Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
I disagree. While one can argue that jobs "works" for the shareholders, that certainly doesn't mean that every aspect of his life is subject to their consent. Look, we get carried away in this country with matters concerning work. We think that somehow our career and certainly our fiduciary duties are above and beyond all other matters in life. To make matters worse, we tend to want to hold everyone else accountable for our fortunes and mistfortunes. If I lose money in the market, well then I'm looking for someone to hold accountable... someone to blame.
Personally I'm glad to hear the SJ has done what he needs to do for his personal health for years to come. He's made an incredible contribution to our science, convenience and culture. I hope he lives a long prosperous life. And if he needs to assert his privacy from time to time, even at the ire of the shareholders - of which you can count me - I'm fine with that. He has far greater obligation to himself and his family than he does to you or me.
To WB and others that feel the need to gripe about SJ's course of action, I say get over yourself and try to remember that you alone are responsible for your investment choices, fortunes and misfortunes.
I think he means by "owe" that if it weren't for Jobs, Apple might not be here today, or at least, there wouldn't be the products from them today that we're buying.
You don't have to dismiss Jobs that strongly either. It's a strange comment.
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
That's true - if Jobs was CEO of the time. I recall something about him stepping down and Tim Cook taking over in the interm. Neat how that worked huh? Go arrest him officer BOB!
That's true - if Jobs was CEO of the time. I recall something about him stepping down and Tim Cook taking over in the interm. Neat how that worked huh? Go arrest him officer BOB!
No, he hadn't stepped down. Cook was doing the daily work, but Jobs was, and is still the CEO. Jobs also took part in the major decisions of the company during that time.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
You haven't actually disagreed with what I said, as I've been saying here all along, that's its not clear as to how much information the board needed to release. I'm just saying that from a publicity standpoint, they could have handled this better.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. All I'm trying to convey is that as long as Apple board knows that Steve Jobs is planning on returning to Apple as CEO at the end of his medical leave, that's all they need to tell the shareholders. It is not the board's job to speculate to the shareholders that there's a 50/50, 80/20, or 20/80 chance that Steve may not return due to his medical condition. They only need to assure the shareholders that Apple, like all big copmpanies, has a succession plan in place and always has. They have already informed the shareholders that Steve will be taking a 6 month medical leave. Cook will be the CEO while he's gone. But Steve will still have some input on important matters. There is no need to guess on the chances as to whether Steve will be able to return in six months. As far they're concern, Steve will be back as CEO in 6 months. Until advised differently by Steve or his doctors.
The legal issue should only come in play if Steve does not return at all at the end of 6 months and the shareholders were not informed of this until the end of the 6 months. Then the shareholders can rightfully demand when did the board know this. The board would be in legal trouble if they knew that Steve was thinking of never ever planning on returning after his 6 month leave. Or if they were informed of this after his surgery two months ago. There would only be no legal recourse if they informed the shareholders as soon as they knew that Steve has decided not to return as CEO.
If some shareholders wants to speculate on the odds of Steve Jobs returning as CEO (after 6 months of medical leave) so they can invest in AAPL accordingly, then they're free to do so. But Apple board should not have to speculate and supply them with odds. The board take on it should be that Steve will return to his position after 6 months, unless they're informed otherwise. In which case, the shareholders should also be immediately informed.
Can you imagine the movement of AAPL stocks if the board had to inform the shareholders that Steve needs a liver transplant? It would be like option expiration. Everyday the Steve don't fine a matching donor, AAPL loses value and drops. It'll spike up every time there's rumor of a possible match or he moves up the donor list. Spikes down on the day of surgery. And up again after he out of surgery. Then then slowly drops again each day we don''t hear about the outcome of the surgery. Then up again when we hear good news.
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
To say that he was ill enough to need some medium length treatment and recovery is something else.
Perhaps. And I would have been one of them saying the cancer probably hadn't come back, too. The odds seemed more toward him having some post-op "plumbing" issues than tumor recurrence, though either was possible.
There aren't a whole lot of curative non-surgical treatments that warrant a patient's disappearance from the public eye for so long, however. But nearly all major surgeries would seem to fit that category (in Jobs' case, at least). People scrutinize him so very heavily, that if it were seen in public and looked worse than before, the sky would fall. And he'd necessarily go through a period post-op where he did look worse.
And consider when he announced he was taking a leave. It sounded just like he'd gotten his pre-op briefing with selective hearing. A lot of abdominal surgeries, they'll give you restrictions that last a couple of weeks for doing X effort, and a couple of months of doing X/4 effort, etc. When he said "A couple of weeks" and it got turned into "6 months", that sounded like his doctor calling him back and saying "With all due respect, I don't think you really heard what I was saying. Let's do that again..."
Moreover, the only non-surgical treatments I could think of that might be so large scale as to warrant 6 month leave would have implied tumor recurrence (a 6 month treatment is one thing; a 6 month leave of absence is something else). And in that case, as well, surgery should have been an option. With the exception that surgery would NOT have been an option in widely metastatic cancer. But that latter case is the only one that seems to be wholly incompatible with what has been said by Jobs & Apple.
That was how I read the tea leaves at any rate. I certainly have no claims to prescience. I figured the leave would start, and the surgery would follow immediately thereafter, with 6 months to recover. Obviously you can't plan the timing for a transplant. But I had not expected he'd take off from work 4 months before surgery. I'll be very interested one day to look back on what all actually happened. I just hope I'll be reading with a sense of relief, and not of tragedy. (Remember that there's lots of reasons to need a liver transplant having nothing to do with tumor recurrence. Maybe he had hepatitis C or something. It happens)
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
...
I'm finding it to be so interesting that the forums have moved from being skeptical about him being severely ill, and even angry with people who suggested it, to being so confident that they expected it because they're now angry about the idea that people think that Apple should have let us know what so many earlier denied, but are now so happy to accept.
Very strange!
Small sampling of Posts from Jan/Feb:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
The man is on his death bed, so forgive him if he doesn't have time to chat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac
What happened to all the "we'' see him in June" people?
I think the select few of us, while wishing Jobs well, knew that he was indeed, sick or not feeling well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
Am I the only one to equate a liver transplant with a desperate situation? Am I the only one to believe that Steve Jobs could be dead within 2 years? If the situation is so serious, why doesn't Apple, Steve Jobs and Disney stop the pretense?
Most posts were simply wishing him well with the majority of the remainder debating Apple after Steve. I find no evidence that folks thought that he was doing fine and the only time folks were angry about suggestions that he was dying was when there were a couple anti-Apple folks here gleefully hoping he was dying. Like merdhead and a couple single post trolls.
Frankly there was speculation since Apple cancelled MacWorld that he wasn't doing all that well.
Most posts were simply wishing him well with the majority of the remainder debating Apple after Steve. I find no evidence that folks thought that he was doing fine and the only time folks were angry about suggestions that he was dying was when there were a couple anti-Apple folks here gleefully hoping he was dying. Like merdhead and a couple single post trolls.
Frankly there was speculation since Apple cancelled MacWorld that he wasn't doing all that well.
Those are after all, samples that you selected. That doesn't indicate that it's more than a small minority. I never said that no one thought that.
Buffet needs to get his priorities straight. Business is not what should govern how we live our private lives. While shareholders may have behaved differently with better knowledge of Steve's health, I would prefer to live in a world where people don't expect that kind of subservience to their jobs.
I would hate to live in a society where it was illegal to run a company without also divulging personal medical information. The government shouldn't be dictating that we have to tell other people about our personal lives. Remember, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. We shouldn't be shoving guns in people's faces in order to find out if they've sought medical treatment.
Buffet needs to get his priorities straight. Business is not what should govern how we live our private lives. While shareholders may have behaved differently with better knowledge of Steve's health, I would prefer to live in a world where people don't expect that kind of subservience to their jobs.
I would hate to live in a society where it was illegal to run a company without also divulging personal medical information. The government shouldn't be dictating that we have to tell other people about our personal lives. Remember, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. We shouldn't be shoving guns in people's faces in order to find out if they've sought medical treatment.
Exactly.
Which is why I found his comments to be highly suspicious. Ever see any of the "interviews" his team did after his clients took a bath in the market? It was run, duck and cover at it's best.
Yet this clown demands that Jobs provide full disclosure? Give me a break!
Yeah, anyone who gives $30 billion dollars to Charity to help Starving Children and Aids Foundation is just a mean bastard. SARCASM
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
Those of us in Los Angeles, however, have long been used to "almost unusable" 3G. It's been this way since the first iPhone 3G came out. It's inexcusable, but AT&T doesn't care much. Here's hoping Apple finds a way to break free of 'em.
Those of us in Los Angeles, however, have long been used to "almost unusable" 3G. It's been this way since the first iPhone 3G came out. It's inexcusable, but AT&T doesn't care much. Here's hoping Apple finds a way to break free of 'em.
I've been in LA county for the past month and have had no widespread issues. I am currently getting 1449Kbps down and 212Kbps up with a 128ms latency. I did notice a slow down Thursday evening but I read yesterday that AT&T was funneling 65K SMS messages a second and I was on Hollywood Blvd. getting annoyed at all the people who ame out just to see Michael Jackson's star. Which they couldn't do since it's in front of Mann's theater where the Brüno premiere wad going on so people were crowded around the other star titled Michael Jackson knowing full well that it wasn't the King of Pop's star.
Comments
Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
I disagree. While one can argue that jobs "works" for the shareholders, that certainly doesn't mean that every aspect of his life is subject to their consent. Look, we get carried away in this country with matters concerning work. We think that somehow our career and certainly our fiduciary duties are above and beyond all other matters in life. To make matters worse, we tend to want to hold everyone else accountable for our fortunes and mistfortunes. If I lose money in the market, well then I'm looking for someone to hold accountable... someone to blame.
Personally I'm glad to hear the SJ has done what he needs to do for his personal health for years to come. He's made an incredible contribution to our science, convenience and culture. I hope he lives a long prosperous life. And if he needs to assert his privacy from time to time, even at the ire of the shareholders - of which you can count me - I'm fine with that. He has far greater obligation to himself and his family than he does to you or me.
To WB and others that feel the need to gripe about SJ's course of action, I say get over yourself and try to remember that you alone are responsible for your investment choices, fortunes and misfortunes.
the Edge network. I'll turn my airplane mode temporarily to try to lock back into 3G but now I'm
getting more "No Service" instead of 3G. What's worse is that I'm in Milwaukee so I will probably
have to wait months for AT&T to upgrade the towers. They friggin' should have done these
upgrades months ago. It's not like they didn't know that Apple was releasing a new iPhone or that
the previous gen iPhones were saturating their bandwidth.
I think he means by "owe" that if it weren't for Jobs, Apple might not be here today, or at least, there wouldn't be the products from them today that we're buying.
You don't have to dismiss Jobs that strongly either. It's a strange comment.
Strange days indeed.
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
That's true - if Jobs was CEO of the time. I recall something about him stepping down and Tim Cook taking over in the interm. Neat how that worked huh? Go arrest him officer BOB!
That's true - if Jobs was CEO of the time. I recall something about him stepping down and Tim Cook taking over in the interm. Neat how that worked huh? Go arrest him officer BOB!
No, he hadn't stepped down. Cook was doing the daily work, but Jobs was, and is still the CEO. Jobs also took part in the major decisions of the company during that time.
What are you taking about?
never mind
i was responding to some one else .
sorry
9
Four stars is 'swearing'?
As for the debate, easy.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
AGREED
great post
9
AGREED
great post
9
Hey!
never mind
i was responding to some one else .
sorry
9
Oh right. That explains it.
You haven't actually disagreed with what I said, as I've been saying here all along, that's its not clear as to how much information the board needed to release. I'm just saying that from a publicity standpoint, they could have handled this better.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. All I'm trying to convey is that as long as Apple board knows that Steve Jobs is planning on returning to Apple as CEO at the end of his medical leave, that's all they need to tell the shareholders. It is not the board's job to speculate to the shareholders that there's a 50/50, 80/20, or 20/80 chance that Steve may not return due to his medical condition. They only need to assure the shareholders that Apple, like all big copmpanies, has a succession plan in place and always has. They have already informed the shareholders that Steve will be taking a 6 month medical leave. Cook will be the CEO while he's gone. But Steve will still have some input on important matters. There is no need to guess on the chances as to whether Steve will be able to return in six months. As far they're concern, Steve will be back as CEO in 6 months. Until advised differently by Steve or his doctors.
The legal issue should only come in play if Steve does not return at all at the end of 6 months and the shareholders were not informed of this until the end of the 6 months. Then the shareholders can rightfully demand when did the board know this. The board would be in legal trouble if they knew that Steve was thinking of never ever planning on returning after his 6 month leave. Or if they were informed of this after his surgery two months ago. There would only be no legal recourse if they informed the shareholders as soon as they knew that Steve has decided not to return as CEO.
If some shareholders wants to speculate on the odds of Steve Jobs returning as CEO (after 6 months of medical leave) so they can invest in AAPL accordingly, then they're free to do so. But Apple board should not have to speculate and supply them with odds. The board take on it should be that Steve will return to his position after 6 months, unless they're informed otherwise. In which case, the shareholders should also be immediately informed.
Can you imagine the movement of AAPL stocks if the board had to inform the shareholders that Steve needs a liver transplant? It would be like option expiration. Everyday the Steve don't fine a matching donor, AAPL loses value and drops. It'll spike up every time there's rumor of a possible match or he moves up the donor list. Spikes down on the day of surgery. And up again after he out of surgery. Then then slowly drops again each day we don''t hear about the outcome of the surgery. Then up again when we hear good news.
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
To say that he was ill enough to need some medium length treatment and recovery is something else.
Perhaps. And I would have been one of them saying the cancer probably hadn't come back, too. The odds seemed more toward him having some post-op "plumbing" issues than tumor recurrence, though either was possible.
There aren't a whole lot of curative non-surgical treatments that warrant a patient's disappearance from the public eye for so long, however. But nearly all major surgeries would seem to fit that category (in Jobs' case, at least). People scrutinize him so very heavily, that if it were seen in public and looked worse than before, the sky would fall. And he'd necessarily go through a period post-op where he did look worse.
And consider when he announced he was taking a leave. It sounded just like he'd gotten his pre-op briefing with selective hearing. A lot of abdominal surgeries, they'll give you restrictions that last a couple of weeks for doing X effort, and a couple of months of doing X/4 effort, etc. When he said "A couple of weeks" and it got turned into "6 months", that sounded like his doctor calling him back and saying "With all due respect, I don't think you really heard what I was saying. Let's do that again..."
Moreover, the only non-surgical treatments I could think of that might be so large scale as to warrant 6 month leave would have implied tumor recurrence (a 6 month treatment is one thing; a 6 month leave of absence is something else). And in that case, as well, surgery should have been an option. With the exception that surgery would NOT have been an option in widely metastatic cancer. But that latter case is the only one that seems to be wholly incompatible with what has been said by Jobs & Apple.
That was how I read the tea leaves at any rate. I certainly have no claims to prescience. I figured the leave would start, and the surgery would follow immediately thereafter, with 6 months to recover. Obviously you can't plan the timing for a transplant. But I had not expected he'd take off from work 4 months before surgery. I'll be very interested one day to look back on what all actually happened. I just hope I'll be reading with a sense of relief, and not of tragedy. (Remember that there's lots of reasons to need a liver transplant having nothing to do with tumor recurrence. Maybe he had hepatitis C or something. It happens)
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
...
I'm finding it to be so interesting that the forums have moved from being skeptical about him being severely ill, and even angry with people who suggested it, to being so confident that they expected it because they're now angry about the idea that people think that Apple should have let us know what so many earlier denied, but are now so happy to accept.
Very strange!
Small sampling of Posts from Jan/Feb:
The man is on his death bed, so forgive him if he doesn't have time to chat.
What happened to all the "we'' see him in June" people?
I think the select few of us, while wishing Jobs well, knew that he was indeed, sick or not feeling well.
Am I the only one to equate a liver transplant with a desperate situation? Am I the only one to believe that Steve Jobs could be dead within 2 years? If the situation is so serious, why doesn't Apple, Steve Jobs and Disney stop the pretense?
Most posts were simply wishing him well with the majority of the remainder debating Apple after Steve. I find no evidence that folks thought that he was doing fine and the only time folks were angry about suggestions that he was dying was when there were a couple anti-Apple folks here gleefully hoping he was dying. Like merdhead and a couple single post trolls.
Frankly there was speculation since Apple cancelled MacWorld that he wasn't doing all that well.
Small sampling of Posts from Jan/Feb:
Most posts were simply wishing him well with the majority of the remainder debating Apple after Steve. I find no evidence that folks thought that he was doing fine and the only time folks were angry about suggestions that he was dying was when there were a couple anti-Apple folks here gleefully hoping he was dying. Like merdhead and a couple single post trolls.
Frankly there was speculation since Apple cancelled MacWorld that he wasn't doing all that well.
Those are after all, samples that you selected. That doesn't indicate that it's more than a small minority. I never said that no one thought that.
I would hate to live in a society where it was illegal to run a company without also divulging personal medical information. The government shouldn't be dictating that we have to tell other people about our personal lives. Remember, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. We shouldn't be shoving guns in people's faces in order to find out if they've sought medical treatment.
Buffet needs to get his priorities straight. Business is not what should govern how we live our private lives. While shareholders may have behaved differently with better knowledge of Steve's health, I would prefer to live in a world where people don't expect that kind of subservience to their jobs.
I would hate to live in a society where it was illegal to run a company without also divulging personal medical information. The government shouldn't be dictating that we have to tell other people about our personal lives. Remember, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. We shouldn't be shoving guns in people's faces in order to find out if they've sought medical treatment.
Exactly.
Which is why I found his comments to be highly suspicious. Ever see any of the "interviews" his team did after his clients took a bath in the market? It was run, duck and cover at it's best.
Yet this clown demands that Jobs provide full disclosure? Give me a break!
Here's one from Steve Lyons at Newsweek, that expresses in many more words, the way I feel about SJ and Apple.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/203361/page/1
You meant to say Daniel Lyons, right Mel?
Although many of us still think of him as FSJ (Fake Steve Jobs).
Good article, either way.
Yeah, anyone who gives $30 billion dollars to Charity to help Starving Children and Aids Foundation is just a mean bastard. SARCASM
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
Link to Article.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/maga...rity1.fortune/
I agree. Both men are great men. Maybe he went a bit far on these comments but there may be some substance to his point.
You meant to say Daniel Lyons, right Mel?
Although many of us still think of him as FSJ (Fake Steve Jobs).
Good article, either way.
Yesh. I must have put SJ's name halfway in there.
Those of us in Los Angeles, however, have long been used to "almost unusable" 3G. It's been this way since the first iPhone 3G came out. It's inexcusable, but AT&T doesn't care much. Here's hoping Apple finds a way to break free of 'em.
I've been in LA county for the past month and have had no widespread issues. I am currently getting 1449Kbps down and 212Kbps up with a 128ms latency. I did notice a slow down Thursday evening but I read yesterday that AT&T was funneling 65K SMS messages a second and I was on Hollywood Blvd. getting annoyed at all the people who ame out just to see Michael Jackson's star. Which they couldn't do since it's in front of Mann's theater where the Brüno premiere wad going on so people were crowded around the other star titled Michael Jackson knowing full well that it wasn't the King of Pop's star.