I'm glad Steve is ok and will be carrying on at Apple, I just think it is a bit sad that he had to make a statement like this in the 1st place and wasn't allowed privacy. I think it a fine line between responsibly to the company and the right to be a private individual, and in this case I think things have gone to far.
Get well soon Steve and hope you and the family had a good Christmas.
If he really wanted to stop the speculation once and for all, he should have given the exact name of the condition and what treatment he is taking. People only speculate when there's info missing.
That said, he is clearly a man who values his privacy and I wish him well.
A voice a reason- thank you.
ALso why give out such ambiguous info the day before MacWorld? That fuels speculation as well.
Apple stock holders don't know if they're coming or going most of the time. They let the stock tank when it should rising and visa versa most of the time.
Wait until tomorrow...it WILL go down. It always does after a keynote no matter what Apple releases.
Except with the original iPhone introduction where the stock quickly accelerated until gaining to an all-time high over the next week or two.
But then, we already had this discussion in another thread, now didn't we. . . .
This immature poorly worded junk, clearly implies that Steve is at death's door, that he's being removed or stepping down as CEO, and that the whole Phil doing the MacWorld thing is "a cover" for a world-wide plot.
What Steve Jobs has now said is: "I've been losing weight lately."
This is like a little kid who comes running into the kitchen to breathlessly tell you the Garage is BURNING DOWN! But when he drags you over to look, you see that all it is is someone left a candle burning somewhere which, (left unattended) could, (maybe), potentially burn down the Garage if no one did anything about it.
WOW, you are reading WAY too much into the article. "No More Steve Jobs" means he is not doing the keynotes anymore -- DUH.
Rapidly declining health -- again, DUH. Steve Jobs' health has been on the decline since January 2008. And he is still in poor health and won't be better until Spring 2009.
Again, I don't see what's up with all the Gizmodo bashing.
there are MAJOR legal ramifications of Apple hiding Jobs' medical condition and Apple could have been sued for massive amounts of money if the company hid Jobs' medical condition to prop up the share price of Apple.
As has been pointed out by CNBC's Jim Goldman... APPLE HAD NO *LEGAL* OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANYTHING ABOUT STEVE JOBS HEALTH, UNLESS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS CEO! Sorry about the caps, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the IGNORANCE of the actual laws.
What people THINK is the law and what actually IS the law are two different things.
So no, Jobs was *NOT* obligated to say ANYTHING, unless his condition interfered with his ability to serve as CEO. It has not. He has remained actively in control, so he did not have to say anything. Period. End of story.
To those raising further questions... Jobs does NOT have to disclose the exact name of his illness or his treatment. That is private! He went on record saying he is fine. If he is lying, there will be legal consequences. Jobs is not stupid.
And for the person who thinks he is a doctor: Not all "hormone imbalances" are easily identified. The tests that Jobs did were probably very expensive. You don't start with the most expensive test first, when trying to figure out what a problem is. You go for the simple (and common) stuff first. Then look for more rare things. And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
As has been pointed out by CNBC's Jim Goldman... APPLE HAD NO *LEGAL* OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANYTHING ABOUT STEVE JOBS HEALTH, UNLESS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS CEO! Sorry about the caps, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the IGNORANCE of the actual laws.
What people THINK is the law and what actually IS the law are two different things.
So no, Jobs was *NOT* obligated to say ANYTHING, unless his condition interfered with his ability to serve as CEO. It has not. He has remained actively in control, so he did not have to say anything. Period. End of story.
To those raising further questions... Jobs does NOT have to disclose the exact name of his illness or his treatment. That is private! He went on record saying he is fine. If he is lying, there will be legal consequences. Jobs is not stupid.
And for the person who thinks he is a doctor: Not all "hormone imbalances" are easily identified. The tests that Jobs did were probably very expensive. You don't start with the most expensive test first, when trying to figure out what a problem is. You go for the simple (and common) stuff first. Then look for more rare things. And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
WOW, you are reading WAY too much into the article. "No More Steve Jobs" means he is not doing the keynotes anymore -- DUH.
Rapidly declining health -- again, DUH. Steve Jobs' health has been on the decline since January 2008. And he is still in poor health and won't be better until Spring 2009.
Again, I don't see what's up with all the Gizmodo bashing.
But that's not what Gizmodo said.
They didn't say "Jobs' health is poor and won't be better until Spring 2009."
They basically said "Jobs is on his deathbed and he won't be around any more come Spring 2009."
BIG DIFFERENCE between those two things.
Oh, and "one more thing," Gizmodo has been known to go back and edit articles after the fact, ESPECIALLY if they were wrong. If the article you're reading today says "won't be better until Spring 2009," that is NOT what it said originally.
I am a doctor, yes. I am not a lawyer, but I do know what the law states in this case. (And why would Jim Goldman, a writer who works for CNBC, which deals with business issues, say what he says about the law if it is not the case). I trust Mr. Goldman more than I trust someone else on the internet whose opinion is that the law states that he has to disclose everything.
But think about it. If the law said that CEOs had to disclose everything about their health, then CEOs would have to grant public access to their medical records. Or put out press releases like, "XYZ CEO John Smith has a cold." We would literally be inundated with stuff like that. But, just because the media puts its spotlight on Apple does not mean that Apple is an exception to the law as written.
And I have been known to get a little hot under the collar on teh Internets from time to time.
No offense intended.
But, if you would prefer, I can talk to my colleague who *IS* both a doctor and a lawyer...
This immature poorly worded junk, clearly implies that Steve is at death's door, that he's being removed or stepping down as CEO, and that the whole Phil doing the MacWorld thing is "a cover" for a world-wide plot.
What Steve Jobs has now said is: "I've been losing weight lately."
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
If he really wanted to stop the speculation once and for all, he should have given the exact name of the condition and what treatment he is taking. People only speculate when there's info missing.
That said, he is clearly a man who values his privacy and I wish him well.
I respectfully disagree. Medical conditions are private matters and no individual should be under duress to make his medical condition a public matter under any circumstances.
This still sounds very strange. Hormonol imbalance is easy to detect by a simple blood test. And further- why wasn't/isn't he treated with a mild steroid (ingestible) to gain weight ? He could gain it back much faster than late spring. Also usually "bad" blood throws off the hormones- not the other way around. And finally why is this being mentioned the very day before MacWorld- he obviously won't be there. I think this only makes the situation worse for stockholders.
All in all- I wish him well.
You obviously have not seen Jobs' medical records. Maybe you read a paragraph on WebMD, but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Someone should sue you for giving medical advice without a license.
I truly and fervently hope those jerkwads went short on AAPL with their "rumor" and lost their asses Friday and this morning. Damn all such analysts and in-the-know websites to hell.
New from NBC's Jim Goldman: "This is the day the shorts lose. Time to cover, and go slinking back into the shadows. Sing it with me: Bye, bye shorts. This should be the day the Apple shorts died."
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
Apple did not give a reason for Jobs non-appearance at Macworld. They said they would not do trade shows in the future, but that was not the reason for Jobs' absence. They didn't say anything about it.
Gizmodo was totally irresponsible for printing what it did. The source in their article said clearly that Jobs would probably be dead by this spring. Obviuosly the Gizmodo source had not access to Jobs' doctors or his medical records, and Gizmodo was wrong to print it.
You obviously have not seen Jobs' medical records. Maybe you read a paragraph on WebMD, but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Someone should sue you for giving medical advice without a license.
None of us have- have you? But some of us know of similar cases. I am not giving out advice - merely questioning the information I've been told. Having said that - I would not be mentioning lawsuits as I do know people get sued all the time for lying/slander about what others say.
And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
Also I've always thought that steroids can be carcinogenic, surely not a good thing to give to someone with a previous history of cancer?
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
Ugh, so tiring.
What reason did they give for Jobs not doing the keynote in the first place? Right, they didn't give any.
In what court was it declared that Jobs' common bug was found to be a lie? Right, that never happened either because you're speaking out of...ignorance.
Comments
Wow -- so much for the "forum" concept...
I know- right? He's like the Koolaid censorship police on here- whatever!
Get well soon Steve and hope you and the family had a good Christmas.
If he really wanted to stop the speculation once and for all, he should have given the exact name of the condition and what treatment he is taking. People only speculate when there's info missing.
That said, he is clearly a man who values his privacy and I wish him well.
A voice a reason- thank you.
ALso why give out such ambiguous info the day before MacWorld? That fuels speculation as well.
Apple stock holders don't know if they're coming or going most of the time. They let the stock tank when it should rising and visa versa most of the time.
Wait until tomorrow...it WILL go down. It always does after a keynote no matter what Apple releases.
Except with the original iPhone introduction where the stock quickly accelerated until gaining to an all-time high over the next week or two.
But then, we already had this discussion in another thread, now didn't we. . . .
Nah.
This is what Gizmodo printed:
This immature poorly worded junk, clearly implies that Steve is at death's door, that he's being removed or stepping down as CEO, and that the whole Phil doing the MacWorld thing is "a cover" for a world-wide plot.
What Steve Jobs has now said is: "I've been losing weight lately."
This is like a little kid who comes running into the kitchen to breathlessly tell you the Garage is BURNING DOWN! But when he drags you over to look, you see that all it is is someone left a candle burning somewhere which, (left unattended) could, (maybe), potentially burn down the Garage if no one did anything about it.
WOW, you are reading WAY too much into the article. "No More Steve Jobs" means he is not doing the keynotes anymore -- DUH.
Rapidly declining health -- again, DUH. Steve Jobs' health has been on the decline since January 2008. And he is still in poor health and won't be better until Spring 2009.
Again, I don't see what's up with all the Gizmodo bashing.
It's great to hear that the doctors know what the problem is and Steve is on the road to recovery. I wish him all the very best.
Now let's end the speculation and as Steve says just enjoy the show on Tuesday.
there are MAJOR legal ramifications of Apple hiding Jobs' medical condition and Apple could have been sued for massive amounts of money if the company hid Jobs' medical condition to prop up the share price of Apple.
As has been pointed out by CNBC's Jim Goldman... APPLE HAD NO *LEGAL* OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANYTHING ABOUT STEVE JOBS HEALTH, UNLESS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS CEO! Sorry about the caps, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the IGNORANCE of the actual laws.
What people THINK is the law and what actually IS the law are two different things.
So no, Jobs was *NOT* obligated to say ANYTHING, unless his condition interfered with his ability to serve as CEO. It has not. He has remained actively in control, so he did not have to say anything. Period. End of story.
To those raising further questions... Jobs does NOT have to disclose the exact name of his illness or his treatment. That is private! He went on record saying he is fine. If he is lying, there will be legal consequences. Jobs is not stupid.
And for the person who thinks he is a doctor: Not all "hormone imbalances" are easily identified. The tests that Jobs did were probably very expensive. You don't start with the most expensive test first, when trying to figure out what a problem is. You go for the simple (and common) stuff first. Then look for more rare things. And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
So all of those people bashing Gizmodo are now eating crow?
That being said, GET WELL STEVE!
People bash Gizmodo for other reasons. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As has been pointed out by CNBC's Jim Goldman... APPLE HAD NO *LEGAL* OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANYTHING ABOUT STEVE JOBS HEALTH, UNLESS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS CEO! Sorry about the caps, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the IGNORANCE of the actual laws.
What people THINK is the law and what actually IS the law are two different things.
So no, Jobs was *NOT* obligated to say ANYTHING, unless his condition interfered with his ability to serve as CEO. It has not. He has remained actively in control, so he did not have to say anything. Period. End of story.
To those raising further questions... Jobs does NOT have to disclose the exact name of his illness or his treatment. That is private! He went on record saying he is fine. If he is lying, there will be legal consequences. Jobs is not stupid.
And for the person who thinks he is a doctor: Not all "hormone imbalances" are easily identified. The tests that Jobs did were probably very expensive. You don't start with the most expensive test first, when trying to figure out what a problem is. You go for the simple (and common) stuff first. Then look for more rare things. And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
So I take it - you are a doctor and a lawyer?
WOW, you are reading WAY too much into the article. "No More Steve Jobs" means he is not doing the keynotes anymore -- DUH.
Rapidly declining health -- again, DUH. Steve Jobs' health has been on the decline since January 2008. And he is still in poor health and won't be better until Spring 2009.
Again, I don't see what's up with all the Gizmodo bashing.
But that's not what Gizmodo said.
They didn't say "Jobs' health is poor and won't be better until Spring 2009."
They basically said "Jobs is on his deathbed and he won't be around any more come Spring 2009."
BIG DIFFERENCE between those two things.
Oh, and "one more thing," Gizmodo has been known to go back and edit articles after the fact, ESPECIALLY if they were wrong. If the article you're reading today says "won't be better until Spring 2009," that is NOT what it said originally.
So I take it - you are a doctor and a lawyer?
I am a doctor, yes. I am not a lawyer, but I do know what the law states in this case. (And why would Jim Goldman, a writer who works for CNBC, which deals with business issues, say what he says about the law if it is not the case). I trust Mr. Goldman more than I trust someone else on the internet whose opinion is that the law states that he has to disclose everything.
But think about it. If the law said that CEOs had to disclose everything about their health, then CEOs would have to grant public access to their medical records. Or put out press releases like, "XYZ CEO John Smith has a cold." We would literally be inundated with stuff like that. But, just because the media puts its spotlight on Apple does not mean that Apple is an exception to the law as written.
And I have been known to get a little hot under the collar on teh Internets from time to time.
No offense intended.
But, if you would prefer, I can talk to my colleague who *IS* both a doctor and a lawyer...
Nah.
This is what Gizmodo printed:
This immature poorly worded junk, clearly implies that Steve is at death's door, that he's being removed or stepping down as CEO, and that the whole Phil doing the MacWorld thing is "a cover" for a world-wide plot.
What Steve Jobs has now said is: "I've been losing weight lately."
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
If he really wanted to stop the speculation once and for all, he should have given the exact name of the condition and what treatment he is taking. People only speculate when there's info missing.
That said, he is clearly a man who values his privacy and I wish him well.
I respectfully disagree. Medical conditions are private matters and no individual should be under duress to make his medical condition a public matter under any circumstances.
This still sounds very strange. Hormonol imbalance is easy to detect by a simple blood test. And further- why wasn't/isn't he treated with a mild steroid (ingestible) to gain weight ? He could gain it back much faster than late spring. Also usually "bad" blood throws off the hormones- not the other way around. And finally why is this being mentioned the very day before MacWorld- he obviously won't be there. I think this only makes the situation worse for stockholders.
All in all- I wish him well.
You obviously have not seen Jobs' medical records. Maybe you read a paragraph on WebMD, but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Someone should sue you for giving medical advice without a license.
The most recent math:
Gizmodo = Stock Manipulators
I truly and fervently hope those jerkwads went short on AAPL with their "rumor" and lost their asses Friday and this morning. Damn all such analysts and in-the-know websites to hell.
New from NBC's Jim Goldman: "This is the day the shorts lose. Time to cover, and go slinking back into the shadows. Sing it with me: Bye, bye shorts. This should be the day the Apple shorts died."
Just read over that piece. Very well written.
Here's a link for anyone interested:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28504425
Just curious...what are shorts? Short sellers? If so, what are those?
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
Apple did not give a reason for Jobs non-appearance at Macworld. They said they would not do trade shows in the future, but that was not the reason for Jobs' absence. They didn't say anything about it.
Gizmodo was totally irresponsible for printing what it did. The source in their article said clearly that Jobs would probably be dead by this spring. Obviuosly the Gizmodo source had not access to Jobs' doctors or his medical records, and Gizmodo was wrong to print it.
You obviously have not seen Jobs' medical records. Maybe you read a paragraph on WebMD, but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Someone should sue you for giving medical advice without a license.
None of us have- have you? But some of us know of similar cases. I am not giving out advice - merely questioning the information I've been told. Having said that - I would not be mentioning lawsuits as I do know people get sued all the time for lying/slander about what others say.
And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!
Also I've always thought that steroids can be carcinogenic, surely not a good thing to give to someone with a previous history of cancer?
While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.
Ugh, so tiring.
What reason did they give for Jobs not doing the keynote in the first place? Right, they didn't give any.
In what court was it declared that Jobs' common bug was found to be a lie? Right, that never happened either because you're speaking out of...ignorance.