obvious some of them would have endorsed the following Board. The certainly appeared to be 'independent'?however that is defined
thanks
AppleInsider should say that the WSJ ALLEGES Mr. York said these things. Unless the WSJ publishes audio recordings to substantiate this, they have no credibility, in my opinion.
Well, the WSJ lost all credibility about five minutes after Rupert Murdoch purchased them IMHO.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
OR...
You could simply put them on your "Ignore" list.
Done, and done.
Good question. The only correct answer is: It is not clear under current law. The SEC offers no guidance either, and experts go both ways.
True, but the laws do require that public companies provide stockholders with information that may be material to the value of their investments. Other companies have handled serious illness of top executives in a much more transparent fashion than Apple did. You find the view expressed that Apple should have done more stated far more often among people who are familiar with the spirit of the law, than you see the view that they had no disclosure obligations whatsoever.
Legally, his health records are private (read up on HIPAA). He had no obligation to release his health issues.
There is a weak argument that if the information is material that it should be disclosed but that's purely a judgment call - and since Apple did just fine under Cook, it would not be easy to make the case that Jobs' absence was material, anyway.
For some reason someone always brings HIPAA into these discussions. Why is a mystery to me, since nobody has ever seriously suggested that medical records must be disclosed.
A judgement call it may be, but not a weak argument. As we know now, Steve Jobs nearly died, but nobody knew that until much later. Publicly, Apple was always minimizing his medical condition, which today looks to have been possible prevarication. The weak argument is that his death would not have had a material impact on shareholders. We all know full well that it would. This is what Jerry York is trying to tell us, from beyond the grave so to speak.
Last I heard, the SEC was investigating Apple's handling of the Steve Jobs medical condition disclosures.
York is dead? Good riddance. We don't need people of his ilk on the board of directors. He was a traitor.
If he disagrees with Steve's vision, he had no place on the BOD.
You guys need to make some use of the various 'smile' icons... Without them people might think you actually THOUGHT that way!?!?!
A BoD filled with nothing but yes men gets you a rubber stamp on anything and everything your little heart desires but it also lets you make some REALLY BAD decisions that could cause the downfall of the company.. With NOBODY on the BoD having the testicular fortitude (thats BALLS to the uninitiated) for the men and/or intestinal fortitude (thats GUTS for the uninitiated) for the women directors, who's gonna stand up and scream 'THIS IS WRONG' at a potential illegal and/or potential violation of the SEC or other government (local, state, national or international) law.
I'm NOT saying you want people that will disagree with you on EVERY concept, idea and vision however, having a diverse BoD who might hold differing opinions certainly makes for a more USEFUL body, since the simple act of 'defending/presenting' ones idea to a 'devils advocate' who isn't surgically altered to only smile and nod in the affirmative when looked at, is a great way to spot possibly issues that weren't previously known or considered. Now where/when would you rather have the previously unconsidered 'issues' become known? At a BoD product discussion OR as the units are already rolling off the assembly line?
Also remember that the BoD are usually built with people with vastly different business sectors. Look at Apple, they have now or had in the past, BoDs with extensive knowledge of the retail store sector (for obvious reasons), genetics/medical (again a no brainer), multilevel marketting (Avon), hardware & software (of course), internet sector (now vacant), communications, government officials - aka: the inventor of the Internet - oh and seem to remember him a frequent visitor to the White House in a previous life...
Oh yea... I forgot one... hmmm he was a 'soda jerk' in his previous life right?!?!
Anyway... this 'we need everyone to agree without thinking' is not a good environment to wish on Apple... Steve gets away with too much crap as it is.. he doesn't need ANY MORE yes men enabling or condoning bad and/or questionable behavior.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Can you have some of the posters change their signature lines--it is a bit distracting and is really getting out of hand--kind of like pop ups when you are on the Internet. What next BOLD, FLASHING FLORESCENT RED 120 FONT---opps see that 7's the limit?
thanks
Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?
It was the opinion of Jobs (and, presumably, the Board - since no one resigned from the board over the issue) that the risk was minimal, so there was no reason for disclosure. In retrospect, the fact that Apple did just fine under Cook confirms that they were correct.
Furthermore, there's no consensus that Jobs would have been required to disclose the information even if he HADN'T believe that Cook could do the job.
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.
Throughout this episode, Apple was minimizing Steve's health issues. Later, it turns out, he was in fact very close to death. This kind of thing gets the SEC's attention.
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
Precisely. The public statements made by Apple and Steve also come into question, given what we learned later about the seriousness of his condition.
Not so, and someone far more familiar with these matters (Jerry York) is telling you that it isn't so.
Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.
As a shareholder myself, I am glad they didn't issue a press release on the matter, as it would have destroyed the stock. The risk-reward balance was not there.
Yeah, the idea that it would have been good for the shareholders doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think Steve was actually doing his best to look out for the shareholders, and if anyone was hurt by his lack of disclosure, it was the people who bought shares after Steve knew but before the news came out. I suspect Steve was hoping it wasn't as serious as it turned out to be, and he didn't want to make people (and the market) panic unnecessarily. Whether the shareholders find out now or a week later doesn't make much difference, unless they can sell before everybody else finds out, which would basically be insider trading.
You could argue that he should have disclosed the information to protect potential buyers of the stock, but in that case there's also lots of other relevant info that they could disclose in real time, like sales figures, that they only announce periodically.
The only argument I can think of that holds some water is that he's setting a precedent, and in the future there will be less general certainty about his well-being on a minute-to-minute basis, because he won't be trusted. Still, what matters to the company, and in the end to the shareholders as well, is that he is there doing what he does best, and no amount of disclosure is really going to change that.
Not quite - we have the WSJ TELLING US that Jerry York was concerned. Yet Jerry York never resigned over the issue, nor did he publish his own health history, so it's not clear that he agreed with you.
So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?
Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.
OR...
You could simply put them on your "Ignore" list.
Done, and done.
Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?
Would like to but I only place trolls on mine. There should be some limit what you can put on a signature line--what next a full page ad?
Get out track #9 on the Rolling Stones "Let It Bleed" album.
I believe it contains the answer you seek.
So you assume that the Wall Street Journal is making this up? If not, then what?
Jerry York's "health history" is of course completely irrelevant.
I'm not saying WSJ made it up. I'm saying they COULD HAVE. Or they're taking his comments out of context. And they're being hypocritical because they never published their CEO's medical records on the front page of the WSJ. Why is York's health irrelevant? York was CEO of a company and didn't publicize his medical record. Furthermore, he was a board member for Apple - an important position that, if he's doing his job correctly, affects the future of the company. He may have had danger signals that could have presaged a stroke. What gives him the right to demand that Steve publish HIS?
You are probably correct in stating that there was no consensus.
However, the final result (Cook doing a good job) does not reveal the actual risk. It could have been a 30-1 longshot and Cook succeeded. Or Tim could have been a 3-2 favorite.
Again, if Steve caught a cold, we wouldn't be discussing it. It's the perceived risk of a liver transplant and the chances of complications of that procedure. Remember that the SEC requires that the company divulge material risks to its operations.
Many folks think that cancer in the CEO's pancreas is serious. How would you like it if your mom had pancreatic cancer and had to get a new liver? Would you like it if people said, "Not a big deal", dismissed the whole thing and returned to talking about the NCAA Sweet Sixteen matchups?
York got outvoted by the rest of a largely Jobs-controlled board.
How do you know that? Were you there?
All we know is that the Board was notified.
No one on the board resigned. No one on the board raised any kind of public fuss (they could not have legally released Jobs' health, but they could have said they had concerns about his ability to continue in his role). Yet, as board members, they have a legal obligation to do so.
The fact that no one spoke up and no one said anything suggests that the board was in complete agreement with Jobs. Unless you have information proving something different, you're just blowing smoke.
While people argue that Jobs is uniquely responsible for Apple's success, that's bull. A very large part of Apple's success is the powerful, talented management team that Jobs has put into place. The fact that Apple did so well while Cook was in charge is evidence of that.
Was Steve's vision important? Absolutely. But there's no reason to believe that there aren't others there today who share that vision - and could continue it if Jobs died tomorrow.
Agreed, what has been Apple's problem in the past, is that they picked the wrong person to lead the company (Michael Spindler, Gil Amelio). Alot has been fixed at Apple since those days, and Jobs has picked the right people to be is right hand men.
How exactly would you know dying from a brain aneurysm that you had failing health?
Well the chances of dying suddenly are much greater at age 71 than someone who is 55. So no one should be surprised by York's death. If dying is detrimental to a companies existence maybe we should impose forced retirement.
Why? We don't even have avatars. Not even graphical sigs. Does the internet in general hurt your eyes or something?
no, but annoying signature lines that make it harder to read post is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!