MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

If Apple is fine with it, the public can kiss off.

Jul 23, 08 - 02:37 pm Comment from: Bluefin

I would like every idiot who feels that Mr. Jobs should give up his provacy to post their complete medical history online first...

Who the hell is Ojo? Did he recently get an appointment as GOD of All Health? Did I miss that announcement? Or is Ojo pissed he didn't think to buy when the stock was at 150? before the bounce back up?

Ojo
None of your business!

no.....it does not eliminate right to privacy

am an Apple stockholder

Jul 23, 08 - 03:03 pm Comment from: HMCIV

@MDN

We don't know what Oppenheimer thinks; he's merely saying exactly what Jobs told him to say.

AH HA!! I've caught you in your own mythology. If Jobs didn't brief brief Oppenheimer before the telecon, Peter wouldn't know what to talk about. Apple is doomed w/o Steve Jobs. Doomed I tell you.


"So stick that in your mouth Trebeck and SHUCK IT! SHUCK IT LONG SHUCK IT HARD. SH-UCK IT! (SNL: Sean Connery on Jeopardy.)

@Chris White

apparently you dont have aapl stock, otherwise you'd be pissed off that they couldn't ever so easily just say steve is ok. No more of the, "his health is a private matter" Normally I could careless and if jobs wanted to get the stock to go back up he'd make an announcement that he is ok. Wouldn't matter if he was lying or not.. it would atleast get all the idiots out there to stop dumpin their stock because he's a little sick.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:07 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Doesn't Ojo make some sort of board with numbers and letters on it to to predict the future? Is is that somebody else?

Jul 23, 08 - 03:07 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

If you don't like Steve's decisions, sell your stock. No one is twisting your arm to hold on to it.

(or, buy a lot of Apple stock and vote him out)

If Mickey Mouse were to ever leave Disney, I would sell my all Disney stock!

Life is a terminal condition. Steve Ballmer could drop from heart attack tomorrow. Folks should back off on the man's health.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:14 pm Comment from: Ampar

"Does Steve Jobs’ value to Apple eliminate his right to medical privacy?"

He has every right to privacy. As with every other public company, what he and the board decide to disclose to shareholders and the public is on a need to know basis.

Steve is healthy, recovering nicely, enjoying his vacation and browsing his succession plan and Apple's detailed sales data including the amazing numbers for the MacBook Air on his own MBA while testing many new, insanely great technologies like resolution independence, Snow Leopard and upcoming products that will once again ignite a revolution in the world of technology.

It's time to move past this morbid obsession some of you have for Steve's health.

Steve Jobs is Apple. When he finally dies, they should stuff him and prop him up in a corner of the room so his "spirit" will live on in the face of the employees.

"5. Apple is still vulnerable."
Can somebody name a company, or even country, that isn't vulnerable?

I'm sure the folks at Exxon worry about what will happen to their company when everyone's driving around in all-electric vehicles that get their recharges from wind and solar. That doesn't mean they won't keep raking in billions of dollars per week for a long time to come.

Yes, I think it does.

From a PR standpoint, Apple's handled this all wrong. They can issue statements about Jobs' health until they're blue in the face, but it means nothing until we hear something directly from Jobs himself.

For that reason, I think he should write an open letter immediately in order to (a) assuage the concerns of both shareholders and the technology community, and (b) reassure everyone that there is a concrete succession plan in place when the time comes for Jobs to leave Apple.

When it came to light that the company concealed his illness from the public for almost nine months, there was a lot of ill will cast in Apple's direction. Now that the same concerns are being discussed again (and taking into consideration today's Times report about the second Jobs surgery), both Jobs and Apple have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each other, and they can do that by becoming completely transparent about the health of the most valuable man in the consumer electronics industry.

If they have something to share, the blow will be softened by discussing it now. If they don't, everyone's worst fears will be put to rest for good. It's a win-win situation, and they're fools if they do otherwise.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:25 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Well Folks

Following this logic -


Glenn Miller is a significant member of the Glenn Miller Orchestra

And Mick Jagger is very important to The Rolling Stones

But

Even without Glenn, "In the Mood" is still a great song

And for Mick ?

Well, guess we just can't get no "Satisfaction" in some matters

And don't even get me started on Elvis


All this yip-yap about Steve and his influence and his "health" is merely this:

A very simple psychological transference of their fear of what is about to happen to our favorite softie company in Redmond now that Billy is "dead" and Uncle Fester is running that show.

They are afraid to face THAT situation, so they choose to focus on Apple and throw rocks in frustration.


BC

Steve is a great guy, but Apple will outlive him no matter how old he is when fate catches up with him. People who buy Apple stock know that they won't get paid dividends, and that the only way to profit from it is to buy low and sell high. The company is very deeply in the black, and could easily buy back alot of that stock that these idiots are dumping. The truth is that the stock price is irrelevant to the survivability of the company, since Apple makes products to sell (unlike Enron).

But to "macbones" suggestion, I'd like to wish both Steves a very long life and tenure (one to help Apple, while the other is to hurt Microsoft).

Jul 23, 08 - 03:30 pm Comment from: 84 Mac Guy

A person's right to privacy trumps a stockholders right to know everything. Period. End of story.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:40 pm Comment from: Jimbo von Winskinheimer

Steve has a right to privacy regarding his personal health. Period.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:43 pm Comment from: critic

"When it came to light that the company concealed his illness from the public for almost nine months, there was a lot of ill will cast in Apple's direction. Now that the same concerns are being discussed again (and taking into consideration today's Times report about the second Jobs surgery), both Jobs and Apple have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each other, and they can do that by becoming completely transparent about the health of the most valuable man in the consumer electronics industry."

Apple absolutely should NOT respond every time some a**hat reporter for a crappy rag newpaper chooses to write a story based on rumor. Apple would have to send out a press release every two weeks.

What Apple should do is make it clear at the annual meeting that if there ever is a matter (health or otherwise) that is of material importance to shareholders that they will disclose it in a timely manner (meaning not 9 months after they found out).

However, the board can't do anything if SJ doesn't tell them about an issue, and there is nothing the Board can do to force him to disclose something he doesn't choose to.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:45 pm Comment from: Denny

Who the hell is Bolaji Ojo and who cares what he thinks. Who the hell is EE Times and who cares what they think.

Jul 23, 08 - 03:46 pm Comment from: feral

there is always some lame ass excuse for apple's stock dip at any apple function. steve's health is his own affair. these moronic oxygen thieves feeding on hype need to choke on their own myopic self-righteousness.
like BLUEFIN said...let them post their medical history and we'll go from there...
such bullshit.

Jul 23, 08 - 04:05 pm Comment from: Macromancer

When people start demanding transparency in government, and the reduction in all the secrecy that has clouded us recently, then maybe we can start to discuss this.

Jul 23, 08 - 04:10 pm Comment from: Bluefin

I have two more things to say:

1. MDN is rapidly losing it's sights on the Daily iPhone News; its becoming to paraphrase Oppenheimer (not the Apple one, the Bomb one who was quoting J Donne) Daily becomer of Death News

B. I miss the Daily political sniping News

3. What was the middle thing?

Jul 23, 08 - 04:15 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"Who the hell is EE Times..."

Here is their 'About' page. They say they've been around for 30 years. Never heard of them.

http://www.eetimes.com/about.html;jsessionid=YZB2L15W1H4MGQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN

Jul 23, 08 - 04:20 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

Bluefin,

"I miss the Daily political sniping News"

So, who you voting for? It doesn't matter you fool, you are wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Feel better?

I am a stockholder and have been for almost a decade. I am satisfied with Apple's level of disclosure regarding Steve Jobs' health.

Although it is clear that the Jobs/Apple relationship is unusual and extraordinary, it does not follow that Steve has to give up his rights to personal privacy, which includes public discussions of his health. Let's all wish him well and move on...

Bottom line: Without Steve Jobs there is no Apple.
Within a year after Jobs steps down from Apple the company will be bought by Sony or At&T;or another financial group.

So, yes, the health of Steve Jobs matters to everyone that owns stock in the company. If jobs quit tomorrow Apple stock would drop 50% or more and lots of people would lose lots of money.
His health should be a public matter.

@jtc

Doesn't matter if I own AAPL stocks or not. Steve Jobs is entitled to his privacy. Apple has said several times that he is fine. If people would stop speculating on his health when told that he is okay, the stock wouldn't be so volatile.

Jul 23, 08 - 04:33 pm Comment from: Ampar

Bluefin: I think the correct numbering is 1., B. and then the Batman symbol.

Jul 23, 08 - 04:37 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

@macbones
"Steve Ballmer could drop from heart attack tomorrow"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jul 23, 08 - 04:54 pm Comment from: Mr. Peabody

He is not a publicly elected official and therefore, ultimately, his medical issues are 100% his business, and we are free to continue to wonder and speculate... I think that is ethical and right - Is it legal? Hell if I know. To bad there has to be a difference.

I think it is amazing how all this speculation serves to foster more FUD.

Apple bought by Sony if/when Steve leaves Apple or passes on? Give me a break... Sony is in no financial position to purchase a pack of chewing gum. Much less a company the size of Apple.

Steve's health is a private matter. I hope that he is ok and doing well, and I hope that he continues to do well. And I hope that he remains with Apple for a long long time. I am sure that I will continue to purchase Apple products though... not Steve Jobs products.

The media has made him bigger than he is... he is just the captain of the ship. There are many great minds there, and I am sure they will do a fine job if and when anything happens or if Steve makes a decision to leave. But Apple will continue. Will it be successful? Perhaps. Will it flounder and fail? Perhaps. But to suggest anything more is clearly just SPECULATION.

Jul 23, 08 - 05:40 pm Comment from: Cubert

MDN posts links to HHS websites - classic!!!

"But Apple will continue. Will it be successful? Perhaps. Will it flounder and fail? Perhaps"

The only question you have to answer as to whether it's a material matter for shareholders is will Apple be AS successful without him as with him. I think most people would say no. If you believe the opposite then you're negating Steve's personal contribution to Apple's success. You can't have it both ways, that he's an absolute fricking genius but can be replaced by a monkey overnight without affecting Apple's prospects. Therefore anything that affects his ability to stay at the helm should be disclosed to shareholders.

no.....it does not eliminate right to privacy

am an Apple stockholder

Doesn't the possibility of a "Jobs Rushed to Hospital, Outlook Grim" concern you at all?

Hope you bought your stock before 2003.

I would like every idiot who feels that Mr. Jobs should give up his provacy (sic) to post their complete medical history online first...

Good grief, let's go to the geek extremes. Who said anything about complete medical histories? That said:

Job's medical record? PRIVATE. Everyone's history is between them and their doctor. Nobody else.

Job's general health? PUBLIC. A simple statement that affirmed Job's general health & ability to remain CEO would be adequate. Something in the SEC filing like "CEO Steve Jobs' annual checkup revealed no pertinent issues".

Steve is a key part of Apple's formula and value. His ability to remain at Apple should be a significant factor.

No, Steve Jobs’ value to Apple does not eliminate his right to medical privacy. Stockholders have the right to request the information but Jobs should have the right to refuse to tell. His health concern only matters if he cannot do his job. If the stockholders don't like it, they can sell. If the price falls to unacceptable level, then the company may change its approach. That's how a free market should be.

Bottom line is knowing Jobs' health record does not guarantee your investment. He could be hit by a car, struck by a lightning or whatever. So can all CEOs. If you believe Apple can't survive without Jobs, don't invest in Apple. Pretty simple.

Jul 23, 08 - 07:34 pm Comment from: Greg L

Regulations on corporations require that they inform shareholders of any news or data which they know of and which could reasonably be expected to impact the company’s stock price. Steve Jobs doesn’t have to tell anyone—including Apple—about is health. But if Apple were to one day be informed that Jobs’ health will cause him to leave Apple, then the absolutely have to let its shareholders know.

The B.S. of their attorneys telling them they didn’t need to inform their shareholders the last time is just that: bullshit. Apple is in a unique situation where its CEO is considered to be central to Apple’s well being. So just because other corporations don’t need to disclose big-time news on the health of their CEO (who gives a shit), doesn’t mean that rule applies to Apple.

Jul 23, 08 - 08:05 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

clunker,

"Job's medical record? PRIVATE. Everyone's history is between them and their doctor. Nobody else."

Unfortunately, this isn't actually true. If you read the documents that you have to sign to get medical treatment, they can basically do whatever they want with your information.

I'm off work right now after having surgery, and I had to sign a lot of these documents. I didn't like what I saw, but I had no choice. It's like the software EULAs we have to agree to, only a lot more personal. They have us by the balls.

Jul 23, 08 - 08:11 pm Comment from: ken1w

The value of Steve Jobs to Apple at this point is not innovation or vision. Those qualities where important when he first came back. Going forward, his value is the power to make key yes/no decisions and keep the company focused on ONE path to the future.

Without Steve Jobs at the top, Apple will still be innovative; it may even seem more innovative. But the danger to Apple is becoming the old unfocused Apple that almost went bankrupt. Apple without Steve Jobs will be led by committee and compromise.

With a few exceptions above, everything that I have read in this message thread is simply incorrect, or uneducated speculation.

1. The Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act (HIPAA) protects an individual's right to the privacy of their medical information. This includes you and Steve Jobs. The desire of the public or journalists to know does not change this, not even when the desire to know is about a public figure such as Steve Jobs. He is not an elected official, and is under no legal mandate to disclose his condition. In fact, government employees who accessed private medial records of public officials without authorization have been terminated for doing so, and may be prosecuted as well.

2. The medical condition of a senior executive of a publicly held corporation is not material, so long as they continue to function properly in their job. While Steve Jobs is very important to Apple, unless he was unable to continue to fulfill his duties as CEO, none of this is material. While Steve may look thin, this alone is not a material event.

3. Contrary to what others above said, nothing that Steve Jobs did relating to this affair changed the price of the company's stock. SPECULATION, and uneducated speculation at that (if not fueled by publications, PR firms acting on behalf of competitors, institutional investors and other third parties) likely has had more to do with the volatility in Apple's recent stock price than anything else.

4. A strongly held axiom of public relations, and public relations crisis management in particular, is to only disclose what is absolutely necessary. History has shown time and time again that to disclose too much can cause more problems than it solves. For example, some years ago, hypodermic needles were found in a batch of Pepsi cans. The company immediately consulted with its PR firms and were advised to not issue any public statements until it was determined that the cans in one small batch had been tampered with. Shortly afterward, Pepsi issued a brief statement explaining that upon investigation, it was an isolated incident. The issue quickly passed. The Tylenol scare of the 1980s was a similar case in which the maker of Tylenol stayed quiet at first, investigated and sought the facts, and then issued a statement, along with a plan of action. The issue quickly passed from the headlines.

5. Until the BusinessWeek and New York Times articles were published in the past 24 hours, every other piece of reporting has been complete speculation. No journalist or publication, and this includes the New York Post, Associated Press, Henry Blodget in his Silicon Alley Insider, and now, EETimes, has taken the time to get the facts. On the other hand, BusinessWeek and the New York Times did. They researched the facts about the type of cancer suffered THREE YEARS AGO by Steve Jobs, and consulted with senior executives in a position to know. While it is possible that these publications may have been approached either by Apple's PR firm or a planned leak via senior executives, this is not important. What is important is that these sources were legally bound to tell the truth in disclosing the information about Steve Jobs off the record. (In journalism, there really isn't anything "off the record.")

For all of these reasons, this story should be a non-starter. Third-rate journalists like Bolaji Ojo have done the public a disservice by not doing their homework. He failed to consult with legal and healthcare experts who would have made the points above abundantly clear. That he was able to publish his story at all speaks negatively about the lack of editorial oversight on this reporter. What he and his publication did is strictly unprofessional at best.

I hope now that you will understand. It is better to get the facts before making any judgment, and avoid the speculation and hysteria surrounding this issue.

In short: enough already!

Jul 23, 08 - 10:02 pm Comment from: Bluefin

@ Sir Bill...

"I'm off work right now after having surgery, and I had to sign a lot of these documents..." Been there, still dong that 3 yrs later.

Have copies of those documents one has to sign. In front of me. By consenting to a procedure, I consent to have the hospital disclose MY medical information to persons only for medical purposes.

Thats it.

Not to the press, nor the company I work for. Not to any of the shareholders. Which in my case happens to be all my family, but HIPPA and corporate law are the same whether for Apple and for my little slice of Apple Pie.

So, sorry... you are misreading or possibly misunderstanding the docs you signed.

In either case, I trust you will get better.
In my case, got a clean bill of health at a 6 hour docs visit yesterday. Timing huh? Irony of ironies.

In Steve's case... he'll be fine. And I personally hope he and Apple follow the less is better axiom of PR .

They've said, "Steve is fine. Apple has a succession plan in place." After that, it is what "One More Tme..." has stated: SPECULATION and manipulation that is causing the damage.

Jul 23, 08 - 10:19 pm Comment from: bobchr

@ One more time
Amen!
Now why cant these third rate journalist be sued for their incompetent meddeling?

As we now know Apple told us Steve was recovering from a common bug, at it turns out that bug is called "Surgery". Nothing to see, move along, Apple will continue to lie to you, "Death" will probably be translated into "is not feeling as well as he was last week" (absolutely a true if incomplete statement) and they'll keep him in a freezer and occasionally roll him out for guest appearances, waving to crowds with a string tied to his hand. They'll do that for at least long enough to liquidate their holdings.

It may be difficult for many to see a man whom they admire and respect suffer the ravages of chronic illness. Being a witness to the debilitation of disease, I have empathy for Jobs, his family, and his friends. However, if Jobs has any concern for Apple and respect for Apple patrons everywhere, Jobs ought to realize that his greatest contribution to the company he co-founded is to ensure its success when he unable or incapable of performing as CEO.

Apple's primary interest is Apple's destiny, and Steve Jobs, for all his dedication and vision, is not bigger than Apple. To those who think Steve Jobs is Apple have to accept that without Jobs Apple will wither without him thus are irrevocably chained to the past and not claiming the future.

Apple will and should out live Steve Jobs. As a company that originally promoted the “Think Different” philosophy, I had hoped that Apple would be open and honest with regard to its purpose and vision for continued innovation and growth. Unfortunately, I regret to say that I am having my doubts. What I am observing is Apple’s shameful disregard to accept its responsibilities.

Now is a deciding moment for Apple, whether to place sentimentality and nostalgia for one man above the long-term interests and prospects of the company. I trust that Apple ultimately takes the sensible and responsible path, and ensures that nothing or no one impedes or detracts from Apple's endeavors.

I doubt that any fanboi loves Jobs so much as to willingly lose 30% of his or her Apple stock value in 2 hours.

If all is well in Cupertino let all Apple executives post on a daily how many shares of Apple stock they are selling and buying. Such transparency, would go a long way to developing public trust.

Jul 24, 08 - 06:49 am Comment from: FreddyThePig

It would be nice if Steve Jack could be a responsible adult and get off his obsession with Steve Jobs' health. Anyone who reads any of the other fine Mac blogs will note that they have reported, and moved on. MDN's obsession with this topic is "sick."

Gullible Pig,

Apple "reported" Jobs had a "common bug", but later admitted that Jobs had "surgery".

Apple "reported" Jobs was receiving "antibiotics", but later confessed that Jobs had "surgery".

Suddenly, Jobs was indisposed and unable to take calls.

Apple has along way to go to show it is willing and able to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am convinced that Apple's hierarchy is more concerned about their own stock portfolio, than the long-term performance of Apple.

Freddy the Pig,

If Steve is as healthy as a horse, why do you fret so? Where is your irrational and irrepressible fanboish enthusiasm and confidence now? It seems they have faded.

Do you sleep well at night?

I saw Steve on the beach in Maui on Tuesday. He was walking on the beach with his niece.

He said it was his niece.

She was really hot!

He was really thin.