Apple chief Jobs settles health worries
In a rare discussion of his personal health, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has privately revealed to a journalist exactly what conditions led to his overly thin appearance at the Worldwide Developer Conference this year.
After receiving multiple statements from Apple's press relations that simply echoed the company's official position that Jobs' health "is a private matter," the New York Times' Joe Nocera received a personal phone call from Steve Jobs that appears to have settled some of the doubts about his physical condition.
The company luminary insists that the precise details be kept off the record, but according to Nocera has virtually confirmed earlier reporting by the Times' John Markoff that claims Jobs had new surgery earlier this year to address a nutritional problem causing weight loss.
The particular issue is a "good deal more" substantial than the "common bug" Apple spokespeople have used as their most detailed explanation, but is described as far less disastrous than perceived by some shareholders, who triggered a stock sell-off this past week.
The circumstances "weren?t life-threatening and [Jobs] doesn?t have a recurrence of cancer," Nocera says.
Nonetheless, the journalist also questions why it requires a direct yet unspecific intervention from Jobs to settle concerns rather than more official channels. Reiterating the claims both of Markoff and of analysts, Nocera maintains that companies have a responsibility to disclose key executives' illnesses when they will clearly influence the day-to-day operations of the company, even if they believe health is normally something to be kept from the public.
This is seen as especially crucial for an electronics maker like Apple. As much of the company's success in recent years has been attributed to Jobs' direct management of many facets of the business, a sudden resignation or worse would be immediately damaging to share value, even if the company reveals a succession plan.
For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.
"You would think he?d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."
After receiving multiple statements from Apple's press relations that simply echoed the company's official position that Jobs' health "is a private matter," the New York Times' Joe Nocera received a personal phone call from Steve Jobs that appears to have settled some of the doubts about his physical condition.
The company luminary insists that the precise details be kept off the record, but according to Nocera has virtually confirmed earlier reporting by the Times' John Markoff that claims Jobs had new surgery earlier this year to address a nutritional problem causing weight loss.
The particular issue is a "good deal more" substantial than the "common bug" Apple spokespeople have used as their most detailed explanation, but is described as far less disastrous than perceived by some shareholders, who triggered a stock sell-off this past week.
The circumstances "weren?t life-threatening and [Jobs] doesn?t have a recurrence of cancer," Nocera says.
Nonetheless, the journalist also questions why it requires a direct yet unspecific intervention from Jobs to settle concerns rather than more official channels. Reiterating the claims both of Markoff and of analysts, Nocera maintains that companies have a responsibility to disclose key executives' illnesses when they will clearly influence the day-to-day operations of the company, even if they believe health is normally something to be kept from the public.
This is seen as especially crucial for an electronics maker like Apple. As much of the company's success in recent years has been attributed to Jobs' direct management of many facets of the business, a sudden resignation or worse would be immediately damaging to share value, even if the company reveals a succession plan.
For Nocera, the notion that Jobs would rather settle a score with a journalist (one who was initially labeled a "slime bucket" making factual errors) than make an official statement to defend his company is baffling. If anything, the writer believes, one would expect Jobs to do what it took to have shareholders hold on to their investments in the company.
"You would think he?d want them to know before me," Nocera says. "But apparently not."
Comments
He makes out like it's a big mystery why Jobs doesn't want to broadcast the details of his illness to the world and implies that it's irresponsible, when the explanation is much simpler than that. The surgeries in question involve hugely embarrassing questions. It's tantamount to talking about ass surgery.
How many men want to talk about prostate exams and the exact consistency of their stool relative to their diet, or detail the inner workings of their digestive systems? How about talking about it on the evening news or in the newspaper? It's hardly rocket science why Jobs doesn't want to get into the nitty-gritty details of this.
Also, how many top execs of Fortune 500 companies have had similar surgeries or digestive complaints? Probably a large proportion given that the majority of them are males in their 40's, 50's and 60's.
If it's not cancer, and it's not life threatening, then Jobs is right in saying it's basically none of anyone's business but his own IMO.
However, most likely it was a common bug that created the tipping point, that made Jobs look particularly gaunt and almost caused him to bow out of appearing at WWDC.
companies have a responsibility to disclose key executives' illnesses when they will clearly influence the day-to-day operations of the company
Uh, well obviously Steve's health issues didn't affect day-to-day operations now did it!? Just an ass tying to get an answer to a question that was clearly none of his or anyone else's damn business. If Steve was still able to function and Apple is still running as normal, then THERE IS NO ISSUE! Being concerned is one thing. Being a nosey prick is another matter altogether. So, every time someone 'believes' Steve is sick, he's supposed to make an announcement? I don't think so. The stock holders should sue the freaken analysts who dreamed this whole thing up. It's funny how they're never held accountable for screwing with the market.
I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
You can't!? Such as?
As far as I know, people can be perfectly healthy as a vegan. In fact it is more unnatural for humans/mammals to consume dairy products after infancy (mother's milk), than it is to live on a vegetarian diet.
I think Steve was a Vegan at one stage, however this is no longer the case.
got tired that the click loving press would not let this story die...so let it be know in several ways that he was OK...indirectly to the press and then directly to this writer.Didn't this writer know
that Apple investors would find out when he disclosed the conversation?
And why do articles, including this one, suggest Apple was lying when it said Jobs had a "common bug"...well, from reports I've read, he actually did have the common bug for a week or two before
the presentation and that likely did not help him in the looking healthy department.
Apple probably should have disclosed the cancer surgery he had a few years ago earlier, but that was then and this is now. Now let's concentrate on the exploding sales and the problems Apple is having growing their business at such a rapid pace.
Basic Principle. A major purpose of the Privacy Rule is to define and limit the circumstances in which an individual?s protected heath information may be used or disclosed by covered entities. A covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except either: (1) as the Privacy Rule permits or requires; or (2) as the individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual?s personal representative) authorizes in writing.
Steve has the same rights as any American! That doesn't change just because he is head of a computer company.
However...... Since the world is all about how things are perceived. And Steve at WWDC look like he was at death's door to me. Someone had some "splainn
to do Lucy". We all know he is a god. But he would not be if not for the stock holders.
I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
oh, bruder.
With the mentality of people, I'm really sorry Jobs felt compelled to reveal anything about his health at this time.
No company can give out personal health information without a signed release from that person. Maybe these reporters should learn about the Laws in the US.
Basic Principle. A major purpose of the Privacy Rule is to define and limit the circumstances in which an individual’s protected heath information may be used or disclosed by covered entities. A covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except either: (1) as the Privacy Rule permits or requires; or (2) as the individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes in writing.
Steve has the same rights as any American! That doesn't change just because he is head of a computer company.
It is apparently (very) slightly different if the individual's contribution in question is a major factor in the value of the stock. There are some SEC regulations regarding notification if the health affects a CEO's ability to serve, but they still get privacy protection in terms of not being allowed to give any clues or details at all about what is wrong and how it's treated without permission. Apparently it's not really enforced much, if at all, but the regulations are there. But clearly, those demanding to know anything about what's going on or even physician physicals are just out of line with regards to the law.
I wonder what other "Journalists" will take it upon themselves to write frantically about this possible break in the law.. considering the same frantic link bate "Journalism" that went on round the time of the options enquiry..
My bet is absolutely none.
anyone agree?
Sure, I'm happy to hear Steve is not having a recurrence.
But this issue of the "shareholders" is bullshit. So if he IS having a recurrence, the stock is going to drop anyway when it finally is announced. Announcing it now is his own business and serves no purpose but to let the greedy bastards try and dump their shares before the other guy does. Screw that.
It wouldn't "help the shareholders." It would only roll the dice so that some of them would have a chance to screw the other ones.
I want Apple to continue, and Jobs to continue. Whether some greedy asshole makes money by shorting or selling is not something I care about.
I've heard he is. Anyone have any real facts on that? I hope not. The vegan lifestyle is unnatural. Sorry, that's my opinion. You cannot get the nutritional needs necessary for our bodies from that lifestyle.
That's not an opinion, that is a [wrong] fact. Either a diet can sustain a person healthily or it can't. And veganism can, so you're wrong. No opinion about it.
Does anyone ever expect the truth about anything from the New York Times? I enjoy watching the writhing death throws as they belly-up and flame out. They've left a lot of victims in their wake.