Bogged down AT&T 3G to clear in months; Buffett criticizes Jobs

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 205
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The chairman and CEO (president, COO..) must keep key members of the board informed of any illness or other matter that would materially affect their performance of their duties.



    Jobs did, and removed himself from duty when health issues prevented him from executing his duties fully. What more can you ask for that's reasonable?
  • Reply 102 of 205
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    That is a fair point. Just so you know, I happen to be a HUGE fan of Buffett too. But I would not tear one person down to sing praises of the other.



    I was specifically reponding to your reference to the quality of Jobs as a 'person' and your subsequent statement "Steve gives almost nothing. To me, that says something about what kind of person you are." The implication being that someone who doesn't give (or isn't known to) is somehow a bad person sounds to me overly judgmental.



    For all we know, he may have very detailed plans for giving, upon his death or at some later stage in his life. (Indeed, I truly hope so). He may not have broadcast that. We simply don't know.



    I buy Macs and always have, I have purchased the 1st two iPhones (waiting for contract on 3rd). I buy what I like and what works well for me.



    Do I care for SJ. As a salesperson and for bringing Apple back I do.



    As a person I don't care for him in the least. That doesn't mean I wish any bad on him or ever would... and yes, it does make me a hypocrite but I can live with it.
  • Reply 103 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    More likely than other folks given the guy is a privacy freak.



    Possibly. but It's still not likely. He doesn't show much in this area. Look at what's happening with his house, which is considered to be an historical piece of property. He could have paid to have it moved, but he didn't. He offered that if the town, or someone else would pay for the moving, he would give it to them.



    But he doesn't mind paying to have it torn down, and something else built there.



    I did find that odd. He could have ended his dispute a long time ago, and not paid all the legal fees, by just paying for the move. It would have cost tens of thousands. not much really, for him.



    Quote:

    I'm not a mod. You are.



    And yes, I read his post given I reiterated his main point.



    Yup!
  • Reply 104 of 205
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They do this every year. This is the 2008 list, the numbers are from from 2007:



    http://www.slate.com/id/2209476/



    Here's the one from 2009:



    http://www.slate.com/id/2209500/



    Remember that many of these people give year after year.



    There's a top 100 list somewhere, but I can't remember what it's called. He's not on that either.



    You do realize that most of those folks are dead and the sums are bequeathed to their own foundations. Also note the largish number of $0 paid in that list. As in "we promise you $300M but we ain't dead yet."
  • Reply 105 of 205
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Possibly. but It's still not likely. He doesn't show much in this area.



    He could easily make that top 60 list simply by pledging money that he may or may not have when he dies. As you mentioned, he could have something really generous in his will. Of course, given you're not his lawyer you don't know either way.



    The only thing you can say about Job's giving to charity is that it isn't public. How much or how little has little support beyond pop psychology on his personality.



    Quote:

    Look at what's happening with his house, which is considered to be an historical piece of property. He could have paid to have it moved, but he didn't. He offered that if the town, or someone else would pay for the moving, he would give it to them.



    But he doesn't mind paying to have it torn down, and something else built there.



    I did find that odd. He could have ended his dispute a long time ago, by just paying for the move. It would have cost tens of thousands. not much really, for him.



    [/QUOTE]



    You can't move that house for tens of thousands. It would have cost millions as is stated in the court documents.
  • Reply 106 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Jobs did, and removed himself from duty when health issues prevented him from executing his duties fully. What more can you ask for that's reasonable?



    I'm not asking for anything. I'm not saying they should have released the information. I'm saying that they must of known what was going on about the same time it was going on. I'm saying that they COULD have issued more detailed statements.



    I'm not saying that they should have done so. It's a hazy point of law. Maybe they should have.
  • Reply 107 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    This is where it becomes more complex.



    The law also requires public companies to inform the investor community, through conference calls, or other means of information of anything that would, or could affect the financial performance of the company in any reasonable fashion.



    In the case of an important and charismatic leader who has his hands in every pot of the company, that would include information as to his (her) health and well being.



    ___Off Topic:

    Again, Melgross, you are a good source of factual information. I have, and continue to enjoy your posts and level headedness.

    ___On Topic:



    I don't see any evidence of how this has affected the financial or technological progress of the company. I say this for three reasons.



    1.) Technological developments do not tend to be fast, but rather slow and refined in Apple. They do it right and they like to do it right the first time for market and media success. SJ's input still flows in probable, and by experience, developers can do self editing as to what they think SJ will want to see or expects. Major developments have already had a lot of SJ input, and for anything else, SJ can provide input for.



    2.) Apple has very able and varied leaders both in the business side (Tim Cook, Phil Shiller) and the technology visionary side (like Jony Ive).



    3.) Apple has made several big announcements and rollouts while SJ was out for health reasons, and their keynotes are getting better and better each time. With success.



    So I don't see how Apple has been significantly effected financially or technologically due to SJ's absence, aside from the Keynotes being slightly less awesome than if he were there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    To be fair about this, why is Apple different from every other company?



    When important leaders of other companies have problems of this magnitude, the public is informed of what is happening. Why shouldn't Apple be held to the same standard? Why should SJ's obsession with privacy affect that?



    I'm not so convinced that Apple is being held to the same standards. While we all like to see SJ as the vital organ and hub of Apple, he is a valuable part, but there are other leaders within Apple when combined do not see a noticeable effect during extended periods of SJ's absence (as history can now show). Visionaries like Johnny Ive for instance, or Tim Cook for business. And, as I point out above, I don't see how this has resulted in either a technology slow down or financial hit.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    When movie stars are assaulted by paparattzzi, we say too bad, they knew what they were getting into by becoming famous. Perhaps SJ should get over it too. Like it or not, he's an internationally famous figure. And the board does have that obligation.



    I think it is wrong to be so invasive into someone's life, whether it is SJ or the paparattzzi and some movie star. I don't think it is healthy for themselves or their interpersonal relationships. I agree the key board members, who are quiet, can and maybe should know about SJ's condition given the circumstance that he's not a vital organ to the company. However, I disagree, personally, that it should be the right for the share holders or general public to know about his conditions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They certainly must have known that he was on a transplant list. He would have had to tell them that. they would have known he had the transplant.



    Only at the point that doctors realized the problem and put him on a waiting list. Whether this is news that the public has the legal right to is a different story.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    This has nothing to do with them being doctors. Are you a doctor? If someone told you that they needed a liver transplant, would you understand?



    No, I'm not a doctor, and my knowledge of such things medical topics is limited. What is involved in trying to get a liver, the procedure, and what not, I do not know that much about. I try to avoid such information anyways as it disgusts me. You probable know a great deal more about medical topics than I do. No sarcasm or meaningless intended.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    This wasn't speculation. It was fact. He was seriously ill. He was on a transplant list. He then received a transplant. Where is the speculation?



    What we got was a load of info on recent development of the past few months. This was probable years in the making, I'm guessing, and what happened then is very relevant and important to the discussion. Which is the part we know least about. Also the matter of legality is equally important, which I'm not so sure obligates Apple to have released this information.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Panic? I don't know. Apple's stock was depressed pretty badly because the investor community DIDN'T know how serious it was.



    Agreed, but I generally hold in low regard the stockholders of Apple. I see news comes out and it goes down when it should have gone up, or vice versa. And I see BS journalistic reports go out and the stock instantly reflects clearly manipulative, incomplete, or bad information. Through that, I gained such a low view of Apple stockholders (in general). That's not to say all are bad or stupid.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Do WE have a right to know? It's hard to say. I think the legal arguments could fall on either side.



    Agreed on both statements. However, I think that the real legal test has already happened, nothing. If this was a legal issue, I think the law would have already jumped on it for many varied reasons. The fact that a lawsuit hasn't come about yet, because clearly this has been an on-going long issue, is indicative that the law sides with SJ and Apple's secrecy on this issue.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Not for everything. there are still requirements for closed door meetings.



    I'm against it.



    http://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone...upplement4.htm



    And

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not to sidetrack, or start another discussion -- honest!! -- but this one is important to clarify: Under "Regulation FD" analysts and public shareholders must be essentially given the same information, and just about at the same time. (http://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm)



    The "wink-wink" days on this front are over.



    _______________



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Please, let's not get into your personal feelings about journalists. They were apparently right.



    Disagree on both accounts. Like gambling, your right some of the time, your wrong some of the time. I'm calling shenanigans on this and saying that the journalists were just speculating, they had no idea, and that this was planned ratings booster. The fact that they hit gold one time does not mean they actually had sources, or other such credible information on the issue. Also, when their wrong, it usually seems to fade into history, no one cares to remember. They had a 50-50 choice, and given the reasonable speculation, they had an even higher probability of hitting gold on the issue.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    We certainly know that he was on a transplant list for at least three or four months. We know that he HAD a transplant at least two months ago, likely somewhat earlier.



    We don't have to be on the board to know that now.



    Agreed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What's the argument about?



    Whether or not the stockholders and/or general public / media has the legal right to know about SJ's health.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    These are now known facts. You can't dispute them. The board had to be told these things. If they weren't, then SJ could be in a lot of trouble. I doubt very much that he tried to conceal the info from them. Do you? Don't throw back a question, or give a rhetorical answer, it's just a yes or no.



    I agree, those are now known facts and I am not disputing them. I don't think SJ concealed the information from key board members.
  • Reply 108 of 205
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Possibly. but It's still not likely. He doesn't show much in this area. Look at what's happening with his house, which is considered to be an historical piece of property. He could have paid to have it moved, but he didn't. He offered that if the town, or someone else would pay for the moving, he would give it to them.



    But he doesn't mind paying to have it torn down, and something else built there.



    I did find that odd. He could have ended his dispute a long time ago, and not paid all the legal fees, by just paying for the move. It would have cost tens of thousands. not much really, for him.



    You are bolder than I am in this room. I thought of bringing that up and it does go into my personal reasons I have for not caring for his actions he takes but would have been ripped to shreds.
  • Reply 109 of 205
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They certainly must have known that he was on a transplant list. He would have had to tell them that. they would have known he had the transplant.



    No. Once he removed himself from duty anything that happens after that just doesn't matter until it negatively affects his ability to return to duty. From all appearances he'll make it back so I guess all the i's are doted and t's are crossed. What more is required other than fulfilling some personal ken?





    Quote:

    This wasn't speculation. It was fact. He was seriously ill. He was on a transplant list. He then received a transplant. Where is the speculation?



    Your speculation is that he was on the transplant list BEFORE he went on leave of absence. I think it is far more likely that he went on it significantly AFTER he went on leave. When the docs finally figured that was the only workable option.







    Quote:

    Panic? I don't know. Apple's stock was depressed pretty badly because the investor community DIDN'T know how serious it was.



    All pure speculation that nobody else could possibly keep Apple performing profitably. I think that's horsepucky. Steve was necessary in 1998 through the launch of the iPhone. It seems he has been thinking about his company's long term and has things set on a good course if he has to depart. Will the company be exactly the same? No. But will it fall apart and fail to perform? No.
  • Reply 109 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    He could easily make that top 60 list simply by pledging money that he may or may not have when he dies. As you mentioned, he could have something really generous in his will. Of course, given you're not his lawyer you don't know either way.



    The only thing you can say about Job's giving to charity is that it isn't public. How much or how little has little support beyond pop psychology on his personality.




    If you read the information on the page of the list, it stated that pledges aren't counted. Only actual money donated.



    Quote:

    You can't move that house for tens of thousands. It would have cost millions as is stated in the court documents.



    I didn't see information that said millions. At one point early on, it was estimated at about $150,000. If you say you saw millions though, I won't argue the point. Nevertheless, he could have compromised.
  • Reply 111 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post


    ___Off Topic:

    Again, Melgross, you are a good source of factual information. I have, and continue to enjoy your posts and level headedness.

    ___On Topic:



    I don't see any evidence of how this has affected the financial or technological progress of the company. I say this for three reasons.



    1.) Technological developments do not tend to be fast, but rather slow and refined in Apple. They do it right and they like to do it right the first time for market and media success. SJ's input still flows in probable, and by experience, developers can do self editing as to what they think SJ will want to see or expects. Major developments have already had a lot of SJ input, and for anything else, SJ can provide input for.



    2.) Apple has very able and varied leaders both in the business side (Tim Cook, Phil Shiller) and the technology visionary side (like Jony Ive).



    3.) Apple has made several big announcements and rollouts while SJ was out for health reasons, and their keynotes are getting better and better each time. With success.



    So I don't see how Apple has been significantly effected financially or technologically due to SJ's absence, aside from the Keynotes being slightly less awesome than if he were there.







    I'm not so convinced that Apple is being held to the same standards. While we all like to see SJ as the vital organ and hub of Apple, he is a valuable part, but there are other leaders within Apple when combined do not see a noticeable effect during extended periods of SJ's absence (as history can now show). Visionaries like Johnny Ive for instance, or Tim Cook for business. And, as I point out above, I don't see how this has resulted in either a technology slow down or financial hit.







    I think it is wrong to be so invasive into someone's life, whether it is SJ or the paparattzzi and some movie star. I don't think it is healthy for themselves or their interpersonal relationships. I agree the key board members, who are quiet, can and maybe should know about SJ's condition given the circumstance that he's not a vital organ to the company. However, I disagree, personally, that it should be the right for the share holders or general public to know about his conditions.







    Only at the point that doctors realized the problem and put him on a waiting list. Whether this is news that the public has the legal right to is a different story.







    No, I'm not a doctor, and my knowledge of such things medical topics is limited. What is involved in trying to get a liver, the procedure, and what not, I do not know that much about. I try to avoid such information anyways as it disgusts me. You probable know a great deal more about medical topics than I do. No sarcasm or meaningless intended.







    What we got was a load of info on recent development of the past few months. This was probable years in the making, I'm guessing, and what happened then is very relevant and important to the discussion. Which is the part we know least about. Also the matter of legality is equally important, which I'm not so sure obligates Apple to have released this information.







    Agreed, but I generally hold in low regard the stockholders of Apple. I see news comes out and it goes down when it should have gone up, or vice versa. And I see BS journalistic reports go out and the stock instantly reflects clearly manipulative, incomplete, or bad information. Through that, I gained such a low view of Apple stockholders (in general). That's not to say all are bad or stupid.







    Agreed on both statements. However, I think that the real legal test has already happened, nothing. If this was a legal issue, I think the law would have already jumped on it for many varied reasons. The fact that a lawsuit hasn't come about yet, because clearly this has been an on-going long issue, is indicative that the law sides with SJ and Apple's secrecy on this issue.







    And





    _______________







    Disagree on both accounts. Like gambling, your right some of the time, your wrong some of the time. I'm calling shenanigans on this and saying that the journalists were just speculating, they had no idea, and that this was planned ratings booster. The fact that they hit gold one time does not mean they actually had sources, or other such credible information on the issue. Also, when their wrong, it usually seems to fade into history, no one cares to remember. They had a 50-50 choice, and given the reasonable speculation, they had an even higher probability of hitting gold on the issue.







    Agreed.







    Whether or not the stockholders and/or general public / media has the legal right to know about SJ's health.







    I agree, those are now known facts and I am not disputing them. I don't think SJ concealed the information from key board members.



    And what all of that comes down to is that at some time partly into his departure, he knew he was more seriously ill than he thought. He told the board what was happening. The board didn't inform the public.



    The question, which I'm NOT attempting to answer, is whether we, the public, should have been informed.



    I don't know. Maybe. It's fuzzy.
  • Reply 112 of 205
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post


    ___Off Topic:

    Again, Melgross, you are a good source of factual information. I have, and continue to enjoy your posts and level headedness.

    ___On Topic:



    I don't see any evidence of how this has affected the financial or technological progress of the company. I say this for three reasons.



    1.) Technological developments do not tend to be fast, but rather slow and refined in Apple. They do it right and they like to do it right the first time for market and media success. SJ's input still flows in probable, and by experience, developers can do self editing as to what they think SJ will want to see or expects. Major developments have already had a lot of SJ input, and for anything else, SJ can provide input for.



    2.) Apple has very able and varied leaders both in the business side (Tim Cook, Phil Shiller) and the technology visionary side (like Jony Ive).



    3.) Apple has made several big announcements and rollouts while SJ was out for health reasons, and their keynotes are getting better and better each time. With success.



    So I don't see how Apple has been significantly effected financially or technologically due to SJ's absence, aside from the Keynotes being slightly less awesome than if he were there.







    I'm not so convinced that Apple is being held to the same standards. While we all like to see SJ as the vital organ and hub of Apple, he is a valuable part, but there are other leaders within Apple when combined do not see a noticeable effect during extended periods of SJ's absence (as history can now show). Visionaries like Johnny Ive for instance, or Tim Cook for business. And, as I point out above, I don't see how this has resulted in either a technology slow down or financial hit.







    I think it is wrong to be so invasive into someone's life, whether it is SJ or the paparattzzi and some movie star. I don't think it is healthy for themselves or their interpersonal relationships. I agree the key board members, who are quiet, can and maybe should know about SJ's condition given the circumstance that he's not a vital organ to the company. However, I disagree, personally, that it should be the right for the share holders or general public to know about his conditions.







    Only at the point that doctors realized the problem and put him on a waiting list. Whether this is news that the public has the legal right to is a different story.







    No, I'm not a doctor, and my knowledge of such things medical topics is limited. What is involved in trying to get a liver, the procedure, and what not, I do not know that much about. I try to avoid such information anyways as it disgusts me. You probable know a great deal more about medical topics than I do. No sarcasm or meaningless intended.







    What we got was a load of info on recent development of the past few months. This was probable years in the making, I'm guessing, and what happened then is very relevant and important to the discussion. Which is the part we know least about. Also the matter of legality is equally important, which I'm not so sure obligates Apple to have released this information.







    Agreed, but I generally hold in low regard the stockholders of Apple. I see news comes out and it goes down when it should have gone up, or vice versa. And I see BS journalistic reports go out and the stock instantly reflects clearly manipulative, incomplete, or bad information. Through that, I gained such a low view of Apple stockholders (in general). That's not to say all are bad or stupid.







    Agreed on both statements. However, I think that the real legal test has already happened, nothing. If this was a legal issue, I think the law would have already jumped on it for many varied reasons. The fact that a lawsuit hasn't come about yet, because clearly this has been an on-going long issue, is indicative that the law sides with SJ and Apple's secrecy on this issue.







    And





    _______________







    Disagree on both accounts. Like gambling, your right some of the time, your wrong some of the time. I'm calling shenanigans on this and saying that the journalists were just speculating, they had no idea, and that this was planned ratings booster. The fact that they hit gold one time does not mean they actually had sources, or other such credible information on the issue. Also, when their wrong, it usually seems to fade into history, no one cares to remember. They had a 50-50 choice, and given the reasonable speculation, they had an even higher probability of hitting gold on the issue.







    Agreed.







    Whether or not the stockholders and/or general public / media has the legal right to know about SJ's health.







    I agree, those are now known facts and I am not disputing them. I don't think SJ concealed the information from key board members.



    Of all the posts on this thread, I can honestly say that yours is the longest.
  • Reply 113 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    No. Once he removed himself from duty anything that happens after that just doesn't matter until it negatively affects his ability to return to duty. From all appearances he'll make it back so I guess all the i's are doted and t's are crossed. What more is required other than fulfilling some personal ken?



    That's not true. He didn't remove himself from his position within the company. During that time, he was still the CEO, and I think the chairman. He, and the company also stated that he was taking part in all the major decisions of the company.



    If he resigned from those positions, he wouldn't be with the company, and THEN it wouldn't matter.



    Quote:

    Your speculation is that he was on the transplant list BEFORE he went on leave of absence. I think it is far more likely that he went on it significantly AFTER he went on leave. When the docs finally figured that was the only workable option.



    No. I never said that, or hinted to that.



    I speculate that he knew he was seriously ill when he gave his reasons for taking leave. Sometime afterwards, after the required testing, which would have taken weeks (I understand how long this stuff takes now as my wife just went through weeks of biopsies and scans. Thankfully, all was ok)



    Then he would have been told that he would need a transplant, and been put on the list after his doctors found the best place for him to go to.



    That could have taken until sometime in February.



    After that, we now know what happened.



    Quote:

    All pure speculation that nobody else could possibly keep Apple performing profitably. I think that's horsepucky. Steve was necessary in 1998 through the launch of the iPhone. It seems he has been thinking about his company's long term and has things set on a good course if he has to depart. Will the company be exactly the same? No. But will it fall apart and fail to perform? No.



    Business is a crapshoot. A lot of it is luck, followed by either brilliant followthrough, or unrealized promise.



    Apple had some luck, and the brilliant followthrough.



    Where Jobs matters is in his boldness. Where other leaders may shrink back, he pushes through.



    How will Apple manage without him? It's hard to say. Cook is a very competent person, but he doesn't have that drive that Jobs has. Sometimes that's all the difference.
  • Reply 114 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    And what all of that comes down to is that at some time partly into his departure, he knew he was more seriously ill than he thought. He told the board what was happening. The board didn't inform the public.



    The question, which I'm NOT attempting to answer, is whether we, the public, should have been informed.



    I don't know. Maybe. It's fuzzy.



    I agree, but that's precisely the point I'm attempting to pin down after DavidT's post. The legality of the situation. As that really undermines DavidT's post, which I am arguing against. Arguing morality with people is so much more difficult and longer and in my opinion, less clear cut than arguing legalities. And DavidT seems like the type of person who would be more taken by a legal argument than an emotional or moral one. However, DavidT never came back it seems.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    Of all the posts on this thread, I can honestly say that yours is the longest.



    Actually, you might have topped it by quoting my response!
  • Reply 115 of 205
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    And? You think it's credible that he didn't keep the board informed about what was happening leading up to that? And why no statement afterwards? Once they did know, they could have issued another statement.



    No statement afterwards was simply no statement afterwards. There's no indication of lies as asserted by Ireland.



    Quote:

    Of course it is. The board knew what was going on with him. You don't think they were told how serious it was when he told them of his 6 month leave? Which started about January.



    Bloomberg reported a rumor that he was "Jobs is consdering a liver transplant" at that time. Which, if true, means that when we took leave, he hadn't decided if it was required or not or if there were alternative options.



    Jobs may not have considered it required yet, or the path he would go. Just that he had to take time off to take care of it regardless of what path he took.



    Besides, Jobs DID say it was more complex when he took his leave. Given that he may have thought a week ago that some hormonal treatment was all that was required there's no real indicator that either he or the board was thinking "Hey, if I don't get a liver, I'm dead by December".



    He didn't even tell Bloomberg that "No, I don't need a liver"...he said piss off, it's private.



    Quote:

    They knew by January that there was something seriously wrong. cancer doesn't start up suddenly.



    They certainly knew he had pancreatic cancer. His liver transplant was mostly likely due to THAT cancer which was well known.



    Quote:

    And doctors knew that this could happen after his first operation. That's been stated by a doctor on AI, just, I think it was, yesterday.



    It still doesn't explain why they couldn't have issued a statement in March, or April, or May, or June after he was mostly better.



    It IS June. And just what the hell are you expecting them to say in April? Steve just got a new liver...and uh...yeah he might die...we dunno yet.



    He's mostly better now and they released the information.



    Quote:

    Well, I said that about the stock before. It tanked again after this news came out.



    Not that much. It's $136 at the moment and performance slightly better than NASDAQ Substantially higher than January where it was trailing the index. Given Apple's performance to date, it really should be a performing a lot better than the index. There's a good 10-20% "Jobs ain't coming back" factor in the market price.



    Heck,there was no dip. Apple shares have been rising and falling pretty much in step with the rest of the market. Unlike the Jan dip that shows up on the charts pretty clearly as an event.
  • Reply 116 of 205
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    And what all of that comes down to is that at some time partly into his departure, he knew he was more seriously ill than he thought. He told the board what was happening. The board didn't inform the public.



    The question, which I'm NOT attempting to answer, is whether we, the public, should have been informed.



    I don't know. Maybe. It's fuzzy.



    The week before he said "I'm okay, it's just some hormone thing".



    A week later he said "I'm taking 6 months off...it's a lot more complicated than I thought".



    WHO didn't think it was more serious? WHO didn't think "Gee, the guy might be dead in 6 months".



    Frankly, who STILL doesn't think there's a 50-50 shot he may be semi or fully retired in a year?
  • Reply 117 of 205
    irelandireland Posts: 17,616member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Wow. You don't say!



    You don't say - the words of someone with some growing up to do, and with nothing interesting to say actually. Here I'll save you some time, I'll type it for you. "Wow. You don't say."
  • Reply 118 of 205
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I'm not asking for anything. I'm not saying they should have released the information. I'm saying that they must of known what was going on about the same time it was going on. I'm saying that they COULD have issued more detailed statements.



    I'm not saying that they should have done so. It's a hazy point of law. Maybe they should have.



    Except that you have no evidence they knew anything substantive to responsibly say anything more.



    Can you imagine the lawsuit if they had said "Steve may need a new liver" and it turned out that he didn't?
  • Reply 119 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    The week before he said "I'm okay, it's just some hormone thing".



    A week later he said "I'm taking 6 months off...it's a lot more complicated than I thought".



    WHO didn't think it was more serious? WHO didn't think "Gee, the guy might be dead in 6 months".



    Frankly, who STILL doesn't think there's a 50-50 shot he may be semi or fully retired in a year?



    Very sad thoughts. Let's hope it does not come to pass and that he'll have a much longer pain-free happy life. For one thing, he hasn't delivered the affordable xMac tower right, right?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    You don't say - the words of someone with some growing up to do, and with nothing interesting to say actually. Here I'll save you some time, I'll type it for you. "Wow. You don't say."



    Ireland, no need for personal attacks. If you would elaborate more on your position with an on-topic issue, you would contribute much more to this particular forum topic.
  • Reply 120 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,737member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    No statement afterwards was simply no statement afterwards. There's no indication of lies as asserted by Ireland.



    I never said they lied, just that they didn't tell the entire truth. If we want to, we can state that by not telling the entire truth, they lied, but I rarely like to go that far.





    Quote:

    Bloomberg reported a rumor that he was "Jobs is consdering a liver transplant" at that time. Which, if true, means that when we took leave, he hadn't decided if it was required or not or if there were alternative options.



    Yes. I remember reading that.



    Quote:

    Jobs may not have considered it required yet, or the path he would go. Just that he had to take time off to take care of it regardless of what path he took.



    Besides, Jobs DID say it was more complex when he took his leave. Given that he may have thought a week ago that some hormonal treatment was all that was required there's no real indicator that either he or the board was thinking "Hey, if I don't get a liver, I'm dead by December".



    He didn't even tell Bloomberg that "No, I don't need a liver"...he said piss off, it's private.



    Some patients will leave the decision entirely to their doctors, and others will want to make the final decision. I don't know how SJ goes with that.



    Quote:

    They certainly knew he had pancreatic cancer. His liver transplant was mostly likely due to THAT cancer which was well known.



    That's the point. A doctor said that the kind he had often requires a liver transplant later, but not always.



    Quote:

    It IS June. And just what the hell are you expecting them to say in April? Steve just got a new liver...and uh...yeah he might die...we dunno yet.



    He's mostly better now and they released the information.



    I didn't say that I expected anything, did I?



    I just said that what they knew was early enough so that they COULD have released a statement, perhaps in early May: Steve had a liver transplant, and he's doing well. we're all hoping for a speedy recovery, and expect to see him back at work in June.



    Quote:

    Not that much. It's $136 at the moment and performance slightly better than NASDAQ Substantially higher than January where it was trailing the index. Given Apple's performance to date, it really should be a performing a lot better than the index. There's a good 10-20% "Jobs ain't coming back" factor in the market price.



    It came back up some today, as this is beginning to fade. I read somewhere, about three months ago, that the stock was worth about !48 just by the technicals. We really should be back to $150 by now.



    Quote:

    Heck,there was no dip. Apple shares have been rising and falling pretty much in step with the rest of the market. Unlike the Jan dip that shows up on the charts pretty clearly as an event.



    There was a dip right after the announcement, but it wasn't that big.
Sign In or Register to comment.