Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 21:45 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 370173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wrong premise, wrong conclusion
by mrhasbean on Thu 25th Jun 2009 07:02
in reply to "RE: Wrong premise, wrong conclusion"
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.




Member since:
2005-07-06
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.