Business 101: Must Apple discuss CEO Jobs' health?

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    With a quick skim of the article I'd have to say that if the head of say Microsoft has a liver transplant does anyone actually care that much?

    I'm just saying.

    Steve Jobs is the CEO of a company, he is not the messiah, he is not so freaking amazing that Apple cannot live without him. It would suck because people dying is a sucktastic thing in general, but frankly this obsession with the man is stupid imho.
  3. Grimace macrumors 68040


    Feb 17, 2003
    with Hamburglar.
    Publicly traded companies must legally disclose serious health conditions of its executives -- period. It can seriously affect shareholders' views toward the company - usually along the lines of leadership, but in Steve's case, also along product development because of his iconic status.

    Since he was on leave, they don't have to disclose anything in that time, but if he is at the helm (ie. now that he is back) - Apple will probably disclose his surgery, if there was one. They don't have to disclose his progress necessarily, but if there was a major operation done, shareholders have a legal right to know if the company is being run by someone in good health.

    Really, it's only because Stevie is credited with "being" the company that people think it's an obsession with him.
  4. ditzy macrumors 68000


    Sep 28, 2007
    The reason people act like that with Steve Jobs is, they are taking Dr. Phil's advice and looking at the past to determine the future. Without taking into account that Steve has changed Apple radically since he's been back. It can now survive without him.
  5. carolina17 macrumors newbie


    Jun 10, 2009

Share This Page