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?
I didn't think so. I thought it was more serious than he stated before, and possibly more than he was stating then. But I didn't think that he might be dead in several months.
I do think that as is being speculated in the financial community, that he might give up the CEO role to Cook, and keep the Chairman position.
That should be done anyway. It would give him more time to concentrate on products, and negotiations, and leave the nitty gritty daily management to the younger (though he looks older) Cook.
I believe that such an arrangement might come as a relief to the finance guys.
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?
Oh please. We know the course of events pretty well now. don't say that the board didn't know as well.
I'm not saying that they should have said that.
I said in my recent post to you what they COULD have said.
These aren't dumb people. They could have done this carefully. It's just likely that as several have said here, that they were just protecting SJ privacy. Though how they thought they could do that is a mystery to me.
These aren't dumb people. They could have done this carefully. It's just likely that as several have said here, that they were just protecting SJ privacy. Though how they thought they could do that is a mystery to me.
It depends on what their goals were, they may have very well succeeded. If the objective was to largely keep quiet / speculative (at best) while SJ was working through these tough problems, I think they have succeeded. If they were trying to keep this private with a secondary goal of showing how Apple would do without his meticulously guidance, I think they have succeeded. If their goal was to help protect their stock prices, I think they succeeded as best as one could hope for. Their goals probable wasn't to keep this quiet for 50 years and later de-classify it, but rather have a controlled release of information while proving some things (like the company should be fine without SJ).
It depends on what their goals were, they may have very well succeeded. If the objective was to largely keep quiet / speculative (at best) while SJ was working through these tough problems, I think they have succeeded. If they were trying to keep this private with a secondary goal of showing how Apple would do without his meticulously guidance, I think they have succeeded. If their goal was to help protect their stock prices, I think they succeeded as best as one could hope for. Their goals probable wasn't to keep this quiet for 50 years and later de-classify it, but rather have a controlled release of information while proving some things (like the company should be fine without SJ).
I assume that it was what they were trying to do. But they could have released the information as soon as they knew he would be ok. That could have been in May. Then all of this silliness would never have started.
I assume that it was what they were trying to do. But they could have released the information as soon as they knew he would be ok. That could have been in May. Then all of this silliness would never have started.
I don't know why they released information when they released it. A plausible guess might be that they wanted to give SJ some time to make sure it really would be ok, as opposed to a sudden reversal. Not sure, that might require some more medical input to clarify.
I don't know why they released information when they released it. A plausible guess might be that they wanted to give SJ some time to make sure it really would be ok, as opposed to a sudden reversal. Not sure, that might require some more medical input to clarify.
They didn't actually release the information. It was basically forced out of them. When questions were getting close to the facts, SJ told the hospital that it was ok to release the info, and they complied.
I understand the hospital not cooperating until the patient agreed. They do have to work under the patient confidentiality rules.
Well, on tha matter of 3G and coverage, I just arrived back from a 5 day visit to NY. I have only one thing to say: coverage sucks in US comapared to Europe and especcially Sweden. I've been complaining that I have dropped calls, no 3G reception and stuff. Well - no more. I can basically set up VPN on my iPhone in Stockholm and drive down to Malmö and it just works. That's 600 km on the countryside! 3G most of the time. And it's fast compared to 3G in NY!
Sorry New Yorkers, but operators in US are getting away with crippled connections.
I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.
Buffet's comments stink of potential grandstanding for the manipulation of his own position as the worlds "best" investor. But Steve sickness was PR handled all the way by apple inc. Steve personally, we should all be grateful that he is around.
I came back to read this forum since macrumors is blocked by my college firewall (due to a thread about iPhone parent controls no less).
This thread is evidence of my reasons for leaving. Ranting idiots who have their noses so far up Apple's arse it gives new meaning to the word AppleInsider.
The stories about AT&T have been largely ignored in favour of a comment that dared to portray Apple negatively.
had apple reported to their shareholders what was happening when they didn't have a perfect handle on it themselves, and things turned out differently the shareholders, media, and people on forums like this would have been a thousand times more outraged than the little bits of squabbling i hear here.
Enough was given out as it was clearly known. Arbitrary information and information that apple itself could not corroborate with cold, hard facts were not given out because, in my mind, that is much more conscientious and serving the shareholders better. I do believe that a person's health should be his own private matter except when it will materially affect the stockholders, however when even the person himself may not be completely informed as to what his condition is and how it will affect his life, then releasing "we think it might be this" information is not serving the stockholders, the company, and steve himself.
He took a leave of absence for his health. He did that for himself, his family, and for apple and its shareholders. Isn't that enough for you? Steve is obsessed with apple and its fortunes, whether monetary or just producing great products. Do you think he really wanted to take this leave of absence which resulted in major surgery? No. But in doing that he helped himself, his family, and damnit, he did right by the shareholders.
People complain so much that apple revolves around steve. You think he doesn't know that? So, in keeping things fairly under wraps until all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed was, in my opinion, a very business-like and fair way of handling it for all concerned.
Yes, but once he stepped aside to address medical issues he was no longer working. At that point, it is between shareholders and the Board or Directors about whether or not that is acceptable. If it were any other CEO, nobody would care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidT
Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.
I said what I said, that they weren't being open about it.
What is a lie? Is saying that someone is taking time off to take care of his problems for a certain period, a lie if he required a major operation? I think the impression given to the world was that this was a matter that was somewhat serious, but NOT life threatening.
Honestly now, did you at any time get the impression from Apple's statements over the past 6 months that SJ was SO ill that he might require major surgery? I didn't. In fact, many people here were poo pooing the idea that he may be seriously sick, and using Apple's statements as proof.
I think that Apple cultivated the idea that whatever his problems, Apple wasn't concerned that he might not come back in time, and in good health. But in needing a liver transplant, that wouldn't have been the case. While I'm certainly happy that he seems to be ok, a major operation like that is not without high risk. There was also no guarantee that a proper liver would be found in time. Not everyone does get one, not matter how famous or rich they may be.
Basically, Apple was saying; Don't worry, Steve will be ok, he just needs some time rest, and treatments.
So, you tell me what you think they were saying.
YES a good post
NO SOME bad paper here mel
Steve about 10 months ago or so was faced with a decision about why he was losing weight and feeling week all the time. Feeble was the quote . I know this feeling.
7 months ago it was announced that steve to reagin his health would takes a leave of absence.
Its was a floating ticket here, no one knew if what was what was really what. If the board knew about the liver transplant and the timing and the long preparation before said operation . Then the board made a correct decision either way If steve died or if steve recovered a little or if steve is fully recovered . THE board covered all bases by giving steve jobs a six month window to mentally and physically go thru this demanding procedure. AND 6 months to get healthy !!
The media circus would have boded ill for steve and his family if it was disclosed about his liver problems <<new cancer has not yet been admitted too. .>> <no?>
6 months of asinine comments like we have here today we have made a mess of all the new apple stuff . And may have put steve out even longer.
One strange thing here the LACK of loyalty HERE for steve jobs amazes me .
I like my Mac and my iPhone and think that SJ is an incredible salesman.
As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates.
Don't know about the posting, not qualified to know what legally s/b exposed on CEO's personal health. To be honest, I don't think 99.9999% of the room in here are qualified yet have no problem giving an opinion about a Buffet statement and what a horrible ass he is and he should die.
If it was wrong, obviously the courts will decide it. Since it's been announced and there have been nothing but opinions stated on his decision my "GUESS" would be he had legal counsel to know he didn't need to give any information.
Is it right? I guess it depends on what type of person you are...
As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates. ???? Should gates teach steve how to destroy the p/c market for 20 yrs for personal gain. ?? OR has GATES copied every damn thing steve jobs ha done from day one .
We don't know if steve's gives to charity. His new green program insures that hundreds upon hundreds of millions of devices will be pollution free .TOXIC FREE . The children who mine apple computers for metals won't get sick . And the world will follow his example soon. GREEN steve
Yet gates give's money to poor asians kids, who also open up his computers for metals for money and these kids get poisoned by many bad toxic metals ????
Buffet and gates are great people TODAY for the 3rd world help they are giving. They are saving lives everyday. But I would guess that if STEVE JOBS worked with gates and buffet there charities would explode with great world shattering idea;s from steve and his crew . They need steve . They always needed steves visions ,
Steve Jobs took a 6 month medical leave, announced publicly in January.
Like, what did everyone think this meant, that he was going to hang out on some beach for six months sipping on margaritas???
I guess the whole 6 month medical leave thing means something entirely different, apparently. Maybe being that ill calls for a 12-month medical leave . . .
To top it all off I'm reading nonsense that "Steve Jobs IS Apple." I'm not even sure what that means. Unless Apple's HQ in Cupertino has suddenly sprouted arms and legs and is walking around town.
Steve Jobs is Apple's CEO. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no unique position. People just *think* he does and idolize him as such. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. It's fantasy.
Apple has done nothing illegal, nor has Steve Jobs.
How this plays out in reality is that the pie gets bigger for an extremely small group of people and they don't share it, everybody doesn't eat, they will allow the majority of people to starve.
Democratic socialism fosters an even playing field. So that the little guy whom has not had the privilage of gaming the system and hording resources has some chance at seeing some benefit from their hard work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472
General economic note: Capitalism is about increasing the wealth, pie gets bigger = more people can eat. Socialism is about redistributing the wealth, it does not encourage the increasing of the pie's overall size.
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.
Do not confuse the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. with the performance of AAPL stock. Though they are correlated. They are not the same.
Apple Inc. is financially better off today than it was when AAPL was at $200/share. The share price of AAPL is a speculative value based on what investors are willing to pay, based on Apple Inc. financial performance. (And other things that Apple itself can not control.) However, Apple financial performance is not based on the price of AAPL shares. Apple Inc. is not dependent upon it's market cap (total shares x value of share) to secure loans to run the company. Therefore, AAPL shares dropping 20 or 30% will not affect the financial performance of the company to make money. AAPL can drop 20% just base on investors only willing to pay 15 to 20X earnings for AAPL shares (instead of 25 to 30X). This would have no impact on the ability of Apple Inc. to make a profit.
Steve Jobs not to returning to Apple Inc (after his medical leave) will for sure have a great impact on AAPL share price. But not necessarily impact the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. At least not in the near future.
But a delay in release of "Snow Leopard" might have a great impact on the financial performance of Apple Inc. And may have very little impact on it's share price.
For sure Apple board would have to legally report any delay in "Snow Leopard". But it's questionable as to whether Apple board had to legally report that Steve Jobs MAY not return to Apple Inc. For what ever health reasons. (Though they may have to legally report that Steve Job WILL not be returning, once they knew for sure.) As Steve Jobs returning or not will have very little affect on the financial performance of Apple Inc. in the near future.
And so far the board has been right. Apple Inc. financial performance has not been affected, given the condition of the economy, in the absence of Steve Jobs.
Honestly now, did you at any time get the impression from Apple's statements over the past 6 months that SJ was SO ill that he might require major surgery? I didn't.
I guess I'm a little surprised by that. To me, it had seemed pretty obvious that he was going for some kind of major surgery. The actual surgery he got came as quite a surprise, though, and I'd assumed he was going to get his surgery toward the beginning of the 6 months and not toward the end (but it was a transplant, of course, and that's one whose timing you obviously don't get to pick).
One of the problems here is that people are assuming Mr Jobs himself had an accurate handle on his illness and was simply deliberately misleading us. We know he's a very strong-willed person, but we also hear stories that he's had ideas about health that were... not necessarily evidence based. I remember reading "The PIxar Touch" and it mentioned that when he was young (working at Atari, if memory serves?) they had to put him on night duty. He'd decided that a frutarian diet meant he didn't need to take showers. And then when he got this cancer years ago, we heard reports that he initially thought he could fix it once again with a special diet.
Sometimes, especially strong-willed people make the mistake of thinking they can solve all their problems with willpower. They resist the testing that allows their doctors to find out what's going on, they use selective hearing, and they shop around for opinions they like. Because no matter how great a man, he's still human, and he becomes ever more human when the topic at hand is his own possibly-imminent mortality. If you've never been in that position, don't underestimate how scary it is.
The messages we've had from Apple over the past couple of years likely do not represent a conspiracy of deception from a man (and company) that knew full well what his health status was. It's a very human story of a man with an illness, his evolving understanding of that illness, and how he comes to grip with it. We are not even assured that he has. (Emotionally, I mean). But I think it's a pretty safe assumption after the kind of surgery he had. You never know, though, unless you talk to him; and sometimes, not even then. Sometimes the patient himself doesn't know.
Hopefully, it ends up more happily that Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", but I think every Apple fan who thinks he has an opinion about this situation should read that story. It's a short story, not too long.
And to everyone, no matter what your opinion is... remember the bottom line is that we wish the man well. I don't know if the SEC rules somehow supervene over a man's right to privacy. If they do,,, well, they do. Personally, though, I don't feel like I have some innate right to know the details of the man's health. I'm not a stock-holder; just a fan. I agree with a previous poster, though: if you think you're not being well taken care of, you had the option to sell your shares. Do it. Right now, at least, it doesn't seem like anyone has a reason to complain. And the future, as everyone knows who has seen tragedy and struggled desperately to be the first person to think of a way to turn back time... well, the future isn't ours to command. But if you hold on to your shares and they tank, it'll be hard to argue that you didn't have ample warning (though no doubt we'll hear that precise argument, made most stridently, and here in these forums).
Comments
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?
I didn't think so. I thought it was more serious than he stated before, and possibly more than he was stating then. But I didn't think that he might be dead in several months.
I do think that as is being speculated in the financial community, that he might give up the CEO role to Cook, and keep the Chairman position.
That should be done anyway. It would give him more time to concentrate on products, and negotiations, and leave the nitty gritty daily management to the younger (though he looks older) Cook.
I believe that such an arrangement might come as a relief to the finance guys.
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?
Oh please. We know the course of events pretty well now. don't say that the board didn't know as well.
I'm not saying that they should have said that.
I said in my recent post to you what they COULD have said.
These aren't dumb people. They could have done this carefully. It's just likely that as several have said here, that they were just protecting SJ privacy. Though how they thought they could do that is a mystery to me.
These aren't dumb people. They could have done this carefully. It's just likely that as several have said here, that they were just protecting SJ privacy. Though how they thought they could do that is a mystery to me.
It depends on what their goals were, they may have very well succeeded. If the objective was to largely keep quiet / speculative (at best) while SJ was working through these tough problems, I think they have succeeded. If they were trying to keep this private with a secondary goal of showing how Apple would do without his meticulously guidance, I think they have succeeded. If their goal was to help protect their stock prices, I think they succeeded as best as one could hope for. Their goals probable wasn't to keep this quiet for 50 years and later de-classify it, but rather have a controlled release of information while proving some things (like the company should be fine without SJ).
It depends on what their goals were, they may have very well succeeded. If the objective was to largely keep quiet / speculative (at best) while SJ was working through these tough problems, I think they have succeeded. If they were trying to keep this private with a secondary goal of showing how Apple would do without his meticulously guidance, I think they have succeeded. If their goal was to help protect their stock prices, I think they succeeded as best as one could hope for. Their goals probable wasn't to keep this quiet for 50 years and later de-classify it, but rather have a controlled release of information while proving some things (like the company should be fine without SJ).
I assume that it was what they were trying to do. But they could have released the information as soon as they knew he would be ok. That could have been in May. Then all of this silliness would never have started.
I assume that it was what they were trying to do. But they could have released the information as soon as they knew he would be ok. That could have been in May. Then all of this silliness would never have started.
I don't know why they released information when they released it.
I don't know why they released information when they released it.
They didn't actually release the information. It was basically forced out of them. When questions were getting close to the facts, SJ told the hospital that it was ok to release the info, and they complied.
I understand the hospital not cooperating until the patient agreed. They do have to work under the patient confidentiality rules.
I live in San Francisco and I find the reception great!!??
are you emphatically asking us a question?
Sorry New Yorkers, but operators in US are getting away with crippled connections.
I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.
Buffet's comments stink of potential grandstanding for the manipulation of his own position as the worlds "best" investor. But Steve sickness was PR handled all the way by apple inc. Steve personally, we should all be grateful that he is around.
This thread is evidence of my reasons for leaving. Ranting idiots who have their noses so far up Apple's arse it gives new meaning to the word AppleInsider.
The stories about AT&T have been largely ignored in favour of a comment that dared to portray Apple negatively.
had apple reported to their shareholders what was happening when they didn't have a perfect handle on it themselves, and things turned out differently the shareholders, media, and people on forums like this would have been a thousand times more outraged than the little bits of squabbling i hear here.
Enough was given out as it was clearly known. Arbitrary information and information that apple itself could not corroborate with cold, hard facts were not given out because, in my mind, that is much more conscientious and serving the shareholders better. I do believe that a person's health should be his own private matter except when it will materially affect the stockholders, however when even the person himself may not be completely informed as to what his condition is and how it will affect his life, then releasing "we think it might be this" information is not serving the stockholders, the company, and steve himself.
He took a leave of absence for his health. He did that for himself, his family, and for apple and its shareholders. Isn't that enough for you? Steve is obsessed with apple and its fortunes, whether monetary or just producing great products. Do you think he really wanted to take this leave of absence which resulted in major surgery? No. But in doing that he helped himself, his family, and damnit, he did right by the shareholders.
People complain so much that apple revolves around steve. You think he doesn't know that? So, in keeping things fairly under wraps until all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed was, in my opinion, a very business-like and fair way of handling it for all concerned.
Greg
+1
agreed
Well, if you are a shareholder he does work for you, just as a politician is technically a servant of the people. A ship's captain is responsible for the passengers on that ship, and has no right to say something like "My life first, passenger's lives second" (to paraphrase another post on this thread).
This is one of the responsibilities he takes on as CEO of a company.
I am glad it seems he is healthier, but he is not above the law.
And I am not just agreeing with Buffet, I'm not interested in him.
I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.
I am glad steve is ok now .
9
I said what I said, that they weren't being open about it.
What is a lie? Is saying that someone is taking time off to take care of his problems for a certain period, a lie if he required a major operation? I think the impression given to the world was that this was a matter that was somewhat serious, but NOT life threatening.
Honestly now, did you at any time get the impression from Apple's statements over the past 6 months that SJ was SO ill that he might require major surgery? I didn't. In fact, many people here were poo pooing the idea that he may be seriously sick, and using Apple's statements as proof.
I think that Apple cultivated the idea that whatever his problems, Apple wasn't concerned that he might not come back in time, and in good health. But in needing a liver transplant, that wouldn't have been the case. While I'm certainly happy that he seems to be ok, a major operation like that is not without high risk. There was also no guarantee that a proper liver would be found in time. Not everyone does get one, not matter how famous or rich they may be.
Basically, Apple was saying; Don't worry, Steve will be ok, he just needs some time rest, and treatments.
So, you tell me what you think they were saying.
YES a good post
NO SOME bad paper here mel
Steve about 10 months ago or so was faced with a decision about why he was losing weight and feeling week all the time. Feeble was the quote . I know this feeling.
7 months ago it was announced that steve to reagin his health would takes a leave of absence.
Its was a floating ticket here, no one knew if what was what was really what. If the board knew about the liver transplant and the timing and the long preparation before said operation . Then the board made a correct decision either way If steve died or if steve recovered a little or if steve is fully recovered . THE board covered all bases by giving steve jobs a six month window to mentally and physically go thru this demanding procedure. AND 6 months to get healthy !!
The media circus would have boded ill for steve and his family if it was disclosed about his liver problems <<new cancer has not yet been admitted too. .>> <no?>
6 months of asinine comments like we have here today we have made a mess of all the new apple stuff . And may have put steve out even longer.
One strange thing here the LACK of loyalty HERE for steve jobs amazes me .
9
My point exactly about Steve giving nothing back.
I like my Mac and my iPhone and think that SJ is an incredible salesman.
As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates.
Don't know about the posting, not qualified to know what legally s/b exposed on CEO's personal health. To be honest, I don't think 99.9999% of the room in here are qualified yet have no problem giving an opinion about a Buffet statement and what a horrible ass he is and he should die.
If it was wrong, obviously the courts will decide it. Since it's been announced and there have been nothing but opinions stated on his decision my "GUESS" would be he had legal counsel to know he didn't need to give any information.
Is it right? I guess it depends on what type of person you are...
As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates. ???? Should gates teach steve how to destroy the p/c market for 20 yrs for personal gain. ?? OR has GATES copied every damn thing steve jobs ha done from day one .
We don't know if steve's gives to charity. His new green program insures that hundreds upon hundreds of millions of devices will be pollution free .TOXIC FREE . The children who mine apple computers for metals won't get sick . And the world will follow his example soon. GREEN steve
Yet gates give's money to poor asians kids, who also open up his computers for metals for money and these kids get poisoned by many bad toxic metals ????
Buffet and gates are great people TODAY for the 3rd world help they are giving. They are saving lives everyday. But I would guess that if STEVE JOBS worked with gates and buffet there charities would explode with great world shattering idea;s from steve and his crew . They need steve . They always needed steves visions ,
9
Like, what did everyone think this meant, that he was going to hang out on some beach for six months sipping on margaritas???
I guess the whole 6 month medical leave thing means something entirely different, apparently. Maybe being that ill calls for a 12-month medical leave . . .
To top it all off I'm reading nonsense that "Steve Jobs IS Apple." I'm not even sure what that means. Unless Apple's HQ in Cupertino has suddenly sprouted arms and legs and is walking around town.
Steve Jobs is Apple's CEO. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no unique position. People just *think* he does and idolize him as such. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. It's fantasy.
Apple has done nothing illegal, nor has Steve Jobs.
Democratic socialism fosters an even playing field. So that the little guy whom has not had the privilage of gaming the system and hording resources has some chance at seeing some benefit from their hard work.
General economic note: Capitalism is about increasing the wealth, pie gets bigger = more people can eat. Socialism is about redistributing the wealth, it does not encourage the increasing of the pie's overall size.
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.
Do not confuse the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. with the performance of AAPL stock. Though they are correlated. They are not the same.
Apple Inc. is financially better off today than it was when AAPL was at $200/share. The share price of AAPL is a speculative value based on what investors are willing to pay, based on Apple Inc. financial performance. (And other things that Apple itself can not control.) However, Apple financial performance is not based on the price of AAPL shares. Apple Inc. is not dependent upon it's market cap (total shares x value of share) to secure loans to run the company. Therefore, AAPL shares dropping 20 or 30% will not affect the financial performance of the company to make money. AAPL can drop 20% just base on investors only willing to pay 15 to 20X earnings for AAPL shares (instead of 25 to 30X). This would have no impact on the ability of Apple Inc. to make a profit.
Steve Jobs not to returning to Apple Inc (after his medical leave) will for sure have a great impact on AAPL share price. But not necessarily impact the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. At least not in the near future.
But a delay in release of "Snow Leopard" might have a great impact on the financial performance of Apple Inc. And may have very little impact on it's share price.
For sure Apple board would have to legally report any delay in "Snow Leopard". But it's questionable as to whether Apple board had to legally report that Steve Jobs MAY not return to Apple Inc. For what ever health reasons. (Though they may have to legally report that Steve Job WILL not be returning, once they knew for sure.) As Steve Jobs returning or not will have very little affect on the financial performance of Apple Inc. in the near future.
And so far the board has been right. Apple Inc. financial performance has not been affected, given the condition of the economy, in the absence of Steve Jobs.
Honestly now, did you at any time get the impression from Apple's statements over the past 6 months that SJ was SO ill that he might require major surgery? I didn't.
I guess I'm a little surprised by that. To me, it had seemed pretty obvious that he was going for some kind of major surgery. The actual surgery he got came as quite a surprise, though, and I'd assumed he was going to get his surgery toward the beginning of the 6 months and not toward the end (but it was a transplant, of course, and that's one whose timing you obviously don't get to pick).
One of the problems here is that people are assuming Mr Jobs himself had an accurate handle on his illness and was simply deliberately misleading us. We know he's a very strong-willed person, but we also hear stories that he's had ideas about health that were... not necessarily evidence based. I remember reading "The PIxar Touch" and it mentioned that when he was young (working at Atari, if memory serves?) they had to put him on night duty. He'd decided that a frutarian diet meant he didn't need to take showers. And then when he got this cancer years ago, we heard reports that he initially thought he could fix it once again with a special diet.
Sometimes, especially strong-willed people make the mistake of thinking they can solve all their problems with willpower. They resist the testing that allows their doctors to find out what's going on, they use selective hearing, and they shop around for opinions they like. Because no matter how great a man, he's still human, and he becomes ever more human when the topic at hand is his own possibly-imminent mortality. If you've never been in that position, don't underestimate how scary it is.
The messages we've had from Apple over the past couple of years likely do not represent a conspiracy of deception from a man (and company) that knew full well what his health status was. It's a very human story of a man with an illness, his evolving understanding of that illness, and how he comes to grip with it. We are not even assured that he has. (Emotionally, I mean). But I think it's a pretty safe assumption after the kind of surgery he had. You never know, though, unless you talk to him; and sometimes, not even then. Sometimes the patient himself doesn't know.
Hopefully, it ends up more happily that Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", but I think every Apple fan who thinks he has an opinion about this situation should read that story. It's a short story, not too long.
And to everyone, no matter what your opinion is... remember the bottom line is that we wish the man well. I don't know if the SEC rules somehow supervene over a man's right to privacy. If they do,,, well, they do. Personally, though, I don't feel like I have some innate right to know the details of the man's health. I'm not a stock-holder; just a fan. I agree with a previous poster, though: if you think you're not being well taken care of, you had the option to sell your shares. Do it. Right now, at least, it doesn't seem like anyone has a reason to complain. And the future, as everyone knows who has seen tragedy and struggled desperately to be the first person to think of a way to turn back time... well, the future isn't ours to command. But if you hold on to your shares and they tank, it'll be hard to argue that you didn't have ample warning (though no doubt we'll hear that precise argument, made most stridently, and here in these forums).
Peace, friends. Read the Tolstoy.