14 comments

• 

  leigh

  11 months ago

  Once again, I think if you set expectations and part of your brands star power (and therefore stock price) is your marketing usage of your CEO, then fair or not, their personal lives becomes public territory.
  reply
• 

  JoeDuck

  11 months ago

  Of course Job's health is material information and it should be disclosed if there is any indication he'll be unable to perform his duties for years into the future. I'm not sure how far down the corporate ladder you need to go before health is no longer a reasonable issue, but certainly in this case it is. I'd suggest that part of full SEC disclosure all CEO's should have their health records on file and viewable by shareholders.
  reply
• 

  scrawledinwax

  11 months ago

  I agree. Giz put up a post today with the usual libertarian 'it's about personal freedom and privacy' argument. Fair enough. But as you and Leigh said, when so much of the company's reputation rests on one man, then stockholders deserve to know what's going on. Claiming a right to privacy sounds like wanting it both ways - maintaining the Jobs cult of personality as a marketing tool but not living up to the responsibility that very tactic entails.
  reply
• 

  Jim Parsons

  11 months ago

  Absolutely... we MUST know! and I can't wait to start seeing Fortune 500 CEO colonoscopys broadcast live on CNNMoneyLine, MSNBC and the other financial channels so analysts, journalists and bloggers can talk about them.
  
  As I've said twice today: with the economic melt down in full swing I find it deliciously ironic that Wall Street is actually screaming at someone else for more "honesty" :-)
  reply
• 

  AAPL Watch

  11 months ago

  Jobs health is an issue if he is too sick to do his job effectively, and he should notify the Board and the shareholders if he is not healthy, and is unable to do his job.
  
  But you want him to have to reassure you on a daily basis that he is healthy? If not daily, how often? I'm just asking, because you think you have a right to be told publicly not just if Steve Jobs is sick, but also if he isn't, right? You want reassurances that he is healthy. So how often should he release a press statement about his health? Daily? Monthly? Kick off every Macworld with his medical chart?
  
  Do you see the difference?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  11 months ago

  I never said I wanted him to reassure anyone that he was healthy on a
  daily basis -- I said that if his cancer has returned, it's a matter
  of shareholder interest.
  reply
• 

  Vanessa Williams

  11 months ago

  I love Apple, but it has a single point of failure: Steve Jobs. The company is just one more big stupid computer company without the man. When he goes (he's not going to live forever), our beloved Apple goes with him. That's the sad and sorry truth. (And a reason I'm glad I'm not holding AAPL stock.)
  reply
• 

  thornley

  11 months ago

  Mathew, I read your writing regularly and I regard you as a smart and insightful columnist.
  
  There is a difference between speculation and good reporting. The former simply throws out an "I wonder if..." The latter involves follow up. That's what Joe Nocera did. He called Apple's PR department to ask about Jobs' health. The fact that they stonewalled him provided the basis for Nocera to write an article. And the fact that he did chase the story may well have led to him getting the real scoop here - a call directly from Steve Jobs and confirmation that Jobs' current problem is not cancer.
  
  I think that any of us who write about others should not be satisfied with simple speculation, especially about something as personal as someone's health.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  11 months ago

  Thanks for the compliment, Joe. But with all due respect, as far as
  I'm concerned there is a place for both speculation and reporting --
  they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Joe Nocera did some of both
  in his Times piece. The fact that he put in a phone call to Apple's
  PR people and got the standard response doesn't change that, nor does
  the fact that he was lucky enough to get a call from Steve Jobs.
  reply
• 

  AAPL Watch

  11 months ago

  Exactly! If his cancer returned, and it was affecting his work, he has a responsibilty to report it to the Board, who has a responsibility to take action.
  
  His cancer didn't return, so he didn't have to report to the Board, who didn''t have to take any action. Exactly as it should be, and exactly what has transpired.
  reply
• 

  Bullish Bankers

  11 months ago

  I agree! I am an apple shareholder and if something were to happen to Steve Jobs that would absolutely devastate the stock as many people remain bullish on the company simply because we believe in Steve Jobs. Wall Street shouldn't be hiding things like this.
  reply
• 

  Sandy

  11 months ago

  Healthy or not, Steve could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Shareholders knew "Apple = Steve" before his cancer scare. Isn't the real issue the One Man Band leadership team?
  reply
• 

  Maggy Young

  11 months ago

  Hey Sandy, I was just about to write the same point as you before I came to your post. Exactly. And how many senior middle aged executives aren't potentially at risk from some health problem, whether known or unknown. The recent sudden death of a prominent US broadcaster has just underlined that point. Steve or any other senior exec. could just drop dead tomorrow anyway.
  So I think the 'health monitoring' is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, although it is fair reporting. Someone as significant as Steve Jobs should reluctantly accept this.
  The whole point is that Steve will have to go sometime anyway & Apple should have groomed a successor & if not, why not ? That is what they should be accounting to stockholders & Wall St. for.
  reply
• 

  liposuction

  5 days ago

  That said, my health is fine, and I'm sure I would be replaced if incapable of writing the blogs. That's business, not sentiment. With Steve ...
  reply