I’m sorry, but I can’t get around it any more. Over the weekend, we had a story in the reputable Wall Street Journal that Steve Jobs had a liver transplant two months ago in a hospital in Tennessee. This story got all over the Apple media – obviously – and was later confirmed by the hospital in question. All the usual questions arose about privacy, Warren Buffet had a remark about it, and so on. Let’s get all these stories out of the way in one go.
So, two months ago, Steve Jobs had a liver transplant. A fairly hefty procedure, but doable. The Wall Street Journal broke the story, but without any sources. This caused John Gruber to do some serious speculating, and I think his analysis then was pretty much spot on. Not long after, the hospital which treated Jobs confirmed the story, stating that Jobs was the highest on the risk list, and therefore, got the donor liver. The waiting list in Tennessee is considerably shorter than in other US states.
This news is very personal, you’d say. There are two basic camps when it comes to whether or not this news should be reported on. The first camp considers this a strict privacy matter, and they believe it should not be reported on in the news. It’s boulevard press material, celebrity watching, whatever you want to call it.
The other group – in which I belong – looks at this from a different angle. The cold and hard truth is that Apple is a publicly traded company. This means that Apple is owned by countless shareholders, who all have a clear stake in the success of the company. Whether people like to admit it or not, and whether it’s perceived or real, Steve Jobs is the biggest cog in the clockwork of Apple. Steve Jobs saved the company from sure bankruptcy in the second half of the ’90s, and is the figurehead for the company’s incredible resurrection as not only one of the biggest computer manufacturers of the world, but also one of the biggest forces in the entertainment industry. On top of that, under Jobs’ lead, the company successfully entered and forever changed the smartphone business.
Steve Jobs is Apple. Lots of people work with and under him, but Apple and Jobs have cosciously and willingly chosen to make Jobs the figurehead for Apple, the mascot, the public face. Without Jobs, Apple will be a completely different company. Note that I’m not saying they won’t see success without Jobs, but only that the company will be different. Significantly different.
Shareholders own Apple. They have the right to know what is going on with Steve Jobs’ health, because if Jobs were to become incapacitated (or god forbid, worse), it will have a direct and unequivocal effect on their (the shareholders’) property. As such, it was wrong of Apple not to inform their shareholders of what was truly going on with Jobs’ health.
Warren Buffet seems to think so too:
“If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for ’em. Some people might think I’m important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. So it’s a material fact. Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact. Whether I’m facing serious surgery is a material fact. Whether (General Electric CEO) Jeff Immelt is, I mean, so I think that’s important.”
A material fact is necessary information in order to make an informed decision. I fully agree with Buffet.
It’s harsh and cold, but Steve Jobs chose to be the CEO, Apple chose to be a publicly traded company, and both Apple and Jobs chose to make Jobs the figurehead of the company. This has brought them many good, but you can’t just wiggle your way out of your responsibility when those choices are not working out at the moment.
Appe normal?
I don’t see how this is a surprise to anyone. Apple are terrible for censoring information from their own customers.
* They close down sites that public information relating to using their products in ways that are legal, yet unauthorised by Apple (IIRC one such recent incident was reported on OSAlert)
* They withhold information from unofficial Apple sites – places you’d expect them to exploit for all the free advertising as well as forums for their biggest fans (thus such sites are reduced to speculation and hearsay)
* They remove important OS X security advice from their own website because it contradicts the BS PR officially release (remember how quickly the virus scanner advice was removed?)
* They wont even talk to their own 3rd party developers at the recent conference (of which I forget the name, but again it was reported on here)
I understand that companies have an image to uphold and it’s counter-productive to advertise ones flaws, but Apple take this principle to the extreme.
As a publicly traded company, who’s CEO’s very well being is causes for (and has shown) drastic stock upturn or down turn, it is very much against the law to hide this kind of information. I am glad he is doing better, but someone really needs to hold apple to the laws that every other company has to follow. Regaurdless that Tim Cook was CEO at the time of the opperation, the operation was only needed due to the pre existing issue that Jobs was facing. The fact that he needed said opperation means he was infact much worse off that was debriefed to the press/public/shareholders. that makes it illigal.
that aside, welcome back steve. Look at him, strutting around apple headquarters with his fancy new liver like he owns the place… oh wait.
Edited 2009-06-24 22:48 UTC
“…it is very much against the law to hide this kind of information.”
The legal provisions regarding Protected Health Information (PHI) in HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) would squarely oppose that statement.
Under HIPAA, PHI is confidential, personal, identifiable health information about individuals that is created or received by a health plan, provider, or health care clearinghouse and is transmitted or maintained in any form. “Identifiable” means that a person reading this information could reasonably use it to identify an individual.
“Steve Jobs”+”Liver Transplant” = PHI. Ergo, it’s PRIVATE, regardless of what your corporate investors might want to know…or any other prying eyes for their capital interests.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/25/analysts-say-apple-violate…
I have no idea if the original poster is a shareholder in Apple, but I AM!
My answer, it is none of my f****g business. Yes Jobs is the CEO, and yes the CEO has the duty to keep things running. And he did by putting in another CEO who he thought would do a good job.
Let’s imagine if this were any other company. Nobody would care. But people care because it is Apple and Steve Jobs. It is our fascination with having to know everything about everybody. Yet if the same light were shown on us we would claim privacy.
The key point here is if Jobs put somebody inferior as a CEO. My answer, nope I don’t think he did. So BACK OFF!! My votes are for privacy and if you don’t have shares in Apple BACK OFF! After all Apple is a private company and if the shareholders have no problem then nobody here should care.
Except… There are very few – if any – rockstar CEOs any more these days. Apple IS in a unique position, a position they themselves actively and willingly created, and reaped the benefits from.
Had Bill Gates been this sick back when he was still the prime figure at Microsoft, the situation would’ve been the same. It’s just that the whole concept of a rockstar CEO isn’t very common any more, so there’s little present-day comparison material.
Look at it this way: The function of a rockstar CEO is a lot like that of a Hollywood superstar like Brad Pitt. Do a good job acting on camera, get people to pay money for watching you “star in” something (in Apple’s case, that would be the Stevenotes)…. But if Brad Pitt got really sick and didn’t tell anyone, no one would say “Why didn’t you tell us? This news is affecting the movie studios that depend on you!!!”
Why should Steve’s life be any different=
So the thought is to encourage these rare rockstar CEOs to take the helm by forcing them to divulge information that (according to HIPPA, anyway) is personal?
Where does it stop? Should we be privy to whether or not Warren Buffett is taking Viagra because of the increased risk of a heart attack?
What about you Thom, are you taking Valtrex for herpes? I hear it can lead to seizures and kidney failure…….
BTW it is HIPAA, not HIPPA. It stands for Health Information Portability and Acoutability Act. It has cost the health care industry hundreds of millions of dollars to implement but I think it was worth it. Apparently it is not supposed to cover “Rockstar CEOs”
“It’s harsh and cold, but Steve Jobs chose to be the CEO, Apple chose to be a publicly traded company, and both Apple and Jobs chose to make Jobs the figurehead of the company.”
Steve Jobs chose to not be CEO or “figurehead” when he took his leave. He stepped down as CEO, they appointed someone else CEO. He didn’t appear in the press, he made no public comments about Apple or anything else. Thus, your entire premise is wrong.
That is really a stupid comment. He took leave of absence for six months with the full intent of being back. If he had quite his job fine no need to tell anybody anything but it was made clear that the plan as for him to continue as CEO.
It was also made very publicly known that Jobs had health issues, and anyone who knows any history about Jobs and Apple (which has been pointed out here should apply to any investor) would know that it takes a bit more than a flu (or “flew” if its the pig variety
) to keep Jobs away from work, ergo it was obviously a pretty serious health issue for which he was taking leave. If that wasn’t enough information for shareholders to make decisions then tough.
Ok, first of all, I agree with Thom. So don’t see this as trying to make little of the situation or anything. I don’t own anything Apple related and, to be honest, I don’t have the money to (Macintosh machines are worth around twice my monthly pay in my wicked country).
Since I don’t follow Apple’s news closely, the question begs an answer: Can we be sure the Shareholders’ were not informed?
I mean: they have the right to know, in my opinion, but I don’t think general media and users have that right too.
So: is it possible that the shareholders’ knew about it and just agreed to not disclose the information?
EDIT: I have to say rhavyn (hope to spell it right) makes a very valid point in his root post above mine.
Edited 2009-06-24 22:23 UTC
Really…at no time did Jobs decision to be CEO mean that you get special insight into his personal health for any reason you have cited.
I can’t speak to the author’s argument but I’m pretty sure Warren Buffet knows better than you or I what constitutes a material fact.
Apparently Warren Buffet doesn’t know Steve Jobs was not CEO of Apple during the time he had his liver transplant. Is Mr. Buffet equally worried about the health of the Woz?
Is there not a difference between stepping down for leave for rest or minor surgery with almost certainty of returning to the helm and stepping down for leave because you need an organ transplant you may or may not get and may or may not recover from in a manner that would allow you to return to the helm?
Do the differences between these two scenarios not make a direct material impact not only on the outlook for the company but also on consumer confidence and projected ROI?
Shares rarely trade at book value. Share price is dependent upon how the market discounts available information and market psychology tells us that uncertainty is sometimes far worse for share price than actual bad news.
As for Woz, you would have to ask Mr. Buffet.
No.
“Steve Jobs is stepping down as CEO of Apple for a temporary period and plans to return at some point in the near future.” is about all the information you need, and legally the only information Apple have to provide to shareholders is “Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO. Tim Cook has been appointed CEO.”
Everything else, from Steve Jobs’ health to what he had for breakfast, is private to Steve and him alone.
Warren Buffett simply stated that in his opinion it would have been “The right thing” to disclose the illness to the public. This has nothing to do with legally imposed requirements. It’s also no surprise seeing as Buffett has always had a personal policy of disclosure to his shareholders…. But as we all know, Apple has a very different culture, one that tends toward secrecy. Seeing as no one has yet been able to pin a breach of law on Jobs/Apple, and seeing how many people do in fact support Jobs in his decision, I’d say it’s time we just Deal With It.
Only if you concede that in his case, it’s “personal health,” which I do not. Unfortunately for him, he built a special machine, and to most, Apple = Steve Jobs. So his company’s health is bound to his. Incidentally, that is by his own doing.
You may not agree, and that’s fine, but it’s not so cut and dry. Do you think, if the president of the US is ill, we should be shielded as well? I’d bet that most would say that it’s absolutely the public’s business. How about your senator?
Do you think, if the president of the US is ill, we should be shielded as well?
The US public has been shielded from that before. President Grover Cleveland had extensive jaw surgery to treat cancer. They removed the entire upper jaw and the President got a rubber prosthetic to mend his speech impairment afterwards. The reason this surgery was kept secret (for over 25 years) was to prevent further destabilization of an already turbulent (drum roll) stock market.
So I’d say yes. If it is beneficial not to know, then US citizens will be shielded.
Oh please. He has enjoyed the benefits (financial and otherwise) of the “Apple=Steve” phenomenon for years and years. It’s not at all far-fetched to say that Apple just got a liver transplant.
For shareholders, it would arguably be valid to query just who’s old liver they got.
If Steve wanted that kind of privacy, he should have gone into brick-laying or selling bottled water.
Edited 2009-06-24 23:00 UTC
I’m sorry, but Steve Jobs personal medical issues are nobody’s business but his own and his family’s. People, regardless of how “important” shouldn’t be required to fill in share holders or anyone else on the very private matter of their health. Period.
Well then he shouldn’t have signed all those legaly binding documents saying that in the event of something like this that he would have to disclose it. it’s just the way it is…
Can you show me the legally binding documents?
And are you a shareholder of Apple? Because if you are not then you have no word on this matter anyways.
I am a shareholder in Apple and I could voice, but I believe a good CEO was in place and I believe all is ok. I also believe Steve Jobs has rights to privacy.
Now regarding the president, it is not a fair comparison because people in a country vote for a person. But in a corporation it is the shareholders. And they have seemed to be ok with it. So again your opinion does not matter!
Could you point me to the shareholder survey you apparently conduced? I’d be really interested!
“but only that the company will be different. Significantly different.”
– Think different. (C) Apple circa ’97
A company has an employee. That employee has health issues. The specific details of these health issues are neither the company’s business nor the shareholders business.
Did Apple know that Steve Jobs had a liver transplant or was this an assumption that everyone just made?
Steve Jobs celebrity status means that he should have no expectation that people won’t continually look in to every detail of his life, but by no means is he required to tell everyone.
I own 500 shares. Steve Jobs took a medical leave and handed over the reigns of the company. I don’t see the problem since he wasn’t working and if he couldn’t return, Apple had a plan in place.
And you see no problem of not being aware of the risk of applying such a plan or the probable success rate of this ? As a shareholder ?
Any shareholder that doesn’t, as part of their due-diligence, discover that Jobs is or could be considered a key contributor to the success of AAPL and who also doesn’t appropriately weight the risk of that information, is a poor investor and an idiot.
If Jobs got hit by a truck, I bet shareholders would wonder what the hell he was doing crossing the street.
The fact remains that the burden is on the INVESTOR to weigh the risks of buying into a company like AAPL where Jobs is a key component to it’s success. Just like buying a pharma stock on speculation that they’ll be awarded a patent for a cancer curing drug carries a specified amount of risk, as does this.
As such, AAPL DID announce Jobs had health problems and was going to be stepping down for some time, they DID fully disclose EVERYTHING that was required for a shareholder to make an informed decision on whether to dump their shares of AAPL or not.
Case closed, Thom and Buffett are both wrong.
I created an osnews account just to post this, so hopefully someone will read it.
And you see no problem of not being aware of the risk of applying such a plan or the probable success rate of this ? As a shareholder ?
I think twm bucket is very pragmatic about it. Apple had a CEO sitting, so whether Steve Jobs had a liver transplant or was abducted by aliens is immaterial.
I think Apple would do well to decouple the perception of Steve Jobs = Apple as soon as possible. Steve Jobs is a mortal being and having the companies health be dependent on the existence of a frail human being (we are all frail) is asking for trouble. Mr. Jobs is going to die one day. Hopefully in the distant future.
If Apple can’t shake the Apple = Jobs image, the death of Jobs will kill Apple. So drop your Apple stock people, because Apple is a middle aged mortal entity, which will end with an epitaph on Mr. Jobs head stone.
Something no one seems to have mentioned so far, what would have happened to apple stock if it had been announced? It would have plummeted, making shareholders stocks worth a lot lot less, so it could be argued if you don’t agree that it was/is a purely private matter that not mentioning it was in the best interest of the shareholders.
The health of the CEO, CTO or any other management position within a company is of no relevance to the company in question. So Steve Jobs had a liver transplant: good for him, I hope he gets better soon. What if it had been something else? What is Steve had been suffering a mental illness, say depression? Should he tell you? What if it wasn’t medical at all: say his marriage had broken down? Is that any business of yours?
Now, what if he was just a VC, rather than CEO?
His private life is his, and his alone. Stop this obsession with celebrity and get over yourself.
Edited 2009-06-25 00:27 UTC
Damned straight. But what do you expect from what often seems more like a cult of rampant fanboyism… How did the parody go? I’ll buy anything shiny with an apple logo on it?
What a ridiculous situation. I think we’re just so used to living in this ‘tabloid age’, where the minute details of the lives of every starlet, pseudo-celebrity and public figure is sprawled across the front pages of every media outlet and blog, that there’s now an expectation… a ‘right’ almost…that the public be told absolutely everything about everybody.
Get a grip people. Honestly. Jobs isn’t Apple…and his personal health really isn’t anyones business but his own.
Nice to see that the cult of personality is alive and well in the modern world. As westerns laugh to themselves over the brain washing North Korean citizens receive from their “great leader” we have the same people shaking in their boots that the “great leader” of Apple might be sick and he might retire. Has it occurred to anyone that Steve Jobs is human and shock horror, one day he might actually have to step down?
Its interesting to see that we have investors (not long term, but the parasitic ‘day traders’ who treat the share exchange like a glorified casino), and people here who dismiss the thousands of people within Apple who make every product, promotion and marketing gimmick possible. People who seem to think that once Steve goes the whole company will go to hell in a hand basket whilst ignoring that Apple is nothing like the Apple at the time Steve took over.
Then again, this whole control of information by Apple I can understand but it seems to have all the overtones of Liberace and his life. Instead of coming out and acknowledging the best known secret, there is an attempt to cut off information which ultimately only leads to new and even more exotic rumours being started.
Edited 2009-06-25 02:12 UTC
Is Steve Jobs personally coding Snow Leopard or something?
Yes. I heard in strictest confidence that is actually why he took his leave… so he could work without interruption and get Snow Leopard out by the end of Sept.
After all even if he does die he’ll be back after three days anyway.
As a long time employee of a healthcare company I can only see this as a privacy issue. Yes, Mr. Jobs is a public figure and the stock holders have rights, but do you really think their rights extend to the most personal parts of his life? Is the stock holders money more important than Mr. Jobs’ life decisions? Where do you draw the line? Should there be web cameras in Mr. Jobs’ house so the stock holders can check up on their investment? How about the author of this story? You are a public figure. Lets put a camera in your bedroom so we can get an idea of what your mood was when you wrote your last story.
Had you invested a large sum of money in OSAlert, and had I been the figure who brought OSAlert back from sure demise to a super-successful website in the top 20 of most-visited websites, and had OSAlert made me the sole public face and figure for the website…
…then yeah, you’d have a right to know what was going on with me that could incapacitate me for OSAlert.
I wish you would stop throwing around that word “right”.
Who is it that decides exactly what degree of importance a person has to a company? Who decides at exactly what point they are “rockstarish” enough for them to disclose every little detail?
Your logic, predicated on a bunch of ephemeral “if” statements, simply doesn’t hold up to anything remotely approximating law.
So please, stop using the word “right”.
What people are in fact *legally* granted is the right to privacy, and the right not to have to disclose medical records.
Edited 2009-06-25 13:20 UTC
Let the company tell the shareholders and be done with it. Why does the American public need to know if Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett are going to have surgical operations? It doesn’t matter.
This morning, there is a concern about Tim Cook, the COO, and whether he might at some time, leave the company.
It’s amazing to me that they’re worried about a well-run company when so many stock brokerages and banks and two-bit lenders have cheated people. Why don’t they spend their time chasing them instead?
…from osnews, 2009-01-19 16:23:20: […]in this very particular case, i.e. Apple, the issue of Jobs being there or not has proven to be a matter that can effectively translate into monetary consequences, thus I’d say in this case it is a public issue. Not the health issue per se, but the likelihood of hime returning or not[…] I didn’t and don’t own Apple shares, but I still think the same as then.
I’m asking this question to all who believe Steve Jobs should have told about his condition. Do you tell people exactly how you feel? Probably not. “Fine” you usually say.
I have used Apple products. I’m not a zealot of them. I am a big fan of privacy. If you wish to equate Steve Jobs with the success of Apple, then be prepared for failure. He, like everyone else will leave someday. Apple will go on. The success of a company depends on all employees.
For those who use “I’m a shareholder” as an excuse, did you ask about his business decisions, love life, friendships. No you didn’t. Many people have worked sick when they should of went home.
If he had told about his liver condition, you would have demanded he step down. He can’t win for losing with you people.
Ironincally, the fact that Apple tries to do everything in secret, and behind closed doors, and is completely non-communicative to shareholders, customers and the media, means that there is even more press, more prying eyes, more hype, and more speculation into Steve Job’s privacy.
Add to that Jobs’ influence on Apple’s success and brand, and you have people (read, shareholders), need to know what is going on with him.
I am in the latter camp, most certainly. A CEO needs to be transparent, period.
I also like doing business with a company that is transparent to customers and shareholders.
Apple isn’t that type of company. I have an iPod, and that is the only, and last, Apple product that I will ever buy.
You simply can’t trust a company that is so secretive.
“Note that I’m not saying they won’t see success without Jobs, but only that the company will be different. Significantly different.”
I’m sorry Thom, but I have to disagree.
Steve jobs IS Apple, period.
Once Jobs leaves, I’m pretty much sure that Apple will fade away again.
Technology does not make success, People do and a personality like Jobs is, alas, irreplaceable.
I would like to agree with you, but I think it may not have been a good idea of Apple to announce the liver transplantation in advance due to the fact that transplantations mostly involve waiting lists.
Announcing the needed transplantation in advance might both have been an ethically wrong decision *and* might have caused more harm shareholders:
1) Ethically: people (including the media and government agencies) probably would have asked questions why Steve Jobs got a suitable liver so fast (there are more people on the waiting list!). Hence, people might have asked for investigations that would slow down the waiting list process. As a result Steve Jobs would had a greater risk to die.
2) Shareholders value: the related uncertainty of the slower waiting list process and the higher risk for Steve Jobs to die, would have harmed shareholder value a lot more than it did now.
“If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, the Berkshire shareholders about it…”
Mr. Buffett DOES have something coming up of an ‘important nature’, that being his ultimate demise due to advancing age.
Why don’t you give him a call Thom and get a copy of his last several doctors visits or better yet, just get his whole medical file so we can see what prescription meds he may be on and what general state his body is in.
I’m SURE he would agree to based upon his quote.
And while you are at it, go ahead and get the info for Charlie Munger as well. After all, Buffett considers him a ‘partner’ at Berkshire Hathaway.
Where does this stop?
I think this is all because Jobs has become this sort of geek-celebrity with the geek-paparazzi always after him. It’s got nothing to do with shareholders or any business matters.
Sorry but I have to disagree with your article, Thom. It is not a strict Law that a CEO or employee give up their privacy rights. Steve Jobs created apple, and perhaps is the *main* figurehead but not the only.
And to other specific posts:
Sorry but that is complete rubbish. Ok, yes Steve is the Apple star, we all know that. But Apple will survive just fine without Steve. You see he created a forward thinking company and put together a team of individuals that create the Apple experience. You are not giving them any credit. People like their lead Industrial Designer, Jonathan Ive. Sr. VP of marketing, Phil Schiller. Sr. VP of iPhone Software, Scott Forstall, just to name a few. These people and the many people on their teams, do world class work. This is Apple. Not one person, not one rock star.
And it is debatable whether this “law” of full disclosure, is a “law”. To quote the article linked above:
So was this a “material” case. I think not, as he relieved himself from duty, before the surgery. everyone is assuming that Apple knew exactly what was happening. As stated there are concrete Laws about the privacy of a persons health information. So what makes everyone think that Steve is exempt from those laws of protection? And what makes everyone think that Steve disclosed the information to Apple? Apple appointed a replacement CEO. If something had happened to Steve, they are covered. Again, Apple is more then Steve Jobs.
Just my 2 cents,
Peace Out.
-NeoX