digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at nytimes.com

Only the Nosy Are Fixated on Steve Jobs

nytimes.com — Last week, Steve Jobs returned to Apple, precisely when he said he would, but that didn’t stop the prurient demands to know the details of his health.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 6, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

68 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • FinnG, on 07/06/2009, -0/+16"Next February, when Steven P. Jobs — knock on wood — does his big reveal at Macworld, the geegaw people will most want to see probably won’t be on display."

    Wasn't this year the last Macworld?
  • Blinker1315, on 07/06/2009, -3/+17Entrepreneurs like Jobs and Gates are celebrities, and so the media machine, so bereft of imagination, goes all out when something like Jobs' illness surfaces. (And let's not even get into the Jacko ratings orgy, which has been disgraceful.) Sure, some shareholders of Apple might've been concerned about the initial mystery of Jobs, but after that was revealed, it's his personal life and shouldn't be invaded.
  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -4/+17The Apple shareholders most wholeheartedly disagree. If he leaves then apple is screwed and with it the share price. Remember what happened apple the last time he left for a period of years?
  • callistostg, on 07/06/2009, -4/+13Steve Jobs is the driving personality behind Apple. He is part of Apple's brand power. The loss of Jobs would be a tremendous hit to the company--its stock would positively TANK.

    If I'm a stockholder, I don't think inquiring about Jobs' health is "nosy." I see it as prudent concern for my investment.
  • OuijaCat, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8"The loss of Jobs would be a tremendous hit to the company--its stock would positively TANK." -?!?

    Unfortunately..That doesn't say much for the quality of the company's products when the value of the stock depends on the company mascot.


  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -3/+10When you are a paid apple-shill you don't need facts or accuracy.
  • Colecoman1982, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6Actually, my understanding is that they don't even have to ask for it. The whole point of Warren Buffet's comments last week was that him failing to disclose the seriousness of the situation was a violation of existing laws.

    @tebriel1: That's a fair statement, unless it can be, reasonably, shown that Apple/Jobs' behavior has had a direct, negative, impact on share prices. If they have, then there's a good chance they could be held accountable for those losses.
  • fossilnews, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7It's a material event and should be reported to shareholders as per SEC regulations.
  • Blinker1315, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5You misunderstood my comment, either willfully or because it wasn't artfully presented. Here's the point: men like Gates, Jobs become de facto celebrities, not because they're entertainers, but because they're portrayed first in the business media, and then filter down to the celebrity-obsessed cable shows, magazines like Us and People, and, for that matter, Time and Newsweek. Of course investors want to know the health status of a leading businessman like Jobs; once that's satisfied, however, they're not interested in pictures of him in an emaciated state or the details of his medical procedures. The media at large, however, feast on this kind of stuff.
  • bobburn1, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5Unless of course you're a stockholder, to which Mr. Jobs reports. If he is in bad health, he may not do a good job. It's of vital importance.
  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -4/+8@3Den

    They have raised it, and have been told that it is a private issue. Then Jobs cheerleaders like the NY Times back up this answer with sycophantic ramblings like David Carrs above. Further shareholder descent hurts share price which hurts share holders.

    Apple lie. Thats what they do. Remember the vitamin deficiency/hormone imbalance crap that the fanboys lapped up like it was ***** flavored ice-cream? Nah you've probably forgotten.
  • rolf, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4He's a public figure, people are going to ask. Also, out of anything, Wallstreet hates uncertainties - it can plan its way through and around disasters but not uncertainties. I own stock, so I'd like to know, but if he doesn't answer - I'll just hedge my bets and assume the worst.

    But he's still human and deserves that dignity, so it's okay if he doesn't answer, he shouldn't be sued if he doesn't (lying would be another matter), and I hope he got the r&r to get well again for his family's sake more than his business's.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5Yeah, it was. Maybe he'll keynote at Seybold in September. New iPods are most likely to be announced there. Maybe an updated and price cut iMac line, too.
  • fafaforza, on 07/06/2009, -5/+9Please, what reality are you living in. Do you honestly believe that the health of the man that singlehandedly revived Apple and brought it to the forefront of tech as well as stock market performers is inconsequential?

    That is the whole question: will/would Apple continue its success if Jobs was out of the picture. Would they be able to continue to innovate and to set the trends? His health bears havily on that, and these questions weigh heavily on a whole lots of money that can be made or lost. If I had money invested, I'd want to know every detail too.
  • Colecoman1982, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4The problem is, it WASN'T revealed until after the had received a major organ transplant. Of course, the pictured are grotesque and pointless, but what people have a right to be complaining about here is that Job's and, possibly, Apple seem to have worked to hide the severity of his condition FOR THE ENTIRE TIME IT MATTERED. The day he went in for the operation, there was a decent chance he wouldn't come out of the procedure alive (as is always the chance with major surgery). Basically, they rolled the dice with their investors' money and denied them the right, promised to them by law, to make an informed decision about whether they wanted to risk their money in a company with good chance of loosing it's most visible representative and highest placed executive.
  • PxCxG, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5Spoken like someone who doesn't own any stock. It certainly is the business of apple's owners to know what the health of their most high profile -- and high priced -- employee is like.

    Think of it this way -- if you owned a sports team, wouldn't it be your business to know if your star player had a career threatening injury or not?
  • jimmies, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5Yeah, but why concern ourselves with things like "laws?"

    /s
  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -5/+8sell your stock then.
  • minnecrapolis, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3It wasn't R&R though. He used the power of money to get a new liver (yes, he didn't cheat the system - he was able to sign up in multiple place. Perfectly legal but morally wrong). He essentially stole a liver from someone else.

    Jealous? Somewhat. Maybe that isn't the right word. Point being, I would do what I needed to stay alive too but that doesn't make it right.
  • minnecrapolis, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3I'm not nosy. I have an actual business interest. He is on my Dead Pool List and I stand to win $1000 if he kicks the bucket.
  • zervoslives, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4I have two macs and an iPhone and I'm as guilty of loving Mac stuff like a cult member as the next guy. That being said, if you start saying that the CEO of a publicly traded company doesn't have an obligation to inform people of his health as it relates to his ability to do his duties, you're acting like a cult member in a bad way.

    Actually, that really does remind me of the Stalin era and it's norms. Stop it.
  • doctechnical, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3Anyone else first read this as lolspeak for Jobs getting rhinoplasty?
  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -4/+6@tebriel1

    Way ahead of you dude. Lucky for me I sold up last year.
  • StEligius, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2That's what the mac zealots don't understand is that they may love Jobs but investors love money. And as you said lots of people equate Jobs with the company. I wonder what would happen to Apple product quality if the investors pulled out?

    I don't know what the fuss is about Jobs. Wozniak was always more interesting to me.
  • superkendall, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2"They know that Apple produces shiny overpriced crap. They are also astonished that people continue to buy this crap. There is a lot of money to be made in selling overpriced ***** to idiots."

    Well I was going to doubt you, but then I thought - he probably has a house full of overpriced stuff he bought.

    Sorry to doubt you, it takes one to know one and I know not the ways of your people.
  • FyberOptic, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Only those desperately fixated on Steve Jobs in the first place would bother defending him.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2BS! Steve is not needed in anyway for day to day operation of the company. And do you really think he wasn't looking at stuff from his hospital bed? Steve only needs to come out when a new product or rev of the product is coming out to crack heads. Everything else is meaningless work.
  • raitchison, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3You can't build a cult of personality and then try to hide behind a veil of privacy.
  • RegularUser, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3Did 10 years old has had written this article?

    Classy, NYT.
  • itsme7g, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Roy Orbison
  • LonelyTylenoL, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2It's looks like this would be funny if I understood the reference.....
  • SouthsideIrish, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Hmm...explain to me why Apple stock went up while Steve was gone. Apple does not need him for day to day stuff, all they need is Steve the idea guy. And that he can do from anywhere in the world.
  • whiledo, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Not "mascot" - "salesman". Jobs is the Billy Mays of Apple, without a clear Shamwow guy or Ron Popeil waiting in the wings to replace him.
  • LonelyTylenoL, on 07/06/2009, -1/+2/s

    Cause really, they all aren't like that. Maybe a few, but most people who own an Apple product aren't like that.
    I myself own a mac product: just a MacBook. No iPod or mp3 player, no fancy cell phone, etc.
  • whiledo, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Okay, I'll tell you. What do you think it means for the stock price to go up? That means people are buying. So a bunch of people bought it at a higher price. Now, say it finally comes out about his health and the price goes down. Who was hurt? The people who should have been told about his health much earlier, so they wouldn't have paid an inflated price for the stock.
  • Whackly, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1ass=9
  • superkendall, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1The media is way more fixated on Jobs than any fanboi has ever been.
  • deaftly, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1The nosy = brainwashed starbucks junkies that keep buying the same phone over and over every year
  • whiledo, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1The INVESTORS ARE way more fixated on Jobs than any fanboi has ever been.



    You're welcome
  • Colecoman1982, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Even worse than that, Warren Buffets' comments a few weeks ago implied that Job's/Apple had a obligation to be forth-coming with the severity of the situation. Basically, if that's true, then the stock-holders shouldn't have even had to ask for the information before Apple/Job's released it.
  • zervoslives, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1But if you're listed as CEO you take on certain responsibilities. I don't know if he's listed as such again, but if he is then his relative importance for actual operations has no bearings.
  • Vesuvias, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Kids these days...If you don't get the reference, don't dig it down... the song is "Only the Lonely" by Roy Orbison. Look it up and get learned son.

    @pstroll Nice!
  • 3Den, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1"They have raised it, and have been told that it is a private issue. "

    I'm assuming that this wasn't the majority of shareholders, otherwise the board would have been replaced with people who actually pay attention to the owners.

  • samhale, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1I didn't.
  • 3Den, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1If I owned a sports team, sure, I'd want to know. And if they didn't tell me, I'd change the rules.

    If I owned .00001% of a sports team, what I am and am not entitled to know would be spelled out in corporate charters and board reports - and I'd realize I had very little influence over that.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Hmm...I will be very surprised if Steve shows up at MacWorld, because Apple has already pulled out of all future MacWorld's. It would seem that Apple would have to go there for Steve to do the keynote.
  • elijahyossie, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1I don't remember, no. Apple's share price is irrelevant in my life.
  • whiledo, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Not to be too crude, but he can't do it from inside a coffin or a coma. Apple's stock price isn't based solely on Jobs, but he DOES have a strong tie to it.
  • samhale, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1No, just submitted it to digg.
  • inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1is that a geegaw 4g?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.