Comments on: Crossing the line on Steve Jobs' health

CEO health issues are serious business for corporate boards and shareholders. But that doesn't give writers license to make cancer diagnoses from the 12th row--or worse yet, a photo.

[MadLyb]

Bravo.

It is absolutely none of our business and for people to be prying is the worst form of privacy invasion.

[Busboy2]

Well I think you might want to know when you have a considerable amount of your assets invested with apple, and its driving force could be sick.

[skotmiller]

Apple's driving force can be killed in a car accident or helicopter crash, also. Do you want him to move into Apple so he doesn't have to commute to work either? Don't forget that when you "invest", there is usually a "risk" involved.

[halliburke]

@ skotmiller, death or injury by car accident or helicopter crashes are not necessarily foreseeable risks. Death by cancer is much more of a foreseeable risk. Therefore, if Jobs was diagnosed with cancer with a foreseeable risk of death, it would make good sense to disclose that information to shareholders.

[ferretboy88]

Who cares about Steve Jobs. I care as much about him and he cared for his daughter for all those years.

[rmva]

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.

[Tom Krazit]

What makes you think they don't have a plan? Just because they haven't publicly designated a successor doesn't mean they haven't done so, or at least thought about it.

[kgsbca]

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.

[sanenazok]

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.

[Quemannn]

I see eye to eye on your comment.

[Zyncopado]

If steve Jobs indeed turned Apple into a "personality cult", I believe that he was smart enough to make sure that his legacy moves ahead even after his demise. Successful people look beyond the now. They have the "end in mind". Apple hit the ground already back years ago. I don't think they will allow this to happen. And honestly, from the time Jobs was diagnose till now, I believe the company has a back up plan in case the worst or the inevitable happens.

C'mon! What situation would we rather want Apple to be in if we were to choose between 2 evils? Would we want Steve Jobs to be "looking" healthy, doing business as usual then SUDDENLY die of a stroke or a heart attack? Or wouldn't we rather have what we have right now? Though we do not really know what Steve's condition is, everybody involved in wanting Apple to succeed is given the opportunity to see that the company stays on track and on course.

Steve's health is his business.

[Pete Bardo]

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.

[feranick]

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.

[anthony f wood]

It was bad, I can still remember the newsreaders disbelief while saying that it was Bill Gates who bailed them out, said "keep your company, competition is good". The Microsofties I worked for at the time were stunned( to say the least). And now look at 'em. I'd bet Billy boy still has no regrets on that move.

[FredStory]

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.

[Perry_Clease]

"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?

[rdwalton]

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!

[inter_loper]

Steve Balmer is a high-strung, 50-something, and overwieght - prime candidate for a heart attack. Do you ever see the press worrying about his health?

[Matt Asay]

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.

[Tom Krazit]

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

Incompetence among Apple's network administrators? Failure on the part of the marketing people to anticipate demand? Poor distribution methods for the software updates? None of those reasons occurred to you before you suggested that his health issues are causing poor oversight? Do you think Steve Jobs is usually down with the iTunes server admins advising them on load-balancing strategies during most launches, and this time he couldn't because he had to see the doctor?

Your headline was "Jobs' health to blame for recent Apple issues?" Putting a question mark at the end of it doesn't absolve you from the implications of writing that headline.

[No Man]

"I wasn't trying to argue that it *was* the reason, only that it is a plausible reason."

Weak. You made it the headline of your article. You offered absolutely no other "plausible reasons". And even now, you're using a rhetorical question to argue that you are, in fact, correct, even though you've still offered no further evidence than you did in your article. Just admit that you made an unfounded speculation in very poor taste and stop mincing words like a bad politician.

[technewsjunkie]

You would think from your writing that Jobs oversees every detail. That is surely the mystique and myth, but the reality is that Apple has grown (and Jobs has matured too) to a very big company with excellent managers that can manage Apple without Jobs looking over their shoulder every minute of every day. Sometimes "companies" make mistakes, including product launches.

They made a mistake with the launch, possibly because they UNDERESTIMATED the enormous demand. Even when compared to the multitude of previous successes.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I'm not sure this is the proper venue to have CNET employees and writers publically disagreeing with each other and making some rather serious accusations of ethics and integrity. This sort of bickering should be kept offline and most definitely out of the public eye

Take it offline, guys. Or take it to your appropriate managers.

[rangergus]

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.

[McAdams]

Sorry, but I don't recall Steve saying that he gave up "that part of his privacy" when he brought Apple back from the brink. Just because you say he did, doesn't make it so.

[SugarMtn]

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.

[Tom Krazit]

I unfortunately agree with you, but the more people in our business that accept that as true and unchanging, the more it will happen and the farther it will go.

[Harry D]

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.

[sciontcya]

Wrong, Harry.
I AM a stockholder, and while I worry about Steve, the man, I think he's smart enough to know he can't or won't rule the kingdom forever.
He's good because he has so many good people around him - MGMT 101.
Would he be missed?
You bet.
Would it impact Apple?
You bet.
Will the survive?
You bet.

I am counting on it, as a customer, and investor.

No fanboy BS here, just clear logic.

[technewsjunkie]

Not a fan of Gates and Co, but I would NEVER attack him if his health was the subject.
Fanboys aren't unique to Apple.

[ittesi259]

"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.

[sbwinn]

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.

[Lamppost0]

To nitpick: yes, I've seen fat vegans.

[Gromit801]

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.

[noogie007]

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.

[manishboy77]

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.

[noogie007]

I'm sorry if my comment sounded as if I was "on a high horse." I didn't mean it that way at all. My husband and I own a fair share of apple stock and also use nothing but mac at home and his office. We lost a good bit of money yesterday and I heard about it from my husband.
The first reaction I had was sadness for him (Steve Jobs)and his family.
Again, please accept my apology for sounding snooty.

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.