Apple And Steve Jobs: Shame On You If The WSJ Report Is True

Dear Kirk, while it's unfortunate that you're disappointed, four days later I still fully stand by what I wrote. Again, I'll say it: Steve Jobs is the CEO of a publicly traded company (which is why, from privacy and other standpoints, I'd quite frankly never want to be the CEO of a publicly traded company). Argue the merits of the law (or the bigger-picture stock market), if you want, but the law is quite clear in this regard; the SEC requires that publicly traded companies report in a timely manner 'material facts' that may have a significant impact on the company's stock price (in order to prevent, for example, insider 'shorting' or other illegal trading activities). Life-threatening illness of this sort, which you may already realize has now been officially confirmed, is a 'material fact'. If you don't want to believe me, how about Warren Buffet? www.cultofmac.com/warren-buffet-piles-on-steve-jobs-about-secret-transplant/12177.

This is simply a tough call. The other side of the coin is the investors should be pleased with the Apple crew's performance during Mr. Jobs' absence. There are two stages of successful management based on my experience: (1) You can't leave because everything will fall apart, (2) You begin to question your value because the people you've added and supported are exceeding expectations. Mr. Jobs never made it to stage two duing his first tenure and thus far it appears he has on his second time around the block. Congratulations to Mr. Jobs on a most valuable lesson learned plus kudos to the Apple crew.

Dear Tedd, for breakfast this morning, I had two cups of coffee, a bowl of Frosted Flakes, and a banana. And I sleep in the same room as my dog and two cats. Satisfied? ;-)

Brian, totally agree with you - seems that everyone had forgotten how this present financial crisis started.

Brian, You "about fell out of my chair this morning" ?! Don't you think that EDN has an obligation to disclose this to its readers/shareholders/investors? After all, clearly this impacts your ability to write coherently. I demand to know what you had for breakfast this morning and who you're sleeping with.

Dear Jim Kufis, indefensible...in your opinion. I'm sensitive to the fact that as you revealed in your prior message, you've also 'been there' (congratulations on successfully 'coming out the other side'), and therefore you have strong feelings about the topic. With that said, however, don't be so arrogant as to assume that your perspective is the all-encompassing and definitive word.

Brian. Don't defend a indefensible position.

Dear William Albright, yes, I really thought about what I wrote before posting this, as I always do. There's no difference in my mind between a word that I write that appears in print and one that appears online; I am representing my employer in both cases, and I am putting my own reputation on the line in both cases as well. By the way, roughly 36 hours later, I still feel the same way I did. Re-read my earlier comments to WharfRatCT. Any publicly traded company (far from one like Apple, so closely linked to its CEO) owes its shareholders more than just a claim of a 'hormonal imbalance', followed by a nebulous statement that the situation is 'worse than originally thought', followed by five months of silence, if indeed Jobs' cancer had/has metastasized and he'd undergone a life-threatening organ transplant surgery. To clarify, I don't particularly care at which hospital Jobs' surgery supposedly took place...my point in mentioning this was solely to point out that the WSJ writeup is quite incomplete (you'll also note that there wasn't even an 'anonymous source' mentioned) thereby casting some degree of doubt as to its veracity. And finally, although I'm flattered by your comparison between Jobs and myself, humility does not allow me to accept it. However, in a sense you're right...when I accepted this highly visible position, I also consciously realized I'd be giving up a some degree of privacy in exchange versus someone in a different profession. To wit, I'm confident that in less than five minutes' time on Google or a similar service, you'd be able to put 2 and 2 together and ascertain my marital status; I've explicitly described my educational and employment backgrounds in past posts. Similarly, I'm both bemused and baffled at your claim that the statement 'I've made no direct investments in the tech sector since joining EDN in January of 1997' is at all vague; it seems quite definitive to me. Maybe you should instead be asking yourself why many OTHER journalists aren't equally definitive...and why...

Hi Brian, I wonder if you really thought about what you wrote before posting this. "What hospital the operation took place in?" Even if Steve's health was a matter that should involve stockholders, which I dispute, the question of which hospital sounds like something from a sleezy tabloid or the Oprah Winfrey show. Think this through. Why do you think Steve should tell you or me which hospital he was in? And regarding whether or not stockholders need to know when a member of management is having surgery, imagine how much more important it is for us to know everything about you. When we read your blogs, both technical and otherwise, what biases might you be operating under? What is your technical education and experience? Would you post your college grades here for us to consider? Would you post you annual job reviews? When you post a blog either praising or criticizing a company and their products, what emotional factors should we consider play a role in your positions? Are you married? Divorced? Is/was the wife a stockholder in one of the companies you are writing about? You've stated that you don't own stock in tech companies, but are you Clintoning us? Could it be your parents hold the stock in their name for you? Shouldn't we know who they are and what stock they own? In fact you've never listed the stocks that you own, just made a vague disclaimer that you don't own tech stocks. Or perhaps we just need to use the information we do have, research what we need, and use good judgement? Best regards, Bill

This article is truly repugnant. What kind of moral climate do we have when the hysterical behavior of the investment community, which reacts instantaneously, greedily or fearfully on every scrap of perceived "information," has supreme precedence over human decency? The CEO of a profitable company is not the same as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It is clear that Jobs has behaved responsibly in working to create a company that will flourish without him. Besides, it is well-known that he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer several years ago. Cancer has a way of reappearing and eventually destroy its victims. One must assume Jobs won't be around forever, whatever the current state of his health. Apple stock has moved wildly and erratically many times due to those who want to make short-term profits. They are not investors. They are gamblers and only destabilize the market. The Jobs family does not owe first allegiance to Wall Street's speculators. I say that as a stockholder, who bought AAPL based on fundamentals. I couldn't care less what the stock does from day to day. The company is good for the long term. Let the day traders run around like headless chickens, and let Steve Jobs deal with his health how he wants to.