July 22, 2008 12:20 PM PDT

Crossing the line on Steve Jobs' health

Apple CEO Steve Jobs' appearance at WWDC in June prompted all sorts of speculation that his cancer had returned.

(Credit: James Martin/CNET News)

Anyone with a genuine ounce of concern for Steve Jobs' health should remember the golden rule of medicine: first, do no harm.

Presumably carrying the torch for concerned Apple investors, Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider has apparently decided to make it his personal mission this summer to shame Apple into revealing whether or not Jobs' pancreatic cancer has returned, aided and abetted by timely "hedge fund sources" from The New York Post who claim that Jobs is scaring business associates with his appearance and this despicable throw-away thought from CNET Blog Network contributor Matt Asay suggesting--without a shred of evidence--that the launch issues with MobileMe and the iPhone 3G might be the result of poor oversight from Jobs due to his health.

Just for a moment, put aside the nonsensical notion that the day-to-day performance of a 20,000-person company is based entirely on the health of one man. Blodget and those openly speculating about Jobs' health offer no support for their viewpoint other than his appearance and the fact that he once had cancer.

There are indeed real issues for Apple to consider about Jobs' health and what constitutes material disclosure to investors. But they've been covered before: back in 2006 when the same rumors about Jobs' health made the rounds, and last year when an article in Fortune revealed that Apple waited nine months to disclose that Jobs had been diagnosed with cancer back in 2003.

To repeat, there is no universal standard for how companies are expected to disclose the health issues of their executive officers, the way there are standards for how companies are required to disclose material financial information.

Corporate-governance experts generally agree that a company's board of directors has the responsibility to determine whether the health of its CEO affecting his or her ability to run the company. Likewise, the CEO has a responsibility to be honest and up-front with the board of directors over the true state of their health.

Apple was forced to address the issue during Monday's conference call with a statement that will unfortunately do little to dampen the speculation. CFO Peter Oppenheimer read this statement during the call: "Steve loves Apple. He serves as CEO at the pleasure of the board, and he has no plans to leave Apple. Steve's health is a private matter."

That wasn't enough for Blodget, who argued, "from a shareholder perspective, the 'private matter' response is simply unacceptable." And later, in the comments attached to his post, he suggests: "I hate to be even more morbid, but I tend to agree with the assessment above: the 'private matter' statement makes it seem more likely that he's seriously sick."

Jobs in 2006, the last time rumors about his health swirled.

(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET News)

Apparently, the absence of denial equals confirmation. So what would Blodget and those calling for full disclosure require to be satisfied?

Should Apple break out Jobs' white-blood cell count on the earnings statement next to the number of iPods sold in Japan? Should Apple have to put out an 8-K every time Jobs visits an oncologist for a checkup? Taken more broadly, should Microsoft have to release the results of Steve Ballmer's last physical because a shareholder points out that he's a bit overweight and a bit high-strung?

Blodget suggests that Jobs is "arguably Apple's single most valuable asset," and therefore, if that asset is impaired, the shareholders have a right to know. To be sure, we all know that Steve Jobs is far more actively involved with the design and development of Apple's products than the average CEO and that Apple probably wouldn't have made it back from the abyss of the mid-1990s without his leadership and foresight.

But Jobs is just a man. He's not a demigod sent to lead us down the path to technology enlightenment. He's not a finely crafted design arbitration widget. And he's not merely an "asset," as Blodget himself admits at the end of his latest post on the matter.

Steve Jobs has a family. He has kids. Those kids presumably have Macs in their home that connect to the Internet and allow them to read all this uninformed speculation about what is first and foremost a family matter.

One clear sign that this is an unseemly exercise: if those who keep pushing the issue feel they have to repeatedly apologize for seeming insensitive, they're probably being insensitive. Yes, Jobs is the CEO of a $135 billion company that has dramatically changed the world of technology and made countless people rich. And, as I wrote the last time we covered this, Apple's board of directors has a clear duty to avoid falling into a situation resembling Woodrow Wilson's final days in office.

However, the only responsibility that Apple's board of directors has to its shareholders is to make sure that Steve Jobs' health is not a liability, and disclosing anything beyond that would be a mistake. They don't have to get into the details, as BusinessWeek's Arik Hesseldahl suggests: just say they've talked it over with Steve, and if there's no reason to be concerned, say "there's no reason to be concerned."

This whole affair reminds me far too much of Star or US Weekly speculating about whether an actress is pregnant, or anorexic, or a drug addict, based on a picture. I'm sure that all those involved in those stories were genuinely concerned for Britney's health, too.

Recent posts from News - Apple
Apple to developer: No, you pull MY finger
Apple patent application blends touch, voice, face
iTunes 8 coming at next week's Apple event?
AT&T fixes wireless-data issue
Apple, AT&T sued again over iPhone 3G
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 68 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
by MadLyb July 22, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
Bravo.

It is absolutely none of our business and for people to be prying is the worst form of privacy invasion.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
by ferretboy88 July 22, 2008 12:49 PM PDT
Who cares about Steve Jobs. I care as much about him and he cared for his daughter for all those years.
Reply to this comment
by rmva July 22, 2008 12:52 PM PDT
One of a CEO major responsibilities to his shareholders is to create a succession plan. Is this "private" also? If were were a fair-haired-boy-in-waiting, the shareholders wouldn't care.
Reply to this comment View reply
by kgsbca July 22, 2008 12:55 PM PDT
What Blodgett thinks is unacceptable is irrelevant, as he obviously thought it was acceptable to tell people to buy stocks he thought was worthless during the 90s boom. I guess there are freedom of speech issues involved in letting him publish his opinion, but that doesn't mean it should carry any weight. He cost many investors billions of dollars, maybe he is trying to make up for it by driving Apple's stock down while he invades Jobs' privacy.
Reply to this comment
by sanenazok July 22, 2008 1:00 PM PDT
This article is not at all correct.


Sorry, but Steve-J has turned Apple into a personality cult. The Apple brand completely depends on him and his announcements. If there's something wrong with him he has an obligation to tell the world. Also, this makes his health status *fair game* when it comes to speculation in the press.

It would be different if he separated himself from the company more. At this point, he looks ill at appearances and if that's the case then people should be able to speculate.

Regarding the concern over his family...he has made a public person out of himself so though noogies. Public people have to put up with problems private persons do not, one of which is attention of the press. If his family lacks sense to the point of using gossip blogs for his health status then they have a big, big problem doing much of anything really.

Reply to this comment View reply
by Pete Bardo July 22, 2008 1:02 PM PDT
People will talk regardless of being insensitive or even downright mean! And others will read it. I even read your article :). It's your right to criticize others' actions, just as is it their right to ignore you or speculate on a public figure's health. If Jobs wants privacy, he'll have to stop appearing in public. It's just life in the big city.
Reply to this comment
by feranick July 22, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
For sure some CEO's health is not anybody business. However we should remember that if Apple is what it is today is simply because of Jobs. Apple without him would be a much different company, if it would still exist (it seems everybody forgot how in bad shape the company was back in late 90's). So I understand the worries of investors, much less the gossip of bloggers.
Reply to this comment View reply
by FredStory July 22, 2008 1:04 PM PDT
Apparently Blodget didn't read the story quoting a doctor who explained that while the surgery Jobs had (called the Whipple procedure) is complicated, it's very effective. And (are ready for the kicker?) weight loss is one of the most common side effects. Quoting from the article:

Says Dr. Dilip Parekh, chief of tumor and endocrine surgery at the University of Southern California, who has performed more than 100 Whipple procedures. ?There is a small group of people who tend to have persistent problems with weight loss and loss of energy and you often you are not able to pinpoint why,? he says. ?But if they stay active and manage their nutrition well, there is no reason for them not to live a normal life.?

So, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I, too, was diagnosed with an incurable chronic illness several years ago. But I still work and run my company just as I did before. I do it by managing my symptoms, working within my limitations and having a positive outlooks. Millions of people do the same thing every day without public glare or scrutiny. Why shouldn't Steve Jobs be afforded the same?

And for what it's worth, one reason I chose not to reveal my illness initially is that when people know you're sick - even though it's out of kindness - they always ask how you're doing. I see a lot of people every day and I didn't want to invest that much time in talking about it. I wanted to get on with my work and my life.
Reply to this comment
by Perry_Clease July 22, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
"One of a CEO major responsibilities to his shareholders is to create a succession plan. Is this "private" also? If were were a fair-haired-boy-in-waiting, the shareholders wouldn't care."

Do we know that the Apple board doesn't have a plan?
Reply to this comment
by rdwalton July 22, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
Now if that was Bill Gates they were talking about, then it would be no problem. But we can't say anything negative about the might Steve Jobs!
Reply to this comment View reply
by Matt Asay July 22, 2008 1:31 PM PDT
You were right to suggest I had no evidence that Jobs' health affected the failed launches of the 3G iPhone (No, 1 million is not great when Apple could easily have squeezed multiples more out of the weekend had it not botched activation), MobileMe, and iPhone 2.0. But I wasn't trying to argue that it *was* the reason, only that it is a plausible reason. Apple doesn't fail often. When it fails three times at once, in the wake of a visibly weakened Jobs, and when Jobs has been essentially invisible during the mess, I think any Apple shareholder has a right to ask what is going on.

Perhaps it's not health - I certainly hope not. But to what else would you ascribe Apple's unusual failings?

As for the "silly" notion that 20,000-strong Apple depends on one man, I'm not sure you really want to be making that argument, given your own attention to all-things-Apple-and-Jobs on this blog and in other CNET writing. It's very hard to talk about Apple without talking about Jobs (and Ive). There's a reason for that: Steve Jobs has made it so, and almost always to good effect.

Hence, his health is a material consideration here. I hope that Apple's failings are due to corporate fallibility, Jobs included, and have nothing to do with Jobs' health. Your insinuation that I and others feel something to the contrary is not appreciated and is wrong.
Reply to this comment View all 4 replies
by rangergus July 22, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
I have to agree that since Apple is a publically traded company, and Steve J is the single most important factor in the company's success (real or perceived), then his health and a succession plan need to be disclosed. We all wish him nothing but the best and the longest, healthiest life possible, but he gave up that part of his privacy when he brought Apple back from the brink.
Reply to this comment View reply
by SugarMtn July 22, 2008 1:43 PM PDT
citing a concern that Jobs kids might read about this online is a noble call-out, but its also a naive one from the cultural perspective; dude, people and news media in general are sharks. celebrities have to deal with this every single day (see today's NY Post cover photo for ex). Jobs has reached this status, and then some. Speculation is newsworthy and there are no limits on where people will go these days and that's just how things are. I wish it wasnt that way either.
Reply to this comment View reply
by Harry D July 22, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
You Mac Fanboys are too much. There's no such thing as "kumbaya" insensitivity in big business, and Apple is in the major leagues.

There are millions of dollars at stake because there is no clear line of succession. personally, I was horrified to see Jobs' appearance and the first thing i thought was that he was gravely ill. Personal issues aside, anyone at the helm of the world's leading technology company needs to disclose where the company will head after he rides into the sunset. The shareholders - whose investment put Apple where it is at least as much as Jobs' creativity - deserve that much.

Further, I'll bet not a one of you would post like this if we were discussing Gates and MicroSoft.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
by ittesi259 July 22, 2008 1:51 PM PDT
"Steve Jobs is not a demigod sent to us...."

Agreed......but I hope you put on your fire retardent clothing from the fanboy flaming sure to come from that.
Reply to this comment
by sbwinn July 22, 2008 2:01 PM PDT
Um. . . he's a vegan. Have you ever seen a fat vegan? His calorie intake is probably way below normal, but some studies show that could help you live longer. Go figure.
Reply to this comment View reply
by Gromit801 July 22, 2008 2:54 PM PDT
Besides that surgery, Steve is in his 50's, and a long time vegitarian. Looks like most vegitarians I've ever seen at the age.
Reply to this comment
by noogie007 July 22, 2008 3:06 PM PDT
IF his health is a concern.How heart-wrenching would it be if you were this guy that built this million/billion dollar empire. Worked hard to get where he is, only to find out he has a horrible illness and that everything he has worked for doesn't really matter in the end. He can't take it with him. His family, loved ones & the memories he has made with them is the most important thing he has now.
Every newspaper and stock holder info show is talking about him like he isn't a real person with or without a serious illness.
Doesn't matter how smart he is; how much money he makes.
We should all be ashamed when the only reason we're concerned about someone's health is whether or not they're going to make or lose us money.
Reply to this comment
by manishboy77 July 22, 2008 3:10 PM PDT
I own a few shares of apple stock. I own several apple products. My kids use apple products. These products have vastly enriched my life. I highly value them. Apple didn't make these kinds of products without Jobs. I wouldn't have them with out Steve Jobs. I would be using mediocre crap with out Steve Jobs and continually asking "why can't anybody make this stuff easy to use or just work?" I am very worried about his health because there is nobody out there like him. I don't want to loose the future prospect of what he can deliver to me. Is this selfish? YES! Am I ashamed? NO! I want him to stay healthy and alive and make a good profit off of me for enriching my life with what he is able to produce that no one else can. The Samsung instinct? The HP touch? Are you kidding me? I don't know Steve Jobs. I don't want anybody to be in pain. But don't try to make anybody feel ashamed for worrying about their own self interests. Get off your high horse.
Reply to this comment View reply
by July 22, 2008 3:19 PM PDT
This whole discussion over the last two days has gotten out of hand. Does Steve have to announce he had a headache because headaches are on the list of symptoms for stroke and brain tumor???

Apple announced that he had a 'bug" serious enough to require medication. Do we know if this bug may have been an intestinal flu? If so, with what we know about his surgery, isn't it likely that something like that would take a bigger, temporary toll on a person with a difficult digestive track? Not to mention the effects to the digestive track caused by almost all medicines. I would find it unpleasant to hear about the finite details of such an illness regarding others, be furious to have such details discussed about myself!

I think we have been told what we need to know and should just see this as the ploy it is to drive the stock down.(let's not forget the silliness about Steve not being on the call when anyone who has listened to previous calls knows Steve isn't on them.) If he is truly ill we will find out in due course. In the meantime, money will continue to be made, new innovations played out before us and more anxiety over the markets effecting consumer's worries that they can afford Apple's latest lines.
Reply to this comment
 See all 68 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

About News - Apple

At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Tom Krazit and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Tom at Tom.Krazit@cnet.com.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News - Apple topics

Featured blogs

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
  • Nanotech: The Circuits Blog

    Timing rumors surface for AMD plant spin-off

    Rumors persist that Advanced Micro Devices is planning to spin off all or part of its manufacturing operations.

  • Gallery

    Photos: Ron Paul's RNC alternative

    As the Republican convention took place just miles away, a crowd rallied for the former presidential candidate and his message of limited government, ensured civil liberties, lower taxes, and peace.

  • Digital Noise: Music and Tech

    Was 1980s music that bad?

    NPR asks listeners which year featured the best music, and the 1980s emerge as a bleak era. Personally, the '80s figure prominently in my collection, but well behind the 1970s.

  • Beyond Binary

    Microsoft begins big ad push

    Microsoft's multi-year push, estimated at $300 million, begins with a spot featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld aired during Thursday's NFL game.

  • Video

    YouTube plays party politics

    During the presidential campaigning four years ago, YouTube didn't even exist. Now it's a tool candidates must master to get their message across. CNET's Kara Tsuboi stops by the YouTube upload booths at the Democratic and Republican conventions to find out why Google's video site has such a big presence in Denver and St. Paul, Minn.

  • News - Digital Media

    Michael Moore plans Net-only film premiere

    Filmmaker plans to premiere his latest documentary exclusively on the Internet for free, forgoing the traditional theatrical release.

  • Video

    Political party playlists

    We know the Democrats and Republicans are split over policy issues, but does their musical taste fall down party lines too? And what kind of gadgets did they bring to the conventions to listen to their music? CNET reporter Kara Tsuboi finds out.

  • News - Politics and Law

    What you can--and can't--find about Palin on the Internet

    John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate has inspired a wealth of creativity on the Internet.

  • News - Cutting Edge

    Execs predict next Google-like tech

    On eve of company's 10-year anniversary, researchers and business pundits speculate about what technologies might someday have as much impact as Google.

  • Gallery

    Photos: The brains behind Google Chrome

    Here's a look at some of the engineers and executives who took the stage at the company's headquarters as they unveiled the new browser.

  • Crossfade

    Ying Yang Twins, 'Look Back At It': Free MP3 of the Day

    This amped-up duo gets the party started with a mix of crisp, Southern hip-hop beats and shout-along rhymes. Download a free MP3 of "Look Back At It" courtesy of CNET Download Music.

  • Green Tech

    Clean-tech group forms to support Obama

    "Clean Tech and Green Business for Obama" aims to raise $1 million for the Democratic presidential nominee while elevating issues of climate change and alternative energy.