Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Blogs:
Pets:
Summit teams up with Rescue Waggin' to save dogs
The Heldenfiles:
Songs for an American Day
Patrick McManamon:
Touching on the Browns, Cavs
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Wedge assured of job through season
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Updated: Free Agency: Another Gone - Apparently
All Da King's Men:
The Obligatory Palin Post
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Wow….Sarah Palin Resigns Governorship
Akron Law Café:
Abraham Lincoln and the Fourth of July
Varsity Letters:
Highland senior receives honor
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Happy 4th of July!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Tom asks where to stay while visiting the football Hall of Fame.
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
Morscruethal Behaviors or Just Lip Service?
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
Silence only feeds rumors about Steve Jobs' health
By Mike Cassidy
San Jose Mercury News
Published on Tuesday, Dec 30, 2008
Steve Jobs needs to take a page from Fidel Castro's book and give a speech.
A big long one. At the Macworld conference next week.
When Fidel was running Cuba and rumors put him at death's door, he'd give a two-hour talk to reassure his subjects. Fidel had the May Day parade. Jobs has Macworld.
But Jobs' people say there will be no Jobs at Macworld 2009. And the last thing the public relations folks at Apple want you to think is that the move has anything to do with Jobs' health. Which is why they won't say a thing about his condition. The longstanding company line? ''Steve's health is a private matter.''
Actually, it isn't.
My health is a private matter. Your health is a private matter. Steve Jobs' health is not a private matter. Steve Jobs' health is Apple's health. When Jobs, a pancreatic cancer survivor, shows up gaunt in public or acknowledges that he is not going to show up in public at all, the company's stock dives.
Jobs has shareholders, employees and, yes, Mac fanatics depending on his continued prosperity and health. Is it odd? Yes, it's very odd. There arguably is not another chief executive in the world who is so closely identified with the company he or she runs.
But it's what Jobs signed up for, along with the jet and company stock. He created the image of Jobs as Apple, and now it's time he live up to it by coming clean about his health.
When Jobs is sick or acting like he might be sick, people care. The blogosphere and news columns begin to fill with buzz and rumors and questions and predictions bordering on obsession.
It's a problem. And it's a problem that Apple has largely brought upon itself.
The company is often politely described as ''controlling'' or ''tight-lipped.''
Actually, the CIA is tight-lipped. Apple is pathologically secretive. Apple is Cuba.
This is a company that will not talk about its co-founder and chief executive's health. This is a company that will not talk about who will step in should Jobs' health fail. Even Fidel had Raul.
It's not that Apple has said nothing about Jobs taking Macworld off. Once word leaked that he would not be attending, the company's publicists explained that Apple was pulling out of the big show after this year's edition, so why bother to send the big guy?
Why? Maybe because it is Apple's last show. Maybe because Jobs is Apple and Apple is Macworld. Maybe because it's what Jobs does — takes to the stage and steals the show, unveiling the iPhone, the thinner MacBook and his thinner self. Maybe because it would be a chance for Jobs to
take a victory lap, to honor the past and to explain in crystal clear terms the future of Apple.
And yes, because it would be a chance to tell us that he is OK or that he is not OK.
Apple's public relations team has said that the company doesn't need Macworld to communicate with its customers anymore. Between Apple Stores and its Web site, they say, the company can reach 100 million consumers.
You might cut other companies in similar situations some slack. But Apple's record of being less than forthcoming has left us to wonder: Is Jobs too sick to attend the January show? Are Apple strategists concerned that he could become too sick by then, or even look too sick by then? Would they rather not deal with the questions and speculation should he show up healthy, but with the sniffles or looking thin or tired?
All fair worries. But we shouldn't really have to be guessing at Apple's motives.
Steve Jobs could clear it all up with a speech. A long one. At Macworld.
Steve Jobs needs to take a page from Fidel Castro's book and give a speech.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
A K R O N, OH
Posted 09:32 AM, 12/30/2008
I love how this is a constant source of speculation and rumors, one way or the other, can move the stock 5% in one day. Jobs is definitely a visionary leader, but do people really think Apple doesn't have the organizational capability to function without him?
The Great City in, OH
Posted 11:01 AM, 12/30/2008
Apparently that is what they think! However, one monkey don't stop no show!
Apple is a strong company and if the economy survive then so will Apple!
visbe, Go
Posted 11:04 AM, 12/30/2008
So you don't want Apple to be Apple but more like Fidel Castro except it's Cuba anyway???
Mike, you are one seriously confused chip-on-the-shoulder journo with an axe to grind and no morals to boot. You will do well... in Ohio.
Otherwise, your self-righteous morbid insensitivity is nauseating.
Now that's out of the way, you really should do some more research. Apple is Apple and not anything else. They do things their way not yours and if you had paused a few moments and thought about your post, you might have realised that it just adds more to the Apple Myth book by providing them with more publicity. And it is true - any and all publicity is good publicity... even whining posts like yours.
Hoxsie, RI
Posted 01:38 PM, 12/30/2008
I am a long term stockholder of Apple, Inc. and I like Apple's situation just the way it is without any dividends or foolish stock buy backs that some misguided investors are promoting. Still, I must say I was taken aback by the recent announcement sans Jobs that Jobs would not keynote MacWorld this year. Why didn't Jobs present the info himself. He could have simply told a handful of reporters with their cameras recording that look, I have better things to do for Apple than waste time at MacWorld, so this is going to be the last year there, for a while at least. We just have more meaningful venues elsewhere. That would have served the same end, and shareholders would have been more content with that.
Hoxsie, RI
Posted 01:45 PM, 12/30/2008
OOPS. There is more: If Jobs or any other top honcho is taken ill, I think they owe it to their shareholders to appear with the management team they have in place and tell us that "Look, I am under some treatment, and in my absence Tim and Peter here are going to be administering things and consulting with me just as we have done as a team for several years. I am still at the top of the hill, but its time we give these guys the day to day responsibilities while I spend a little time in the mountains contemplating my navel."
I think people would accept that, understand and appreciate that.
The Great City in, OH
Posted 04:06 PM, 12/30/2008
To notacowboy:
Are you really posting from Sweden or is that just where you are from?
Posted 03:30 PM, 12/31/2008
Here's all anyone needs to know about Steve's health: He could die at any time. Just like any one of us. Eventually, he will die.
By death, illness, age, boardroom coup, or just because he wants to go, Steve can leave the company at any time! Eventually he will leave Apple.
The real question is, what preparations are in place for when that happens. How will Apple maintain continuity of management is the real question. In fact, it's the BETTER question to ask for the long haul, given Jobs' lack of immortality.
Steve likes his privacy. He could go public and explain his health. But to do so now, would be to invite the question to return time and again until he leaves Apple.
I suspect Steve would rather show us that he's put in place a team that will continue to innovate in the same manner for years after he leaves.
It's a relevant conversation to the business, preserves his privacy, and long term trust in Apple.
That may be part in parcel why we're seeing more of other Apple execs in recent Apple announcements, and why Phil is giving this Keynote.
Was the iPhone a success only because of Steve? Would it still have sold the way it has if Phil Schiller was the one who announced it two years ago at
Macworld Expo? I'd like to think the answer is "yes".
Steve did not do this single handedly, and Apple needs to show that by peeling back the curtain on its management, not on Steve's personal health.
Rockland, ME
Posted 03:31 PM, 12/31/2008
Here's all anyone needs to know about Steve's health: He could die at any time. Just like any one of us. Eventually, he will die.
By death, illness, age, boardroom coup, or just because he wants to go, Steve can leave the company at any time! Eventually he will leave Apple.
The real question is, what preparations are in place for when that happens. How will Apple maintain continuity of management is the real question. In fact, it's the BETTER question to ask for the long haul, given Jobs' lack of immortality.
Steve likes his privacy. He could go public and explain his health. But to do so now, would be to invite the question to return time and again until he leaves Apple.
I suspect Steve would rather show us that he's put in place a team that will continue to innovate in the same manner for years after he leaves.
It's a relevant conversation to the business, preserves his privacy, and long term trust in Apple.
That may be part in parcel why we're seeing more of other Apple execs in recent Apple announcements, and why Phil is giving this Keynote.
Was the iPhone a success only because of Steve? Would it still have sold the way it has if Phil Schiller was the one who announced it two years ago at Macworld Expo? I'd like to think the answer is "yes".
Steve did not do this single handedly, and Apple needs to show that by peeling back the curtain on its management, not on Steve's personal health.
