That attention can't be turned off like a spigot. Even if Jobs weren't still actively involved in Apple, people would be deeply interested (and concerned!) about his health, making it a legitimate area for reporters (and biographers!) to report about, as long as the information is obtained in a honest manner.
I believe it's a valid story (for both the WSJ and here) because we care about Jobs, we care about his creative output (including Apple), and we often best learn about things in life -- including dealing with health challenges -- by seeing how they affect prominent people.
And make no mistake: This is prying. You said that attention can't be turned off like a spigot, which may be true but isn't apropos. Water flows effortlessly from the spigot. Gossip like this is dug up and mongered at effort.
Steve Jobs invited the press to the wedding.
But I wish him the best, it seems too soon for him to be leaving this, and I am sure he has more he wants to do.
Apple does not rely on Jobs' public profile for success. Yes, they do rely on his ability as a driver of innovation, but if Jobs were never to say a word in public again, it wouldn't seem to hurt Apple (at least, that's my opinion, having watched the last keynote without him). As such, I don't think Jobs has traded on publicity for his success, and can consequently reasonably request that we leave his private life alone.
Meh.
His health, thus, is of concern to Apple users and shareholders. And competitors too, but in a different, probably evil, way.
His health worries me too - and I am neither a heavy Apple user nor a shareholder, but I am deeply concerned about innovation in this market if he ever retires. Who would lead? Microsoft? Ewww.
And there is also the human factor. I wish him well for no other reason than him being a human being.
You should care as much about his wishes for privacy as you do for his well-being because they are one and the same. There are a multitude of reasons someone might want to keep their health challenges private, including concerns over how young children will be able to deal with scary-sounding information (especially once it gets filtered through the rumor mill). There's no morality in rumor-mongering.
Jon Rubenstein? I think the Palm Pre is of the same calibre in terms of innovation and ease of use as any Apple product. I'd like to see what Palm could do with Jon at the helm, and the same resources as Apple.
this is a private matter for steve jobs, and it felt like the community was supportive of giving him his privacy. i'm surprised this is still alive tbh.
Click first link for full article.
"once Mr. Jobs resumes work, the company will have to be "very careful" about what it says"
This strikes me as almost unbelievably cynical, that Jobs' health could be factored into the price of Apple shares. I understand why, of course, but still, I hate it and I wonder how SJ himself feels. "Don't die yet, Steve, I'm long AAPL!"
I think he should retire soon. He's had a good run. Apple will be fine.
That's a Japanese aphorism I saw in translations of "Lone Wolf and Cub." It means, as a mortal creature, there's only so much of life you can enjoy, no matter how rich you are. You can only eat two large bowls of rice before you feel bloated, and you probably don't use more space to sleep than covered by a couple of tatami mats.
There's neither heaven nor hell,
save what we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice,
save what we grant each other.Fame and fortune can directly purchase health.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html
Read it. Time is the great equalizer. Warren Buffett is worth ten thousand times more than you are, assuming you are worth $5 million. But he is 78 years old. Not many people would want to trade places with him, one for one.
Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, but I'd rather be me than him, Is that strange? No! Because time treats humans like call options--decay is priced in, and hits zero at the set date. Steve Jobs is very, very close to zero, no matter his accomplishments.
Whether or not it was official, I don't think we need to know the exact condition. What would that change? I can't help him, and the one who can have probably been working on it for some time now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/16/steve-...
If this article had come out before, I think Apple would've taken a hit.
Link? http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl suggests it hasn't broken out of 130-140 in quite a few days. Particularly not jumping to > 200 yesterday.
My first Palm even matched Newton's colors...
Seriously: Palm right now has its fortune hanging on a smartphone that cannot be used anyplace other than the US.
As much as I wish them well (I really do) I am not confident Joel could lead the whole PC industry anywhere. He has his hands full.
I would consider hiring back Wozniak. The guy has some serious street cred.
I did say "he's granted the media many levels of access, from photos through interviews, to boost his products." Just look at all the magazine covers he's had. The accompanying stories always mix a little of the personal biography -- the arc of his life -- with the product/business news of the day.
But also, consider the 2005 commencement speech he gave -- which I wouldn't attribute to simple PR machinations for Apple, but because a distinguished public person was invited to talk, and wanted to share his insights with the future. He talked about the circumstances of his birth and adoption as a baby; his college years; his exile from Apple; his pancreatic cancer diagnosis and surgery. That is, his life story, as it could help elucidate life choices for others.
The story continues; we're still curious. While it's wrong to pry illegally into private records, and it's wrong to hound him (or his non-public family) about these things, it's natural and keeping with the usual and fair treatment of a public figure to relay major new developments in his life story.
I am not sure someone would be able to step in his shoes when he decides to retire.
e.g. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10057521-37.html e.g. http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/so-apple-lied-about-st...
This is here because it's really fun talking about Steve Jobs, love him or hate him, and because the man's the archetypal startup founder along with Woz. That's totally fine but let's not kid ourselves.
I think Steve is important enough to be relevant to HN.
Why? Because he is famous? Because he is rich? Because he, debatably, has 'made the world a better place'? Screw all those default judgements based on cultural indoctrination. Why is it Good to be famous, rich, innovative, an effective leader, ...? As far as I'm concerned, Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett are no better than you or me when I consider what I think is important in life. Stop pressing culturally correct expectations and judgements on others. Develop your own code of ethics.
When I use a computer or listen to an iPod, when I prepare to upload my music to iTunes practically hassle-free, when I look at the Mac-using companies that have developed beautiful products, I'm aware that Steve Jobs stands as a symbol for all of the things I love about this community. A lot of us have that feeling. It's not celebrity worship like gets slurred around a lot. It's more that Jobs was the first pro-aesthetic guy in computers, and he's remained an inspiration and a hero to those of us that like beautiful product, and revolutionary product, and annual dramatic revelations on-stage.
But yeah, I like my iPhone.
To whom is a human worth money? You can't own people, can't buy or sell them. Can't recreate them, can't even get an accurate clone.
You can talk about a sportsperson's value to their team in terms of how much money they bring in in ticket sales, how much sponsorship, how much media attention, how much another team will pay for them.
But the problem is when lots of money is involved, people care more for the money than the person. I don't have a problem with people trading on Apple stock and factoring in SJ's health at some level. I do have a problem when it pushes further and further towards SJ being treated as just another asset, some legal and medical details to be pried through, some news announcements to be analysed, some blood pressure and heart rate figures to be tracking.
Picking apart the Golden Goose to try and find where the Golden Eggs are hidden? Tearing up the Mona Lisa to find which brushstroke made it worth so much? Pulling down the Eiffel tower to see if an Operah Tower in the same place would have as much impact?
If he wasn't already a health fan, would the world be pushing him to alter his diet? His exercise regime? "In a bowel movement estimated to be worth half a million dollars this morning, SJ's saturated fat absorption levels were up 13% on last week (full analysis here), SJ didn't respond to a request for comment. Unusually, he looked in the mirror for 6% longer than average over the last three months, experts have raised concerns over his increasing vanity assessment index especially when taken into account his recent announcement "I had a great night's sleep last night" to his wife over breakfast, he didn't respond to 18 phonecalls for comment on that either". Would we be designing every part of his life and forcing him to live as we think will maximise AAPL profit, restricting and shaping like a human veal calf?
What's right with estimating somebody's worth in dollars? Why should you be able to profit from speculating on someone elses work? Why should people who have no choice where they are born be forced to be judged within the limits of someone elses monetary system?
For every million dollars the government puts into hospitals/medicare a bunch of lives are saved. There are diminishing returns, however, and at some point you have to say, okay, that's enough, let's put some money into education instead.
You have to find some kind of balance, and the more you put in education the fewer lives you can save in hospitals. The only sensible way (I can think of) to find the right balance is by crunching the numbers. Saving a life for $1000? That's only 20 text books, definitely a good deal. Saving a life for a million? That's 20 scholarships. A life isn't worth that much.
Unless you're Steve.
If Steve dies or retires, that's a risk to Apple. If he lives and works, that's a benefit. And the stock market relentlessly uses all information they can. The kind of private stuff you're talking about? That's insider trading, and that's why it's illegal for, say, Steve's doctor to short Apple stock based upon his medical examinations of Steve.
I'll get back to you ...
(I also find, incidentally, that the more ambitious your goals the more likely you are to be an asshole. Jobs is certainly the archetype again. But on the other hand you've got great people like Jeff Bezos, so I don't agree with the folk that think assholery leads automatically to greatness.)
How often is it necessary to bruise the feelings of others to be true to yourself? Just about never, in my experience. There are lots of occasions in The Fountainhead where others feelings are bruised, but this is their jealousy causing self-inflicted distress. You can often be true to yourself by discreetly keeping your own counsel, so long as you are not dissuaded from your own true desires.
If you are the boss of others, you should be able to do this honestly and without cruelty, even if you are a hard taskmaster and blunt in your opinions.
Everyone knows people who are their own people, but who do not impose on others. If asked, they will tell you. If pressed, they will stand up for themselves. But they sometimes show restraint where others might take the opportunity to "count coup."
It's also possible to be your own person and stand up for yourself while being abrasive, suffering no fools, and keeping everyone around you on edge. There's also a whole spectrum in between.
If my observations about certain subscribers to individualist philosophy bothers you, I suggest that might be salient data. You have far better access to additional data than I for evaluating that.
I find Objectivism, from what I know of it, to be remarkably self-consistent. It is an admirable product of its time. Some of what Ayn Rand said needs to be modified in the face of new evidence from evolutionary biology and neuroscience. (Humans clearly do have instincts.) A sign of a healthy philosophy is its ability to incorporate such new data.
What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.
That's actually a really apt comparison! I think I'll borrow that in the future.