If it’s not MobileMe issues these days, then it must be Steve’s health. I’m beginning to think that the two are somehow inextricably linked—unable to find a power source for their “cloud”, Apple has hooked MobileMe’s servers directly into Steve’s body. That’s right: MobileMe’s being powered by the Reality Distortion Field (which explains why the field itself has gotten correspondingly weaker in the last couple weeks). Perfect logic, no?
In case you decided not to check the news this weekend—which, frankly, I could not fault you for in the slightest—you may have missed this piece by the New York Times’s Joe Nocera. In response to his repeated inquiries about the CEO’s health, Nocera received a call from none other than Steven P. Jobs, who discussed his health issues, off the record. Obviously, Nocera can’t repeat what Jobs said, but he has said that he is not in a position to contradict other reports of Steve’s health.
But, you ask—how do we really know it was Steve himself? Could this be some sort of elaborate trick? I thus submit the following exchange into evidence:
On Thursday afternoon, several hours after I’d gotten my final “Steve’s health is a private matter” — and much to my amazement — Mr. Jobs called me. “This is Steve Jobs,” he began. “You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.”
Yep, that’s Steve.
Nocera uses this to raise the larger issue of whether or not Jobs should have to disclose his health condition to investors. To me, there seems a fine line here between reasonable disclosure and morbid curiosity. Yes, Steve is an intrinsic part of Apple, and as such, his health affects the company.
But what worries me is the precedent. If Steve or Apple responds now, it essentially backs them into the corner of having to respond to health issues every time they come up. Because if they ever don’t respond, people will jump to the conclusion that something is wrong. That’s not something they want people to focus on (though, granted, by not responding now, they’re kind of being forced to do that anyway). In the end, it’s a lose-lose for them.
Personally, I don’t think Steve should have to discuss his health with anybody apart from his doctor. But if such a thing is necessary, I agree that it should be handled with taste and discretion—as Arik Hesseldahl suggests, Apple’s outside directors are probably best-suited to this task. If they say that they’ve talked with Steve and they’re satisfied with the information that he’s given them about his health, that ought to close the matter.
Now if only everybody in the world were so enlightened.
I understand why Steve doesn't want to talk about his health, but I also understand why shareholders want to know about it and why it is relevant. If anything, his health is more relevant to Apple's health than the health of most CEOs would be to their respective companies, since Apple is so identified with him. I guess this really just means that there needs to be a serious discussion about post-Steve plans - even if he stays relatively healthy for decades to come, there will still come a time when someone else needs to take over the day-to-day stuff at Apple. Right now, no one has any idea who that would be.
Yes I am sick and tired of it. I was sick and tired of it well before MacUser's post a few days ago about Jobs' health via the tea leaves of his air travel records.
"I guess this really just means that there needs to be a serious discussion about post-Steve plans - even if he stays relatively healthy for decades to come, there will still come a time when someone else needs to take over the day-to-day stuff at Apple. Right now, no one has any idea who that would be."
Well, that's not *entirely* true: Apple has said that they do have a succession plan, though they've elected not to discuss it outside of the company-I can see why they'd make that choice, too, since they may not want to break their monolithic image. But we're talking about multi-billion dollar company here; it's not as if they could *not* have a succession plan. If, god forbid, something awful happens to Steve, the whole company's not about to collapse like a house of cards.
Perhaps if they'd just use orange lighting at the last meeting, he'd have that healthy, tanned glow like in the picture you've got here!
perhaps if people like yourself STOPPED WRITING ABOUT IT, it would fade away.
Everytime a blogger decides to give airtime to this subject, it continues to be talked about.
The man should be left alone to his personal business.
The notion that because Steve had cancer, he might get it again; and therefore his health is a matter of shareholder concern is foolishness. His battle with cancer has no doubt increased his and the board's awareness of such concerns. He's probably less at risk that any other CEO. My CEO isn't answering questions about his health, and let's just saying he isn't wearing the same pants he wore when he took the position a couple years ago. Anyone can die at any minute, we just refuse to believe that.
That said, Jobs has intentionally fostered this idea that he is the "visionary" mind solely responsible for Apple's current run of fortune. It's job security; and given his history, I can't blame him. But it's time to let that drop. I submit that his decreased participation in keynotes and other press events (e.g., the iPhone SDK announcement) might be part of that. If only the press (and certain competitors) would stop talking like Steve Jobs and Apple are synonymous...
Your point is well-taken, Dave-O, but Jobs is "the face" of Apple just like Gates is (was) "the face" of Microsoft. That is why each is considered synonymous with their respective company. Not to mention that each founded or co-founded the company for which they're known.
Thank you. Please, no more Steve health issues. Who really needs more than one story a year?
Please, let the next article be about how well he left Apple to function after he's gone.