Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Jan 2009 15:25 UTC
Apple Speculation about Steve Jobs' health situation has been a hot topic for a while now, and Bloomberg is jumping on the bandwagon as well - but you have to wonder if there's a limit as to how far journalists should go in order to gain insight into Jobs' health. While his position as CEO of a large publicly traded company puts him on a pedestal, I do believe there are limits to the hight of this pedestal. Bloomberg grossly crossed the line in my book, and Jobs seems to agree with me. "Why don't you guys leave me alone?"
Permalink for comment 344398
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"It should be sufficient for Apple to just say "Steve is OK."

That's just it. Apple did that... and it turned out to be WRONG. We can speculate for years whether Jobs was trying to downplay his condition to his fellow board-mates or whether the board was trying to downplay his condition to the stockholders, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. At least some people knew that things weren't right with Jobs (see Gizmodo article from a while ago), so it stands to reason that people at Apple did as well.

They redacted that immediately. It makes no sense for a publicly traded company to alarm their shareholders when they do no know the real problem.

They admitted publically and even said jobs is on leave of absence for 6 months. Do you have proof that Jobs and Apple were lying when they claimed he was OK?

Why do you think jobs would then take 6 months off? He doesn't think he is well enough to run Apple and he put up a temporary replacement. Isn't that what everyone wants to know anyway?

Reply Parent Score: 2