Comments on: Jobs hid cancer diagnosis for 9 months
The thorny question of executive health and requirements for disclosure is raised in a Fortune article on Apple CEO Steve Jobs' decisions following a diagnosis of cancer in 2003.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Apple
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg 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 Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Apple topics
Blogroll
- Apple 2.0
- AppleInsider
- Byte of the Apple
- Crazy Apple Rumors Site
- Crave
- Cult of Mac
- Daring Fireball
- Infinite Loop
- iPhone Atlas
- The Macalope
- MacFixIt
- Mac Rumors
- Macworld
- Think Secret
- The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs
- The Unofficial Apple Weblog
about you being wrong.
and when the writer "couldn't get the goods" it turned into this
cancer story. Lame.
http://valleywag.com/363816/fortunes-cover-story-steve-jobs-
hid-cancer-for-nine-months
else's business, whether they're the CEO of a major corporation
or your next door neighbor. Just because you are the boss of a
public company doesn't mean your private affairs need to be
paraded before the public. No amount of prurient interest
painted over with lame excuses can change that. One day Steve
Jobs will no longer be running Apple. The day that happens, for
whatever reason, the Board has the duty to inform Apple
shareholders who the new boss will be. That is the extent of
their obligation and of the public's so-called right to know.
one really knows exactly what to do. The CEO and the board of
directors all want to do the "right thing" for their shareholders,
employees and customers. But as in this case they know that
regardless of the outcome, they will be criticized for their
decision.
I know because 28 years ago I was COO of a listed corporation
when the CEO had to undergo a heart valve replacement. We
decided not to announce the surgery in advance. Five days later
he died in the post-op ICU. I was already on the board and was
immediately elevated to CEO. The company did not suffer in any
material way. However, the entire board, including me, were
severely criticized by outsiders.
We thought we were doing the "right thing" - but were we?
Know one ever knows exactly what is right in this circumstance.
If job's was incapacitated as so many people have irreverently stated (shame on you for being so blatantly crass and insensitive) maybe the company wouldn't have gone down but in a new and better direction? Like for example, maybe we would see iPod's with FM Tuners or mid-range macs, and MacOSX run on non apple branded PC's.
The real story here is, what is such a company's line of succession, how does it plan on dealing with a world post-Jobs, and the man doesn't have to die, what if he retires, you morbid cretins. The article should be more about how they are going to deal with transition as any company should regardless of the stature of their CEO.
- Mr. Jobs
- by BSinton March 5, 2008 10:17 PM PST
- The thing being discussed is whether Mr.Jobs health should be a public matter.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)Unfortunately , some of you have rapidly descended to abusing and insulting others who vary from your view.
My view is that I am not a Lawyer and would not know what I was talking about. However it seems from the article , that it was not a legal requirement (they did take legal advice) then people should mind their own business.