Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

freudling · Sep 9, 2008, 08:07 PM

I know, we were discussing this already. After watching the Rock On Sept. 9, 2008 event, Jobs looked horrible, worse than he did at the WWDC.

He looked quite weak, and sounded so as well. He tried to be optimistic, but so weak...

Towards the last 15 minutes, it looked like he could barely finish, and puffed a few times trying to speak.

When he started the event, he said that his death is greatly exaggerated, "nough said."

Why can't he just come out and say, yes, I know I look gaunt, if I were in the audience I would be concerened too. Here is the problem with my health...

But he just won't talk about it.

baw · Sep 9, 2008, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

...But he just won't talk about it.

Because it isn't any of our business?

zro · Sep 9, 2008, 09:09 PM

He's Apple's thinnest Steve Jobs yet.

Mastrap · Sep 9, 2008, 09:33 PM

Nevermind

Mrjinglesusa · Sep 9, 2008, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by baw

Because it isn't any of our business?

It's the business of investors who have put money into Apple because of the direction Steve Jobs has taken them. Trust me, if Jobs keels over tomorrow, Apple stock will be sub $100 within days.

Mastrap · Sep 9, 2008, 09:51 PM

Tell me where in your share certificate it says that you have a right to know anything about Job's health?

Kerrigan · Sep 9, 2008, 09:56 PM

A good discussion of that here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34c93924-5...077b07658.html

A CEO’s health issues should be disclosed when they will significantly affect her capacity to lead the corporation. This can be the result of a sustained inability to function or a life-threatening illness or some combination of the two – factors that would influence a reasonable investor in making an investment decision or that are likely to move the stock. These are, of course, the general materiality standards under US and EU securities laws. But the regulators have not sought to define when CEO health events require disclosure. No matter. Such disclosure should occur either because of a careful interpretation of the law or because good governance requires it. CEOs are public figures. They should waive any privacy limitations imposed by law or by personal preference. Apple’s obfuscatory answer to questions about Steve Jobs’ health is exactly the wrong way to go. In light of serious medical issues in the past, Apple should say that his illness has recurred or that it has not.

Railroader · Sep 9, 2008, 10:09 PM

Maybe Jobs needs to make Apple products smaller so he can carry them.

Mrjinglesusa · Sep 9, 2008, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Tell me where in your share certificate it says that you have a right to know anything about Job's health?

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

A good discussion of that here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34c93924-5...077b07658.html

Also from that article:

Individuals have a right to keep their personal life private. But when they have senior roles in public companies their responsibilities change. Investors entrust them with money and rely on them to produce results. As part of the bargain leaders are paid well but give up some of their rights, among them the right to absolute privacy. While the details of an illness should remain personal, the ability of a senior executive to lead the company is more than personal. Therefore it should be made public. For shareholders, a CEO who is seriously ill is not much different from one who is under indictment or otherwise hobbled in their capacity to carry out the job. When that happens it is time to tell the owners so they can make plans.

Besides, I didn't say I had a "right" to know. I said it's the BUSINESS of shareholders if the CEO of a company they own stock in is seriously ill. Almost ANY other company or CEO would disclose this information. Or, if there were public concerns about the health of their CEO, they would make a statement. Apple/Jobs have done neither, except make a joke out of it.

freudling · Sep 9, 2008, 11:15 PM

I get tired of this picking at each other, and the childish "it's none of your business line", which totally oversimplies the whole thing. Steve Jobs is an icon. While shareholders think investments, the mass Apple followers think about love and loss. Nobody said we were entitled to his personal information. The point is that given who he is and what he does... what he means to some of us... and the fact that he knows his place in history and in relation to us... it would be nice if he were a little more warm and honest about his clear and present health problems.

The man is blatantly ill and weak. He looks like a fossil. I know how sad the many of us will be when he dies. That is the issue. The fact that some of us just care. Simple really.

Jawbone54 · Sep 10, 2008, 12:07 AM

I ain't saying nothin'...

The last time I addressed Steve Jobs health was the only time I've ever had a thread locked on behalf of yours truly.

freudling · Sep 10, 2008, 01:04 AM

He is sick. Reality... he might be gone soon. I think Apple could be successful for at least a few years after, since they probably have tech they have been working on for release years into the future, but it is going to hurt.

While Jobs was gone, however, I admired Apple in the 90s for their PowerBooks and the Newton. Both were incredible, but, the OS came to a halt. OS X saved the day, NextStep being the savoir. Without the visionary, hard to see Apple being anywhere near what they are today.

Hmmm. Maybe Microsoft will be dust in the next few years as well... then our kids will grow up with Google, and we will be officially dated.

Kerrigan · Sep 10, 2008, 01:40 AM

When Steve steps down (whenever that may be), I think his biggest contribution to computing stemming from his second coming will be bridging the gap between computer companies and media content providers. His second biggest contribution, in my books, will have been the multi-touch interface, which I think will in time influence all areas of mobile computing. Just as Apple pulled us away from command-lines, I'm hoping that multi-touch will pull us away from keypads, scrollbars, styluses, and perhaps even mice and keyboards.

Paco500 · Sep 10, 2008, 02:16 AM

Everyone is making the assumption that he is gravely ill and Apple is not disclosing it. Have you considered the possibility that he has a chronic condition affecting his weight (and perhaps his energy based on yesterday's performance) yet is not fatal and does not affect his ability to run the company and therefore he and Apple have done all the disclosure they need to. This is the line Steve has taken- have you considered the possibility that he's telling the truth?

freudling · Sep 10, 2008, 03:38 AM

He is ill. He weighed about 40 lbs more just 2.5 years ago, and was lean-average then. His body is wasting away. i.e. His organs will eventually fail.

Sealobo · Sep 10, 2008, 07:12 AM

I thought thin people tend to live longer.

Cold Warrior · Sep 10, 2008, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

The man is blatantly ill and weak.

Originally Posted by freudling

He is sick. Reality... he might be gone soon.

Originally Posted by freudling

He is ill. ... His body is wasting away. ... His organs will eventually fail.

More than concern, you seem to revel in another man's possible suffering. This thread didn't become a discussion of business without Steve -- it's shocking speculation with crude comments, all in poor taste.