Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 21:45 UTC
Apple 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.
Thread beginning with comment 370188
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
As a SHAREHOLDER...
by christianhgross on Thu 25th Jun 2009 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: As a SHAREHOLDER...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Jun 2009 09:55 in reply to "As a SHAREHOLDER..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: As a SHAREHOLDER...
by Moochman on Thu 25th Jun 2009 13:07 in reply to "RE: As a SHAREHOLDER..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

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=

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: As a SHAREHOLDER...
by nokturnal on Thu 25th Jun 2009 19:54 in reply to "RE: As a SHAREHOLDER..."
nokturnal Member since:
2009-06-24


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.


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.......

Reply Parent Score: 2