OK, where was the part where it's any of our business whether someone else donates money or not? Maybe I missed a line, but the story seems presume that it is.
Quote:
a 2 second search gave me. I'm not wasting my time on doing any other research.
See a patern. Most are companies that are good on the pocket book.
Exactly how did you find that?
OK, so fair enough, you found some that did beat the trend. The basic fact is that Apple is doing well as a business and stock holders don't seem to be noticing that. I only looked at Netflix, but it did have considerable volatility, it's down a lot from its peak but up a lot from its worst.
But there is no proof of malicious intent either by Gizmodo or their source; I cannot provide any, nor can you, yet you yourself casually dismiss it as something of a prank or stock manipulation (ironic, since you state that this sort of thing should not be "let off the hook" so casually).
On counterpoint, there is no proof that this anonymous report is correct either. It's just some anonymous person making statements. It looks like the onus has been placed on Apple to prove that Jobs is fine when the original story works out to be hearsay at best. Couple that with speculations of conspiracy on Apple's part as well. The article on Gizmodo does not give me any impression that they vetted this story, it looks to be about as carefully vetted as the ireport debacle. At least iReport is user generated content, the gizmodo article looks to be more deliberate on the part of those that run the site to fan the fears.
The only other time that reported rumors of Jobs' health problems caused problems did turn out to be a prank, I don't yet see any reason to see why it isn't the case here too.
It is true that first amendment protections do exist and they are strong, but they aren't ironclad either.
I'm not exactly skinny or weak either and I've been vegan for many years.
Besides Steve jobs is apparently a pescetarian (a vegetarian who also consumes fish), I also heard that second hand from someone after he visited Japan.
But on a personal note, there are many cases where a low fat vegan diet has cured certain cancers so I believe Steve could be and probably is much healthier than most of you guys discussing his health.
You're correct about Steve. He always eats sushi with raw fish when we had company parties at NeXT and Apple.
I'm not exactly skinny or weak either and I've been vegan for many years.
Besides Steve jobs is apparently a pescetarian (a vegetarian who also consumes fish), I also heard that second hand from someone after he visited Japan.
But on a personal note, there are many cases where a low fat vegan diet has cured certain cancers so I believe Steve could be and probably is much healthier than most of you guys discussing his health.
First of all , if you're a vegan and allow yourself to get or look malnourished then that's a sickness in itself. I believe its a form of anoroexia or manorexia.
Second, how do you know whether those vegans you mentioned didn't help themselves to a side dish of steroids?
A suspect commenter quoting another suspect commenter quoting John Doe 3rd parties. That's quite a paper trail of unreliable sources using nothing but hearsay, it comes across as an orchestrated attempt to create a grassroots panic.
Whoever is behind all this will clearly go to some lengths to spread their lies...But what for? That's the question we need to be asking. There is no merit to these rumours, we know that. So for what purpose are they being propagated.
You allege that "There is no merit to these rumours" but do you actually possess any tangible evidence that contradicts them? If so, then perhaps here would be a great place to freely share such hypothetically non-existent information instead of cowardly throwing your accusatory stones at those who are neither afraid to embrace the truth or speak it.
All it would take is one live Steve Jobs interview in front of a video camera (that anyone but you is holding) to instantly and irrevocably dispel the rampant speculation regarding his declining health status that by the way, he does have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose to Apple's investors (it's not an option you see, as some of his less informed supporters appear to believe).
APPLE THEMSELVES WON'T EVEN DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT STEVE JOBS' DETERIORATING HEALTH saying only:
"If Steve or the board decides that Steve is no longer capable of doing his job as CEO of Apple, I am sure they will let you know."
One thing that is conspicuously missing from this statement by Apple is precisely how do "they" define "doing his job as CEO" and does "their" definition differ from their stockholders' definition.
The other thing that is conspicuously missing from Apple's statement is a direct denial of these allegations about Steve Jobs being sicker than usual as of late. If you call me "a bird" and I am "a tree", I will boldly challenge your assertion along with an immediate presentation of evidence supporting my position...unless I really am "a bird" (perhaps one who's in denial or one who recently ate some funny-looking mushrooms).
So one train of thought about why there was no direct denial by Apple of what you claim to be "lies" about Steve's declining health condition is that they cannot truthfully proclaim something that they know to be true to be a lie (without suffering the dire consequences later on when perhaps it shall be revealed to the world that they knew more than they were leading others to believe that they knew but maintaining their disposition of silence was their chosen course of action). So apparently their PR guys drafted their casually committed statement that offers no enlightenment whatsoever as to whether or not Steve Jobs' health has gone from bad to worse lately and whether or not that could have anything to do with why he won't be delivering the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
In my opinion, Apple's statement (quoted above) already contains a public declaration that has the pungent aroma of untruth to it. Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at their last Macworld next month (or haven't you heard?)! And is not that part of being "capable" enough to do "his job as CEO of Apple"? I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. But Apple's lawyers have probably told them (Apple) that as long as Steve Jobs is still breathing and is generally cognizant of himself, others and his surroundings, then he is still partially "capable" of handling some of the CEO's responsibilities and therefore in order to hopefully avoid the widespread panic that could create a devastating decline in the value of Apple's shares, saying little to nothing is the lesser of two evils (a legally questionable position though one minimally backed by a logically sound argument).
HERE ARE A FEW FACT-BASED THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW (not rumors to anyone who has an average or better level of functioning intelligence):
1) In mid-2004, Steve Jobs announced to his employees that he'd been diagnosed with a malignant tumor in his pancreas ("an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor"). And yes I do know that this is not the kind of pancreatic cancer that is the more aggressive version and although that's a good thing "the median survival duration from the time of diagnosis for patients with non-functioning metastatic islet cell tumors approaches five years" according to the "Pancreatic Cancer Frequently Asked Questions" found at:
2) Regarding his physical condition, Steve Jobs hasn't looked all that great in live appearances over the last year (and based on a little bit of Google research, I know I'm not the only one who thinks so). And I'm not talking about the occasional "bad-hair" day either.
3) Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
4) Apple waited until December 16th of this year (still 2008 as of the time I am writing this) to announce that "Philip Schiller, Apple?s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year?s Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple?s last keynote at the show."
So the real question I am asking myself tonight is:
"Why is it that some people can smell the iSmoke but can't see the iFire?"
For the record, I am NOT part of some stock-manipulation scheme (and shorting Apple stock is not all that common from what I've read at financial websites). I can't think of anyone who would really gain anything from significant drops in Apple's stock (not even their competitors). The optimistic long-term Apple investor might speculatively buy some additional Apple shares after these periodic declines in stock price in the hopes that they will appreciate in value over time (along with other Apple shares previously acquired) but with all of the recent roller-coaster fluctuations in the market as a whole and with Apple's stock in particular, I sincerely doubt anyone out there (with any discretionary income to play with) is attempting to derive any short-term capital gains using Apple as their bridge to what appears to me to be a Growing Mountain of Uncertainty.
You allege that "There is no merit to these rumours" but do you actually possess any tangible evidence that contradicts them? If so, then perhaps here would be a great place to freely share such hypothetically non-existent information instead of cowardly throwing your accusatory stones at those who are neither afraid to embrace the truth or speak it.
All it would take is one live Steve Jobs interview in front of a video camera (that anyone but you is holding) to instantly and irrevocably dispel the rampant speculation regarding his declining health status that by the way, he does have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose to Apple's investors (it's not an option you see, as some of his less informed supporters appear to believe).
APPLE THEMSELVES WON'T EVEN DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT STEVE JOBS' DETERIORATING HEALTH saying only:
"If Steve or the board decides that Steve is no longer capable of doing his job as CEO of Apple, I am sure they will let you know."
One thing that is conspicuously missing from this statement by Apple is precisely how do "they" define "doing his job as CEO" and does "their" definition differ from their stockholders' definition.
The other thing that is conspicuously missing from Apple's statement is a direct denial of these allegations about Steve Jobs being sicker than usual as of late. If you call me "a bird" and I am "a tree", I will boldly challenge your assertion along with an immediate presentation of evidence supporting my position...unless I really am "a bird" (perhaps one who's in denial or one who recently ate some funny-looking mushrooms).
So one train of thought about why there was no direct denial by Apple of what you claim to be "lies" about Steve's declining health condition is that they cannot truthfully proclaim something that they know to be true to be a lie (without suffering the dire consequences later on when perhaps it shall be revealed to the world that they knew more than they were leading others to believe that they knew but maintaining their disposition of silence was their chosen course of action). So apparently their PR guys drafted their casually committed statement that offers no enlightenment whatsoever as to whether or not Steve Jobs' health has gone from bad to worse lately and whether or not that could have anything to do with why he won't be delivering the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
In my opinion, Apple's statement (quoted above) already contains a public declaration that has the pungent aroma of untruth to it. Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at their last Macworld next month (or haven't you heard?)! And is not that part of being "capable" enough to do "his job as CEO of Apple"? I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. But Apple's lawyers have probably told them (Apple) that as long as Steve Jobs is still breathing and is generally cognizant of himself, others and his surroundings, then he is still partially "capable" of handling some of the CEO's responsibilities and therefore in order to hopefully avoid the widespread panic that could create a devastating decline in the value of Apple's shares, saying little to nothing is the lesser of two evils (a legally questionable position though one minimally backed by a logically sound argument).
HERE ARE A FEW FACT-BASED THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW (not rumors to anyone who has an average or better level of functioning intelligence):
1) In mid-2004, Steve Jobs announced to his employees that he'd been diagnosed with a malignant tumor in his pancreas ("an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor"). And yes I do know that this is not the kind of pancreatic cancer that is the more aggressive version and although that's a good thing "the median survival duration from the time of diagnosis for patients with non-functioning metastatic islet cell tumors approaches five years" according to the "Pancreatic Cancer Frequently Asked Questions" found at:
2) Regarding his physical condition, Steve Jobs hasn't looked all that great in live appearances over the last year (and based on a little bit of Google research, I know I'm not the only one who thinks so). And I'm not talking about the occasional "bad-hair" day either.
3) Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
4) Apple waited until December 16th of this year (still 2008 as of the time I am writing this) to announce that "Philip Schiller, Apple?s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year?s Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple?s last keynote at the show."
So the real question I am asking myself tonight is:
"Why is it that some people can smell the iSmoke but can't see the iFire?"
For the record, I am NOT part of some stock-manipulation scheme (and shorting Apple stock is not all that common from what I've read at financial websites). I can't think of anyone who would really gain anything from significant drops in Apple's stock (not even their competitors). The optimistic long-term Apple investor might speculatively buy some additional Apple shares after these periodic declines in stock price in the hopes that they will appreciate in value over time (along with other Apple shares previously acquired) but with all of the recent roller-coaster fluctuations in the market as a whole and with Apple's stock in particular, I sincerely doubt anyone out there (with any discretionary income to play with) is attempting to derive any short-term capital gains using Apple as their bridge to what appears to me to be a Growing Mountain of Uncertainty.
Your broken assumption is as follows:
The onus is on Apple, Inc. and Steve Jobs to disprove rumours of the latter's ill-health.
That is incorrect. The onus is on those alleging that Apple and Steve Jobs are covering up the latter's ill health to provide proof that what thy allege is indeed occurring. It's a little concept called Innocent until Proven Guilty, it's fairly conventional in this day and age, perhaps you've heard of it?
Your willingness to accept the word of bloggers citing John Doe sources, essentially hearsay, over repeated official denials of these rumours means that if you are not involved in spreading this misinformation, you are clearly either stupid or pursuing an agenda.
Steve Jobs has already publicly stated he is healthy. Please stop pretending he has not.
Incidentally: if Steve really was in such a bad way that he was unable to do the Keynote, or Apple unwilling to allow it, they would have far bigger problems and covering it up would only complicate matters.
The onus is on Apple, Inc. and Steve Jobs to disprove rumours of the latter's ill-health.
That is incorrect. The onus is on those alleging that Apple and Steve Jobs are covering up the latter's ill health to provide proof that what thy allege is indeed occurring. It's a little concept called Innocent until Proven Guilty, it's fairly conventional in this day and age, perhaps you've heard of it?
Your willingness to accept the word of bloggers citing John Doe sources, essentially hearsay, over repeated official denials of these rumours means that if you are not involved in spreading this misinformation, you are clearly either stupid or pursuing an agenda.
Steve Jobs has already publicly stated he is healthy. Please stop pretending he has not.
Incidentally: if Steve really was in such a bad way that he was unable to do the Keynote, or Apple unwilling to allow it, they would have far bigger problems and covering it up would only complicate matters.
I am not the person you wrote your reply to, but I have to step in here. The poster simply layed out his perception of the matter and the evidence he believes supports his position. Your assertion that this makes him "clearly stupid or pursuing an agenda" is childish and inappropriate. As to the merit of his arguments, I think the makes a convincing case even given the anecdotal and circumstantial nature of most of the information.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1355344]Gadget blog Gizmodo is causing a stir this afternoon with a new report alleging that Apple has misled the public about the reasons behind its exit from Macworld Expo, claiming Steve Jobs' deteriorating health is to blame for the matter."
I've been somewhat irritated with the repeated stirring of this rumor, because it just gets folks upset and does nothing to help. If folks have facts instead of second hand comments then post those with hard (checkable) references, otherwise let it go.
I found the following over on "The Mac Observer" forum I think it is relevant and present it here. It was written by the administrator of that forum.
"We?ve all read or heard the latest rumors and gossip about SJ?s health. Good health or poor health, it doesn?t matter. The gossip and rumor-mongering reveal the dank underbelly of amateurish Web journalism. While it?s obvious these rumors have an impact on the trading of AAPL shares (however brief the impact), there?s no reason to illicitly support or condone the actions of those who choose to seek personal gain or notoriety through the propagation of rumors about SJ?s health.
It?s hard to understand how anyone would actively participate in the proliferation of these stories. I consider these gossip reports to be obscene in nature and destructive in intent.
Thank you to everyone in the AFB for continuing to keep discussions about the rumors limited to the brief impact on the trading of AAPL shares. I?m personally making note of the sites that are reporting these rumors as pseudo-fact and choosing not to visit them again and will avoid doing business with any enterprise that actively and knowingly sponsors those sites."
No. A major Apple event would suffice to quell the shareholders from bailing and taking the stock down to the teens once more though.
here's the thing. every time he shows up at the events, folks have to make comment that he looks tired, thin, etc.
so it's dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't.
personally I don't believe any of it. If it was health related they would have not announced he wasn't making the keynote so far in advance because they are smart enough to know that it would set off all this crap about his health, etc. they would have waited until Macworld and it would have been a total surprise but offset by whatever was announced so the two would cancel each other out in terms of the stock value.
Someone needs to email the SEC about the LA Times article. Off with their heads. The editor's should be fired.
on the contrary, the article is about how the blog posted a rumor, thinly reported as such and knocked down the stock price.
had they written it as "Well respected tech blog Gizmodo has uncovered sources that Apple's departure and Steve Jobs refusal to give his traditional keynote speech at the event is due to the CEOs declining health and imminent death, living the company in the hands of total morons who can't wipe their asses without Jobs there to tell them when and how" then they would be just as guilty.
A rumor site exasperating another rumor from another rumor site.....
Engadget.com RULES...over gizmodo
my fav are the folks screaming that Apple is legally required to report when the CEO is sick to the stock holders but can't reference any law to that point. you would think if these folks know this detail they can back it up with the appropriate law.
As for the whole Apple waiting until Dec whatever. Actually know, Apple announced ahead of time, probably because they figured if they didn't and somehow it leaked out later, everyone would be screaming that Steve is on his death bed. Over the past few events, Apple has been building up to this moment, likely because they want to show that Apple is not the same as Steve Jobs. that there are dozens of people that create each device, etc. in other words, the company would do just fine without Steve at the helm.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
anyone who understands what they did in that surgery would not be shocked that he's lost weight and has continued issues with it.
they took out half the guy's pancreas, a small hunk of his stomach and about half of his intestinal track. weight loss, GI upset (which can put you off eating for a day or two while things settle down) etc is going to happen and keep happening.
think of it like those folks that go and get their stomachs tied in half to lose weight. they can't eat large meals, fattier foods etc because it makes them violently ill. so it forces them to eat better and smaller amounts at a time.
only difference is that Steve didn't request the procedure so much as it was the last option to avoid dying.
For me, these were the most revealing parts of this anonymous comment
to me it is that it is anonymous.
all of these things have been unnamed insiders and supposed employees and such. but are they really. is someone risking their job to report something like this.
hell maybe so. I know for a fact (because I know folks that work at Apple Retail Stores) that Apple employees have a stock plan where they can buy stock in the company. they just had a buy in fact, within the last couple of weeks. one of my friends mentioned it at Christmas Dinner. thought he was only going to be able to buy 10 shares with his savings but since the price had dropped so much he got 20. (basically they pay in every paycheck for six months and at the end buy at the lower of the first or last days value).
I'm sure that everyone in the company has the same opportunity so maybe someone up at Apple Headquarters was revealing these private facts to drive down the price so then when Apple is forced to prove the rumors wrong and all the cool stuff post MacWorld hits the market the stock shares this yahoo just got will soar in value. the beauty is that he doesn't even have to be telling the truth. he can be making up everyone. it could even be someone that has no clue where Apple is other than near San Francisco pretending to be an Apple employee or 'friend of the family' for the same end result.
I am not the person you wrote your reply to, but I have to step in here. The poster simply layed out his perception of the matter and the evidence he believes supports his position. Your assertion that this makes him "clearly stupid or pursuing an agenda" is childish and inappropriate. As to the merit of his arguments, I think the makes a convincing case even given the anecdotal and circumstantial nature of most of the information.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
There is no reliable evidence of Steve's health deteriorating. All we have is hearsay from unknown people who often themselves have it secondhand from yet more unknown people and the subjective belief that Steve looks unwell because he has lost some weight. That is not hard evidence, especially since weight loss is quite easily caused by other far less dramatic means. In fact, Steve seemed healthier at the October event than he did over a year previously at WWDC 2007, where he was coughing and pausing for breath more than usual. Furthermore, it is unfair to demand Apple address these rumours when Steve has already done so. So it begs the question, what possesses people to put more faith in 3rd Parties whose names they do not even know, never mind the accuracy of their information, than in the man himself, who clearly knows better than any unknown sources cited by barely reputable blogs, who has twice told us he is fine.
Thank you to everyone in the AFB for continuing to keep discussions about the rumors limited to the brief impact on the trading of AAPL shares.
I do understand your position very well but I do find it strange that people are attacking those who are talking about Steve's health in a forum unless it is about the effect on the trading of AAPL shares. To me, worrying about your AAPL shares more than Steve's health is the colder of the two. Many of us don't know Steve personally but have watched him for many years, as we also love Apple. We come here to talk about things we care about and Steve Jobs is inevitably one of those topics. You have to admit, when Apple states the common bug as the reason Steve looks extremely gaunt, then the rumors and concerns are going to fly. Regardless of the validity of the Gadget blog, many of simply don't buy the reason for Job's backing out of the keynote with less than a month away.
IF Mr. jobs is fine why wouldn't he simply hold a 10 minute news conference with a reporter of his choosing, at a location of his choosing, at a time of his choosing to calm fears of his being ill?!
Convention participation is one issue. Steve's health or well being is another.
This can be really easy and simple. Why hide or be absent?
If anything the manner in which this is all being managed does not bode well for Apple.
The more important the person the more his supporters need to know FROM HIM that his well being is good.
Something is not right. The truth always shows itself.
Patience!
The last time this came up (a few months ago) Steve personally called a repporter (NYT I think, but maybe Fortune or some other national pub) and talked to him at length about his health. Do you want to make him do that every time some idiot starts a rumour? If you're that concerned about his health, DON'T INVEST IN APPLE.
The thing about investing is, you never get all the answers - you take a chance. This whole health issue is BS. Apple and Jobs have disclosed everything they're required to under law. If you think that's not enough, sell your shares. But stop whining, and stop trying to invade Jobs' privacy. You have no right.
Comments
Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? In regards to your charity rant.
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/com.../2006/01/70072
OK, where was the part where it's any of our business whether someone else donates money or not? Maybe I missed a line, but the story seems presume that it is.
a 2 second search gave me. I'm not wasting my time on doing any other research.
See a patern. Most are companies that are good on the pocket book.
Exactly how did you find that?
OK, so fair enough, you found some that did beat the trend. The basic fact is that Apple is doing well as a business and stock holders don't seem to be noticing that. I only looked at Netflix, but it did have considerable volatility, it's down a lot from its peak but up a lot from its worst.
But there is no proof of malicious intent either by Gizmodo or their source; I cannot provide any, nor can you, yet you yourself casually dismiss it as something of a prank or stock manipulation (ironic, since you state that this sort of thing should not be "let off the hook" so casually).
On counterpoint, there is no proof that this anonymous report is correct either. It's just some anonymous person making statements. It looks like the onus has been placed on Apple to prove that Jobs is fine when the original story works out to be hearsay at best. Couple that with speculations of conspiracy on Apple's part as well. The article on Gizmodo does not give me any impression that they vetted this story, it looks to be about as carefully vetted as the ireport debacle. At least iReport is user generated content, the gizmodo article looks to be more deliberate on the part of those that run the site to fan the fears.
The only other time that reported rumors of Jobs' health problems caused problems did turn out to be a prank, I don't yet see any reason to see why it isn't the case here too.
It is true that first amendment protections do exist and they are strong, but they aren't ironclad either.
Ignorant remark. You have obviously never heard of the following vegans:
bodybuilder Kenneth Williams.
http://veganmusclepower.org/
Carl Lewis (Olympic athlete) who admits that it was being a vegan that helped him become the fastest runner in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOTETXwfIaY
Or Mac Danzig, Ultimate Fighter champion, who is also an ethical vegan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Danzig
or Keith Holmes former World Middleweight boxing champion.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Keith_Holmes
I'm not exactly skinny or weak either and I've been vegan for many years.
Besides Steve jobs is apparently a pescetarian (a vegetarian who also consumes fish), I also heard that second hand from someone after he visited Japan.
But on a personal note, there are many cases where a low fat vegan diet has cured certain cancers so I believe Steve could be and probably is much healthier than most of you guys discussing his health.
You're correct about Steve. He always eats sushi with raw fish when we had company parties at NeXT and Apple.
Why is that? You can't seriously believe the media was impartial during the last election can you?
I agree... the non-stop 'all Reverend Wright, All The Time' - fest was corporate right wing media at its best.
BTW, use of 'fanboi' immediately pegs you as an idiot. Just so you know.
Ignorant remark. You have obviously never heard of the following vegans:
bodybuilder Kenneth Williams.
http://veganmusclepower.org/
Carl Lewis (Olympic athlete) who admits that it was being a vegan that helped him become the fastest runner in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOTETXwfIaY
Or Mac Danzig, Ultimate Fighter champion, who is also an ethical vegan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Danzig
or Keith Holmes former World Middleweight boxing champion.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Keith_Holmes
I'm not exactly skinny or weak either and I've been vegan for many years.
Besides Steve jobs is apparently a pescetarian (a vegetarian who also consumes fish), I also heard that second hand from someone after he visited Japan.
But on a personal note, there are many cases where a low fat vegan diet has cured certain cancers so I believe Steve could be and probably is much healthier than most of you guys discussing his health.
First of all , if you're a vegan and allow yourself to get or look malnourished then that's a sickness in itself. I believe its a form of anoroexia or manorexia.
Second, how do you know whether those vegans you mentioned didn't help themselves to a side dish of steroids?
A suspect commenter quoting another suspect commenter quoting John Doe 3rd parties. That's quite a paper trail of unreliable sources using nothing but hearsay, it comes across as an orchestrated attempt to create a grassroots panic.
Whoever is behind all this will clearly go to some lengths to spread their lies...But what for? That's the question we need to be asking. There is no merit to these rumours, we know that. So for what purpose are they being propagated.
You allege that "There is no merit to these rumours" but do you actually possess any tangible evidence that contradicts them? If so, then perhaps here would be a great place to freely share such hypothetically non-existent information instead of cowardly throwing your accusatory stones at those who are neither afraid to embrace the truth or speak it.
All it would take is one live Steve Jobs interview in front of a video camera (that anyone but you is holding) to instantly and irrevocably dispel the rampant speculation regarding his declining health status that by the way, he does have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose to Apple's investors (it's not an option you see, as some of his less informed supporters appear to believe).
APPLE THEMSELVES WON'T EVEN DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT STEVE JOBS' DETERIORATING HEALTH saying only:
"If Steve or the board decides that Steve is no longer capable of doing his job as CEO of Apple, I am sure they will let you know."
One thing that is conspicuously missing from this statement by Apple is precisely how do "they" define "doing his job as CEO" and does "their" definition differ from their stockholders' definition.
The other thing that is conspicuously missing from Apple's statement is a direct denial of these allegations about Steve Jobs being sicker than usual as of late. If you call me "a bird" and I am "a tree", I will boldly challenge your assertion along with an immediate presentation of evidence supporting my position...unless I really am "a bird" (perhaps one who's in denial or one who recently ate some funny-looking mushrooms).
So one train of thought about why there was no direct denial by Apple of what you claim to be "lies" about Steve's declining health condition is that they cannot truthfully proclaim something that they know to be true to be a lie (without suffering the dire consequences later on when perhaps it shall be revealed to the world that they knew more than they were leading others to believe that they knew but maintaining their disposition of silence was their chosen course of action). So apparently their PR guys drafted their casually committed statement that offers no enlightenment whatsoever as to whether or not Steve Jobs' health has gone from bad to worse lately and whether or not that could have anything to do with why he won't be delivering the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
In my opinion, Apple's statement (quoted above) already contains a public declaration that has the pungent aroma of untruth to it. Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at their last Macworld next month (or haven't you heard?)! And is not that part of being "capable" enough to do "his job as CEO of Apple"? I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. But Apple's lawyers have probably told them (Apple) that as long as Steve Jobs is still breathing and is generally cognizant of himself, others and his surroundings, then he is still partially "capable" of handling some of the CEO's responsibilities and therefore in order to hopefully avoid the widespread panic that could create a devastating decline in the value of Apple's shares, saying little to nothing is the lesser of two evils (a legally questionable position though one minimally backed by a logically sound argument).
HERE ARE A FEW FACT-BASED THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW (not rumors to anyone who has an average or better level of functioning intelligence):
1) In mid-2004, Steve Jobs announced to his employees that he'd been diagnosed with a malignant tumor in his pancreas ("an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor"). And yes I do know that this is not the kind of pancreatic cancer that is the more aggressive version and although that's a good thing "the median survival duration from the time of diagnosis for patients with non-functioning metastatic islet cell tumors approaches five years" according to the "Pancreatic Cancer Frequently Asked Questions" found at:
http://www.pancreatica.org/faq.html#anchor2193376
2) Regarding his physical condition, Steve Jobs hasn't looked all that great in live appearances over the last year (and based on a little bit of Google research, I know I'm not the only one who thinks so). And I'm not talking about the occasional "bad-hair" day either.
3) Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
4) Apple waited until December 16th of this year (still 2008 as of the time I am writing this) to announce that "Philip Schiller, Apple?s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year?s Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple?s last keynote at the show."
So the real question I am asking myself tonight is:
"Why is it that some people can smell the iSmoke but can't see the iFire?"
For the record, I am NOT part of some stock-manipulation scheme (and shorting Apple stock is not all that common from what I've read at financial websites). I can't think of anyone who would really gain anything from significant drops in Apple's stock (not even their competitors). The optimistic long-term Apple investor might speculatively buy some additional Apple shares after these periodic declines in stock price in the hopes that they will appreciate in value over time (along with other Apple shares previously acquired) but with all of the recent roller-coaster fluctuations in the market as a whole and with Apple's stock in particular, I sincerely doubt anyone out there (with any discretionary income to play with) is attempting to derive any short-term capital gains using Apple as their bridge to what appears to me to be a Growing Mountain of Uncertainty.
You allege that "There is no merit to these rumours" but do you actually possess any tangible evidence that contradicts them? If so, then perhaps here would be a great place to freely share such hypothetically non-existent information instead of cowardly throwing your accusatory stones at those who are neither afraid to embrace the truth or speak it.
All it would take is one live Steve Jobs interview in front of a video camera (that anyone but you is holding) to instantly and irrevocably dispel the rampant speculation regarding his declining health status that by the way, he does have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose to Apple's investors (it's not an option you see, as some of his less informed supporters appear to believe).
APPLE THEMSELVES WON'T EVEN DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT STEVE JOBS' DETERIORATING HEALTH saying only:
"If Steve or the board decides that Steve is no longer capable of doing his job as CEO of Apple, I am sure they will let you know."
One thing that is conspicuously missing from this statement by Apple is precisely how do "they" define "doing his job as CEO" and does "their" definition differ from their stockholders' definition.
The other thing that is conspicuously missing from Apple's statement is a direct denial of these allegations about Steve Jobs being sicker than usual as of late. If you call me "a bird" and I am "a tree", I will boldly challenge your assertion along with an immediate presentation of evidence supporting my position...unless I really am "a bird" (perhaps one who's in denial or one who recently ate some funny-looking mushrooms).
So one train of thought about why there was no direct denial by Apple of what you claim to be "lies" about Steve's declining health condition is that they cannot truthfully proclaim something that they know to be true to be a lie (without suffering the dire consequences later on when perhaps it shall be revealed to the world that they knew more than they were leading others to believe that they knew but maintaining their disposition of silence was their chosen course of action). So apparently their PR guys drafted their casually committed statement that offers no enlightenment whatsoever as to whether or not Steve Jobs' health has gone from bad to worse lately and whether or not that could have anything to do with why he won't be delivering the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
In my opinion, Apple's statement (quoted above) already contains a public declaration that has the pungent aroma of untruth to it. Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at their last Macworld next month (or haven't you heard?)! And is not that part of being "capable" enough to do "his job as CEO of Apple"? I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. But Apple's lawyers have probably told them (Apple) that as long as Steve Jobs is still breathing and is generally cognizant of himself, others and his surroundings, then he is still partially "capable" of handling some of the CEO's responsibilities and therefore in order to hopefully avoid the widespread panic that could create a devastating decline in the value of Apple's shares, saying little to nothing is the lesser of two evils (a legally questionable position though one minimally backed by a logically sound argument).
HERE ARE A FEW FACT-BASED THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW (not rumors to anyone who has an average or better level of functioning intelligence):
1) In mid-2004, Steve Jobs announced to his employees that he'd been diagnosed with a malignant tumor in his pancreas ("an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor"). And yes I do know that this is not the kind of pancreatic cancer that is the more aggressive version and although that's a good thing "the median survival duration from the time of diagnosis for patients with non-functioning metastatic islet cell tumors approaches five years" according to the "Pancreatic Cancer Frequently Asked Questions" found at:
http://www.pancreatica.org/faq.html#anchor2193376
2) Regarding his physical condition, Steve Jobs hasn't looked all that great in live appearances over the last year (and based on a little bit of Google research, I know I'm not the only one who thinks so). And I'm not talking about the occasional "bad-hair" day either.
3) Steve Jobs is NOT giving the keynote address at Macworld 2009.
4) Apple waited until December 16th of this year (still 2008 as of the time I am writing this) to announce that "Philip Schiller, Apple?s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year?s Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple?s last keynote at the show."
So the real question I am asking myself tonight is:
"Why is it that some people can smell the iSmoke but can't see the iFire?"
For the record, I am NOT part of some stock-manipulation scheme (and shorting Apple stock is not all that common from what I've read at financial websites). I can't think of anyone who would really gain anything from significant drops in Apple's stock (not even their competitors). The optimistic long-term Apple investor might speculatively buy some additional Apple shares after these periodic declines in stock price in the hopes that they will appreciate in value over time (along with other Apple shares previously acquired) but with all of the recent roller-coaster fluctuations in the market as a whole and with Apple's stock in particular, I sincerely doubt anyone out there (with any discretionary income to play with) is attempting to derive any short-term capital gains using Apple as their bridge to what appears to me to be a Growing Mountain of Uncertainty.
Your broken assumption is as follows:
The onus is on Apple, Inc. and Steve Jobs to disprove rumours of the latter's ill-health.
That is incorrect. The onus is on those alleging that Apple and Steve Jobs are covering up the latter's ill health to provide proof that what thy allege is indeed occurring. It's a little concept called Innocent until Proven Guilty, it's fairly conventional in this day and age, perhaps you've heard of it?
Your willingness to accept the word of bloggers citing John Doe sources, essentially hearsay, over repeated official denials of these rumours means that if you are not involved in spreading this misinformation, you are clearly either stupid or pursuing an agenda.
Steve Jobs has already publicly stated he is healthy. Please stop pretending he has not.
Incidentally: if Steve really was in such a bad way that he was unable to do the Keynote, or Apple unwilling to allow it, they would have far bigger problems and covering it up would only complicate matters.
Your broken assumption is as follows:
The onus is on Apple, Inc. and Steve Jobs to disprove rumours of the latter's ill-health.
That is incorrect. The onus is on those alleging that Apple and Steve Jobs are covering up the latter's ill health to provide proof that what thy allege is indeed occurring. It's a little concept called Innocent until Proven Guilty, it's fairly conventional in this day and age, perhaps you've heard of it?
Your willingness to accept the word of bloggers citing John Doe sources, essentially hearsay, over repeated official denials of these rumours means that if you are not involved in spreading this misinformation, you are clearly either stupid or pursuing an agenda.
Steve Jobs has already publicly stated he is healthy. Please stop pretending he has not.
Incidentally: if Steve really was in such a bad way that he was unable to do the Keynote, or Apple unwilling to allow it, they would have far bigger problems and covering it up would only complicate matters.
I am not the person you wrote your reply to, but I have to step in here. The poster simply layed out his perception of the matter and the evidence he believes supports his position. Your assertion that this makes him "clearly stupid or pursuing an agenda" is childish and inappropriate. As to the merit of his arguments, I think the makes a convincing case even given the anecdotal and circumstantial nature of most of the information.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
I've been somewhat irritated with the repeated stirring of this rumor, because it just gets folks upset and does nothing to help. If folks have facts instead of second hand comments then post those with hard (checkable) references, otherwise let it go.
I found the following over on "The Mac Observer" forum I think it is relevant and present it here. It was written by the administrator of that forum.
"We?ve all read or heard the latest rumors and gossip about SJ?s health. Good health or poor health, it doesn?t matter. The gossip and rumor-mongering reveal the dank underbelly of amateurish Web journalism. While it?s obvious these rumors have an impact on the trading of AAPL shares (however brief the impact), there?s no reason to illicitly support or condone the actions of those who choose to seek personal gain or notoriety through the propagation of rumors about SJ?s health.
It?s hard to understand how anyone would actively participate in the proliferation of these stories. I consider these gossip reports to be obscene in nature and destructive in intent.
Thank you to everyone in the AFB for continuing to keep discussions about the rumors limited to the brief impact on the trading of AAPL shares. I?m personally making note of the sites that are reporting these rumors as pseudo-fact and choosing not to visit them again and will avoid doing business with any enterprise that actively and knowingly sponsors those sites."
No.
here's the thing. every time he shows up at the events, folks have to make comment that he looks tired, thin, etc.
so it's dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't.
personally I don't believe any of it. If it was health related they would have not announced he wasn't making the keynote so far in advance because they are smart enough to know that it would set off all this crap about his health, etc. they would have waited until Macworld and it would have been a total surprise but offset by whatever was announced so the two would cancel each other out in terms of the stock value.
Someone needs to email the SEC about the LA Times article. Off with their heads. The editor's should be fired.
on the contrary, the article is about how the blog posted a rumor, thinly reported as such and knocked down the stock price.
had they written it as "Well respected tech blog Gizmodo has uncovered sources that Apple's departure and Steve Jobs refusal to give his traditional keynote speech at the event is due to the CEOs declining health and imminent death, living the company in the hands of total morons who can't wipe their asses without Jobs there to tell them when and how" then they would be just as guilty.
A rumor site exasperating another rumor from another rumor site.....
Engadget.com RULES...over gizmodo
my fav are the folks screaming that Apple is legally required to report when the CEO is sick to the stock holders but can't reference any law to that point. you would think if these folks know this detail they can back it up with the appropriate law.
As for the whole Apple waiting until Dec whatever. Actually know, Apple announced ahead of time, probably because they figured if they didn't and somehow it leaked out later, everyone would be screaming that Steve is on his death bed. Over the past few events, Apple has been building up to this moment, likely because they want to show that Apple is not the same as Steve Jobs. that there are dozens of people that create each device, etc. in other words, the company would do just fine without Steve at the helm.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
anyone who understands what they did in that surgery would not be shocked that he's lost weight and has continued issues with it.
they took out half the guy's pancreas, a small hunk of his stomach and about half of his intestinal track. weight loss, GI upset (which can put you off eating for a day or two while things settle down) etc is going to happen and keep happening.
think of it like those folks that go and get their stomachs tied in half to lose weight. they can't eat large meals, fattier foods etc because it makes them violently ill. so it forces them to eat better and smaller amounts at a time.
only difference is that Steve didn't request the procedure so much as it was the last option to avoid dying.
"STEVE JOBS HEALTH?"
http://blogs.computerworld.com/what_...comment-123696
For me, these were the most revealing parts of this anonymous comment
to me it is that it is anonymous.
all of these things have been unnamed insiders and supposed employees and such. but are they really. is someone risking their job to report something like this.
hell maybe so. I know for a fact (because I know folks that work at Apple Retail Stores) that Apple employees have a stock plan where they can buy stock in the company. they just had a buy in fact, within the last couple of weeks. one of my friends mentioned it at Christmas Dinner. thought he was only going to be able to buy 10 shares with his savings but since the price had dropped so much he got 20. (basically they pay in every paycheck for six months and at the end buy at the lower of the first or last days value).
I'm sure that everyone in the company has the same opportunity so maybe someone up at Apple Headquarters was revealing these private facts to drive down the price so then when Apple is forced to prove the rumors wrong and all the cool stuff post MacWorld hits the market the stock shares this yahoo just got will soar in value. the beauty is that he doesn't even have to be telling the truth. he can be making up everyone. it could even be someone that has no clue where Apple is other than near San Francisco pretending to be an Apple employee or 'friend of the family' for the same end result.
I am not the person you wrote your reply to, but I have to step in here. The poster simply layed out his perception of the matter and the evidence he believes supports his position. Your assertion that this makes him "clearly stupid or pursuing an agenda" is childish and inappropriate. As to the merit of his arguments, I think the makes a convincing case even given the anecdotal and circumstantial nature of most of the information.
Steve has stated that he is cancer free and it was basically understood that he was simply experiencing some side effects of his surgery, but that was quite a while ago and who really knows what is going on. Perhaps he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer, but is experiencing other major health problems.
There is no reliable evidence of Steve's health deteriorating. All we have is hearsay from unknown people who often themselves have it secondhand from yet more unknown people and the subjective belief that Steve looks unwell because he has lost some weight. That is not hard evidence, especially since weight loss is quite easily caused by other far less dramatic means. In fact, Steve seemed healthier at the October event than he did over a year previously at WWDC 2007, where he was coughing and pausing for breath more than usual. Furthermore, it is unfair to demand Apple address these rumours when Steve has already done so. So it begs the question, what possesses people to put more faith in 3rd Parties whose names they do not even know, never mind the accuracy of their information, than in the man himself, who clearly knows better than any unknown sources cited by barely reputable blogs, who has twice told us he is fine.
Thank you to everyone in the AFB for continuing to keep discussions about the rumors limited to the brief impact on the trading of AAPL shares.
I do understand your position very well but I do find it strange that people are attacking those who are talking about Steve's health in a forum unless it is about the effect on the trading of AAPL shares. To me, worrying about your AAPL shares more than Steve's health is the colder of the two. Many of us don't know Steve personally but have watched him for many years, as we also love Apple. We come here to talk about things we care about and Steve Jobs is inevitably one of those topics. You have to admit, when Apple states the common bug as the reason Steve looks extremely gaunt, then the rumors and concerns are going to fly. Regardless of the validity of the Gadget blog, many of simply don't buy the reason for Job's backing out of the keynote with less than a month away.
IF Mr. jobs is fine why wouldn't he simply hold a 10 minute news conference with a reporter of his choosing, at a location of his choosing, at a time of his choosing to calm fears of his being ill?!
Convention participation is one issue. Steve's health or well being is another.
This can be really easy and simple. Why hide or be absent?
If anything the manner in which this is all being managed does not bode well for Apple.
The more important the person the more his supporters need to know FROM HIM that his well being is good.
Something is not right. The truth always shows itself.
Patience!
The last time this came up (a few months ago) Steve personally called a repporter (NYT I think, but maybe Fortune or some other national pub) and talked to him at length about his health. Do you want to make him do that every time some idiot starts a rumour? If you're that concerned about his health, DON'T INVEST IN APPLE.
The thing about investing is, you never get all the answers - you take a chance. This whole health issue is BS. Apple and Jobs have disclosed everything they're required to under law. If you think that's not enough, sell your shares. But stop whining, and stop trying to invade Jobs' privacy. You have no right.