After back and forth rumors about the health of Apple's revered Steve Jobs way back in last year and the beginning of 2009, it turned out that he really did have some health problems: complications with his liver requiring a transplant. It was supposed that he'd return to Apple by the end of June, and now he's finally made his first public appearance since he first took his medical leave of absence earlier this year.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-12-15
Member since:2006-01-12
Member since:
2005-07-13
"Apple debuts industries lightest, thinnest CEO" 
I kid, its good to see Jobs back on his feet. couldn't help laught when he made the comment encouraging everyone to be an organ doner. I could just imagine him looking at everyone as they were appouding thinking, "excelent, the more doners the more organs, I will live forever!!!"
Member since:2005-07-27
Hmm, I think I shall have an organ doner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doner) roll for dinner.
Member since:2009-07-22
Member since:2008-06-02
I cannot decide if your comment is just black humour or the most horrendous and cruel one I have ever read. "
Oh c'mon, what's horrendous about suggesting that Steve Jobs hungers for the flesh of the living?
Member since:
2009-08-18
Member since:2006-01-06
Oh, c'mon. Apple denied Jobs's health problems for a long time, and Jobs wasn't forthcoming when he claimed that he was taking leave for a "hormone deficiency". In fact, he left to have a liver transplant, and "hormone deficiency" issues were a symptom, not the cause of his departure. Apple and Jobs said what they said in order to blunt the impact on Apple stock. We should all be used to the stream of lies by now.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2006-01-06
No way. Jobs reported his "hormone imbalance" in January, and had a liver transplant by June. It's simply not credible to conclude that he didn't know the true nature of his condition at the point he took his medical leave.
Edited 2009-09-09 22:48 UTC
Member since:2005-07-24
Most stockholders would never note the difference between "hormone" and "enzyme". I've never heard a doctor fretting particularly about anyone's liver hormones. It seems pretty logical that measured liver enzyme levels pointed to his liver problem.
What destroyed his liver in the first place, I wonder?
And... how did he get a new one so fast, with so many other people waiting? Did it have anything to do with his money?
Oh, and doesn't he look skeletal these days...
Edited 2009-09-09 23:02 UTC
Member since:2006-01-06
Pancreatic cancer spread to his liver. Of course he got the liver so quickly because of money -- essentially, getting his name onto multiple lists, and paying people full-time to do nothing else than maximize his chances of receiving a liver. The average person could never have gotten one so quickly. Money talks. It's the only reason why Jobs is alive today.
Member since:2005-07-07
More BS without any evidence. The sickest patients go to the top of the transplant list and Jobs was on death's door. It's possible he got bumped up on the list because of wealth or celebrity but you're basing everything you have said on your own opinion and not on a single fact. If you're going to bash someone who almost died from disease you should at least back it up with at least one fact. Otherwise you just look like an asshole.
Member since:2006-01-14
Actually the facts are pretty well known. Jobs registered on every transplant list in the country. To get on a list, you have to go through the entire battery of tests for each list. Normal insurance doesn't pay for that, or for transportation. He also has to be able to get to the hospital within 24 hours. So having a private plane certainly helps. The transplant was NOT done in CA, so he got the liver from a list he travelled to. He got the liver because he had the money to do these things. The problem is that he took a liver that probably would have saved someone else's life, who didnt have a fortune at their disposal.
Member since:2006-12-05
Good question... but Steve/Apple will probably never tell the truth...
Ding ding ding ding ding. Obviously. I mean, come on... he's Steve Jobs. Even if he, for some reason, didn't have the money for the best doctors and highest chance of survival out there (ha ha...), Apple the company would be quick to bail his ass out of death's grasp. If for no other reason other than to save their own asses, as a corporation, from a quickly-succeeding demise.
Member since:2006-01-14
I think what Tomcat was getting at was that Jobs got on every list in the country. Only someone with money can do that and it greatly increases his chances for a transplant. But since there aren't enough livers, the one he got would have gone to someone else who couldn't afford to fly all over the country. In essence, he bumped someone down the list, possibly killing them. And since it wasn't done where he lived, the only reason he got it was because of his money. Which is a crappy way for the system to work. I don't know if I blame Jobs, as much as the faulty system.
Member since:1997-10-01
On the other hand, he most certainly also would have died without the liver transplant too, so it's a case where someone (Jobs) got a liver transplant who needed one to live. Somewhere, someone whose liver disease isn't as serious, was bumped down a list. Someone else might die, or maybe not. Honestly, if two people have exactly the same likelihood of dying, and both need a transplant equally, it's not an easy task to choose who gets it and who doesn't. Isn't that person's willingness/ability to pay more just as good a way of deciding as any?
Truth is, if you have lots of money/power, your life is going to be better in a lot of ways, including some aspects of health outcomes, and this will happen in even the most egalitarian society. That's why everyone strives to be successful and make more money, and to some extent, we're all better off because everyone's working so hard.
Member since:2006-01-06
That's precisely what I was saying. Jobs bought his liver. Somebody else who probably couldn't afford to get on every transplant list may have died because of this inequity. So, forgive me for not jumping for joy that Jobs is alive today.
Member since:2005-07-07
So you're a doctor now? I think it's pretty arrogant to assume you know exactly what happened behind the scenes based on absolutely zero evidence other than your own preconceived notions.
Member since:
2009-04-08
Member since:2005-07-24
Would it? With all the iPod and iPhone explosions in the news, exposures of very questionable business practices, and embarrassing revelations of their heavy handed legal tactics against the families of the victims of their defective products, etc. I should say that "taking back the rains" would not be an inappropriate phrasing.
Edited 2009-09-09 23:28 UTC
Member since:2006-01-26
Member since:
2005-10-11
Member since:2008-08-25
Member since:2006-12-05
From TFA, some person (sex unknown) in their mid-twenties who died in a car accident. And likely poor as hell compared to Jobs, the recipient of their liver. Quite sad, really.
Money can get you anything. Steve has tons of it, and was able to buy someone's liver and likely top-notch doctors to keep himself alive... a luxury most people don't have. But the donor had a very young, unnecessary death... and Steve is going to continue profiting the hell out of Apple... just like he's always done... only now with someone else's body liver.
Words can't describe how I feel about this situation.
Member since:2005-09-13
Member since:
2005-10-12
I'm no admirer of either Jobs, Apple or its products, but many of these remarks are really in rather bad taste. You do have to agree that Apple and Jobs misled the investing and buying public on the issue of his health. But we should don't have to descend to this level to acknowledge that.
Surely the interesting thing about the event was how little there was that is new? Two things strike me. One, that the iPod/iTunes saga is cresting and going over the top. Its not going to be a source of great growth from here on in. It was interesting that they did not bring out the greatly demanded camera, speculation being that it was a desire not to cannibalize iPhones. That is a warning signal - when you start takimng features the public wants out of your products in case it allows that same public to buy some rather than others, you are in danger. If you don't cannibalize your products, others will.
Notice, this is the same basic marketing strategy of forcing people to buy something more than or different from what they really want, in order to get some feature. In this case its, you want an Apple camera equipped device playing music, the entry price is an iPhone. Like it or lump it. Similar to the strategy of, if you want the OS, buy some hardware you may or may not want. Its really questionable how sustainable this is.
The second interesting thing is the story making the rounds recently, which OSN elected not to feature, that all carriers lose money on selling and carrying iPhones. This is the dog that did not bark at this event. It can't carry on forever, carriers being asked to treat Apple as a charity.
I'm not saying Apple is doomed, it has huge momentum behind it, and a fanatical consumer cult. But I do think evidence is building up that more growth is built into the stock price than exists in the product range at present. And evidence is building up that the marketing strategy of compulsory linked purchases may be coming to a point of consumer resistance outside the inner circle of fanatics.
We may turn out to be living in interesting times.
Member since:2009-08-22
I'm not saying Apple is doomed, it has huge momentum behind it, and a fanatical consumer cult. But I do think evidence is building up that more growth is built into the stock price than exists in the product range at present. And evidence is building up that the marketing strategy of compulsory linked purchases may be coming to a point of consumer resistance outside the inner circle of fanatics.
We may turn out to be living in interesting times.
I agree that much of the comment about Steve's health is just poor taste or maybe immaturity, or maybe it comes from people who have yet to lose someone they love to a terrible illness (an experience we will all encounter if we are lucky enough to both love and live long enough). I happen to despise Steve Ballmer with a passion but if he had come back from an illness like Steve Job's I would be moved and supportive. We are, after all, all human.
I disagree when it comes to your analysis of the current position of Apple. A few points in response.
The sale of dedicated mp3 players may be at a plateau (a plateau that all Apples competitors would love to be able to get close to) but the sale of iPods continues to grow because iPhones are also iPods and the iPhone is flying off the shelf. What Apple is doing is putting its operating system into tens of millions of pockets, a process I expect to continue and to accelerate and a healthy music business will be part, but only part, of that model.
The point about "a point of consumer resistance outside the inner circle of fanatics" is just risible. Lets think - here is a company that has sold over 100 million iPods, continues to sell millions of iPods, is selling millions of iPhones as fast as they can make them, has sold getting on for 2 billion apps in the first year of the App Store and who offers at least ten times the number of apps than on any similar device. The gap between Apple and its nearest competitors is growing not shrinking. The notion that all this indicates some sort of turn against the company by consumers is wacky.
The way Apple rolls out iPod and iPhone products has to be carefully judged because they are their own biggest competitor. No other company is threatening to take any significant part of the iPod business from Apple (no other company is close) and Apple continues to eat aggressively into the smart phone market and to take significant business away from the established players in that market. So Apple will continue to roll out its product launches and add features in a way that creates a neatly segmented market for its products.
The results of Apples purchase last year of semi conductor business P.A. Semi has yet to reach the market - I strongly suspect that when the products arising from that investment do reach the market the impact will be huge. Apple makes very few purchases and all are deeply strategic, and in the past all have eventually led to major strategic moves. Another such move is coming. We are indeed living in interesting times
Member since:
2005-10-12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2009/sep/09/apple-live
You can also see how weird the whole thing is by reading this blow by blow account of the event. Absolutely extraordinary, there are essentially no significant product announcements, and yet this almost total lack of news is being broadcast with bated breath, line by line. WTF is with these people? There is really nothing here at all, and yet, just because it is Apple, we have media hysteria. And presumably this is in response to fan hysteria? Weird or what?
The guardian does have, on its technology page, a story that is connected and does make some approach to journalism, where they discuss estimates of the installed base of iPods, and how many of the sales may be repeat sales to existing owners, and point out that there may be far fewer 'installed systems' from a music industry point of view than the sales figures suggest. Now that is interesting.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I must have been the only person who shuddered when I saw the beginning of the video - the almost cult like adulation of people standing up, stomping their feet and clapping their hands. Sure, he is the CEO of Apple but there is no need to go over board. I was wondering whether someone from the crowd would throw their knickers on the stage.
As for the product line up, I'm annoyed they didn't add a camera to the iPod Touch; but I'm still looking at getting the 64gb model.
Edited 2009-09-10 16:39 UTC
Member since:2005-07-07
I think you're misinterpreting the applause. There seems to be a general cultural difference between the US and other democratic societies where anyone in the US who has overcome adversity, beaten the odds, or conquered disease is adulated. The praise isn't because of who Jobs is as the CEO of Apple but who Jobs is as a survivor. You just don't seem to get the same kind of intense emotions from other western cultures.
Member since:2005-10-12
Member since:2005-12-21
I think they were cheering because he has been very ill and it was his first public appearance since his leave of absence. I'm not really sure why you find that something to shudder at.
Member since:2005-07-06
There is a fine line between polite clapping and going overboard. The crowd at the presentation went overboard. Remember folks, this is Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple - not the second coming of the Messiah.
Member since:2006-01-06
You weren't the only one. It's the Cult of Mac (TM). They worship Jobs. He can do no wrong. That's all that's required to be a member.
Member since:2005-07-06
That happened right before he started speaking in tongues and descending from the stage to cure audience members (via the laying-on of hands) of cancer, blindness, dead pixels on their Macbook screens, and other horrible afflictions.
You missed that part?!?
Member since:
2009-07-22
I think it's admirable.
He's wealthy enough. He had no need to return to Apple just yet. He could even not return any more and Apple could go on doing well. But he did. He was courageous enough to stand there clearly emaciated, with half his normal weight, with shaky voice and the first thing he does is thanking the organ donor... and encourage people to donate organs. And it isn't "image" but I think he meant it.
Member since:
2006-10-10
