I'll feel better when he's fattened back up again.![]()
He needs a new Unibody.......
I'll feel better when he's fattened back up again.![]()
I'll feel better when he's fattened back up again.![]()
The convolutions of your logic are fantastic, my friend
I tend to agree with this so I rewrote the article and title.
arn
If this is not affecting his ability to fulfill his duties as CEO then there is no obligation to say anything. Plus, I imagine Jobs to be more of an active CEO than most other CEOs out there. Even at half of what he does he is probably twice the CEO than most.
And Apple's, which is a logical (albeit unfair) reason for probable dishonesty.
The letter pretty much makes the connection between Schiller getting the keynote and Steve making the decision based on his health.
I believe the following statement in Mr. Jobs' letter makes it clear that his health is the reason for him not delivering the keynote:
Understand your position, but now let's extend it to all CEO's:
Gosh, Microsoft's Steve Balmer's looking a bit chubby there ... what's his latest Cholesterol test say, and can we have a detailed rundown of what %-blockages exist in each of the main arteries to the heart? Afterall, his age & weight does mean that coronary health is a very real risk factor and a heart attack will take someone out a lot more suddenly than weight loss, so we can't try to dismiss it as simple paranoia.
And your evidence for this "probable dishonesty" is where, exactly?
....
Wrong. The CEO has an obligation to run the company, but the board has an obligation to shareholders. And since it's painfully obvious that SJ's health has a direct impact on share price (if he died tomorrow, what do you think would happen?) then they have an obligation to keep us informed on signficant medical issues.
I don't care if he's constipated or has a cold, but when the iconic CEO of a major technology company is mysteriously losing weight after cancer, then "it took a year for my doctors to discover this" does NOT cut it.
I will further comment that I find it stretching the limits of credulity to believe that a man of his wealth could not find a doctor in the last year to diagnose what apparently is a "hormone problem." Any univeristy level endocrinologist is well familiar with these types of issues. I'm not buying it unless he specifically was avoiding recommended care and testing, which wouldn't suprise me given how he handled the initial diagnosis. In that case, again we shareholders have a right to know.
Wrong. The CEO has an obligation to run the company, but the board has an obligation to shareholders. And since it's painfully obvious that SJ's health has a direct impact on share price (if he died tomorrow, what do you think would happen?) then they have an obligation to keep us informed on signficant medical issues.
I don't care if he's constipated or has a cold, but when the iconic CEO of a major technology company is mysteriously losing weight after cancer, then "it took a year for my doctors to discover this" does NOT cut it.
I will further comment that I find it stretching the limits of credulity to believe that a man of his wealth could not find a doctor in the last year to diagnose what apparently is a "hormone problem." Any univeristy level endocrinologist is well familiar with these types of issues. I'm not buying it unless he specifically was avoiding recommended care and testing, which wouldn't suprise me given how he handled the initial diagnosis. In that case, again we shareholders have a right to know.
As is my usual wont to cut through the BS, here is my take on the "news":
If Mr. Jobs actually had a "mysterious" unnamed never-before-seen or heard of hormone imbalance that causes severe weightloss, you can bet your life it would have been patented, bottled, highly publicized, already on the market, and the man would have ended up making more money in a year than he made at his entire tenure with Apple. 85% of the planet needs to lose weight; Apple could only dream of attaining a tenth of that potential market.
What a bunch of unmitigated highly corporate crap. This is the kind of BS you expect of a Michael Jackson, not of a Steve Jobs.
It is a shame that obfuscation of the ravages of pancreatic cancer due to years of chainsmoking cigarettes and possibly other plants is necessary for "business as usual," and couldn't be used to perhaps, just maybe, convince one idiot in the world to quit friggin' smoking.
If someone had done the same for Jobs a decade or so ago, he AND Apple wouldn't be in this condition in the first place.
Unless, of course, you think the CIA injected him with a bioweapon because he resisted putting backdoor access into Mac OS. But then you'd have to ask yourself why would the CIA not market and highly profit from a drug that would earn them more legitimately than all the illegal drug running they've done since their very inception.
No, the only conspiracy here is to defraud Apple stockholders, cover Apple's corporate asses, and in doing so avoid saving lives.
Apple, The Myth: It's OVER.
![]()