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.
It is absolutely none of our business and for people to be prying is the worst form of privacy invasion.
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.
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.
Do we know that the Apple board doesn't have a plan?
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.
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.
Agreed......but I hope you put on your fire retardent clothing from the fanboy flaming sure to come from that.
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.
-
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???
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 68 Comments >>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.