9 ms·
Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery
- MichaelApproved 15y agoI found this interesting too: "he saw Apple staffers turn into "bizarro people" by the riches the Apple stock offering created. Isaacson says Jobs vowed never to let his wealth change him." I wonder what he'll consider to be bizarro.
- alanfalcon 15y agoI've always wondered about Steve's decision to severely limit stock distribution at Pixar when it had its IPO. What he did was apparently legal, but many staffers there felt like they were treated unfairly. A theory I've been considering is that Steve did it to avoid changing the people who made Pixar what it was[1]. I mean, Steve certainly didn't seem like he cared about having the money, except maybe to say "told you so" to all those who doubted him after his removal from Apple. Just something that seems to fit with the facts that I'm aware of. [1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.
- 0x12 15y agoWhen you work with people you could at least respect their right to make their own mistakes and to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- gamble 15y agoDidn't he do the same thing during Apple's IPO? I was under the impression that Apple employees only received stock because Woz voluntarily gave up some of his own to form an employee pool. It's this tight-fisted aspect of Jobs that makes it difficult for me to appreciate him on a non-professional level.
- adamjernst 15y agoI also wonder if that's Apple the first time (IPO) or the second time (when the stock surged so much).
- MichaelApproved 15y agoIt's probably the first time since, by the second time, he would've already been very rich and, by then, money would've changed him, if it was going to at all.
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoI found the previous sentence more interesting. "Another aspect of Jobs' character revealed was his disdain for conspicuous consumption." I definitely see some incongruency there!
- forensic 15y agoWhy? Did jobs show off his Ferrari, did he wear $10,000 bespoke suits? Did he buy anything at all that demonstrates status and wealth? Jobs was NOT a conspicuous consumer. At all. All of his purchases were justified based on utility - albeit as someone who appreciates art, he considered beauty to be a utility. Psychologists like Maslow would agree with that. Beauty leads to good feelings as surely as food and shelter do. He bought stuff for himself, not to show off.
- daleharvey 15y agoim guessing the OP was referring to the fact that apple products could be considered as a conspicuous consumer item
- wlievens 15y agoA statement that may have some degree of truth to it (disclaimer: I own at least 4 of these products and indirectly worked on them), but strange to rant about it on HN of all places.
- hugh3 15y agoIf Apple products were a conspicuous consumption item, they'd have diamonds embedded, and gold plating. And they'd cost enough in order to not be owned by practically everybody, because conspicuous consumption loses its appeal when you have the same phone as the fourteen-year-old ghetto kid on the bus.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
- rickmode 15y agoSide comment: The mobile version of that link was exceptionally painful. A short article was split to 5 pages. Wow.
- edoloughlin 15y agoThere is a 'view full story' button at the bottom that gives you a single page.
- Toddward 15y agoCBS's mobile site is atrocious. Their online content is often riddled with poor grammar and typos as well. I consider CBS to be a premier journalistic institution, but their website makes them look like a high school newspaper. It's too bad, really.
- palish 15y agoSo click "next" 4 times. It was annoying, but not a big deal...
- lukeschlather 15y agoIn actual usage, it can often end up being significantly more than 4 times, especially in mobile where you might end up going through a tunnel, or leaving cell reception entirely before you finish the article.
- palish 15y agoOh, good point! Thanks!
- twainer 15y agoMaybe there is more to the actual story but the article provides zero support to the headline as per the the surgery being 'life-saving'. It is even referenced as a 'stupid decision' to have put it off. Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.
- gabyar 15y agoSteve Jobs had an extremely rare form of pancreatic cancer that has a very good 5-yr survival rate if caught and treated early. The article is likely accurate.
- twainer 15y agoThanks to all for the clarification.
- acqq 15y agohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/02/MNGMJ816F41.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/... "Jobs sought to assure colleagues that he was not suffering from a more common -- and more deadly -- cancer of the pancreas." Jobs: "I had a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which represents about 1 percent of the total cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year, and can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was)." If he really had an "islet cell neuroendocrine tumor" he really had the chance to live much longer than he lived, had he accepted the operation earlier. Note he also didn't have to lie in "mine was." It was diagnosed in time, but he waited with the operation the nine months.
- gvb 15y agohttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pancreatic-cancer-type-jobs http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pancreatic-... Jobs had a rare form of the cancer, known as neuroendocrine cancer, which grows more slowly and is easier to treat, explains Leonard Saltz, acting chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Survival for many years or even decades with endocrine cancer is not surprising." For that type, the sort that Jobs had, "survival is measured in years, as opposed to pancreatic cancer, which is measured in months."
- ary 15y agoSurely I can't be the only person that wants to just read the book without having Isaacson spill all the beans before my copy comes in the mail. With each one of these excerpts he teases I lose more and more respect for the man. He's riding this thing pretty high and it's starting to be in bad taste. This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.
- MichaelApproved 15y agoWhen you're selling a product, there's always the need to seek more attention. We all cared about Steve but this book is a product that is intended to be sold.
- pixelcloud 15y agoIt's a biography about steve jobs. Im pretty sure there will be no issues with sales.
- jrockway 15y agoThis publicity makes the difference between 5 billion copies and 6 billion copies. 5 billion copies is a lot, but why leave money on the table? (Yes, I know they won't really sell 6 billion copies.)
- alanfalcon 15y agoIt's not exactly fair to put that on the author. Authors have publishers and it's my understanding that publishers require publicity. It's in the contract. Maybe Walter could try to take a moral stand, but I'm not going to blame him for not rocking the boat here. Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.
- 15y ago
- kno 15y agoI don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human. Steve's success in tech should not make him in the eyes of people be super human. Even in tech, successful people make lot of mistakes; history just records successes.
- hugh3 15y agoI don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human. I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between "being human" and "making stupid decisions".
- kno 15y agoIn the context of Kroft asking "how such an intelligent man could make such a seemingly stupid decision", human are naturally afraid of surgery, no want want their body open unless they have no choice; Steve too.
- Fliko 15y agoJust because he is a human doesn't mean that it's not a stupid decision, it will always be a stupid decision nothing will change that.
- dextorious 15y agoThat implies that living at all costs is the "smart" thing to do.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- bh42222 15y agoI recall Stephen Fry's great comments on Steve Job's "Apple stands at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts." statement. But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship. This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more. Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts. But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge. Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art. I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation. Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics. Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities. But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people. And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them. This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways. I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this. And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.
- asmithmd1 15y agoJobs may not have acted irrationally. Have you looked into the procedure that he needed? It is not a tonsilectomy. Here is the latest I found about the surgery: "Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%." That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.
- acabal 15y agoI was extremely surprised to read that the guy in charge of a company that almost exclusively produces highly expensive 1st-world gadgetry was himself disdainful of conspicuous consumption.
- hugh3 15y agoAw c'mon, Apple products don't count as "conspicuous consumption". They're fairly small and unobtrusive. Sure, they're a bit self-marketing (white earphones and big illuminated Apple logos on the back of your laptop) but that's not conspicuous consumption. Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
- borism 15y agoseriously? even if those personal electronics are priced at a hefty premium over their counterparts?
- ceejayoz 15y ago> seriously? even if those personal electronics are priced at a hefty premium over their counterparts? Which has ceased to be the case for Apple products for quite a while now.
- dextorious 15y agoThere is no hefty premium over COMPARABLE counterparts. People just compare any junk say Dell with the same hardware specs (memory, processor, disk, chipset, etc) to a MBP. Open a Dell and a MBP though, and take a peek. Have the same money been spend on the Dells internal case design? Is the Dell assembled with the same attention to detail? Does the Dell sport various small and big innovations, from the mag safe adapter to auto-inverted Ethernet port, non protruding camera, lid magnets, etc? Does the Dell have a unique in industry machined aluminum "concrete" case design? Is it as light? Is it as thin? Is is as sturdy? Was even the industrial designer designing the Dell as well paid and respected by his peers as Ives? Oh, and does the Dell hold its resale value just as well? Now, if you take a high-end Sony or Lenovo laptop, with comparable construction, it's often the case that the Apple laptop is cheaper or same price. Oh, and regarding tablets, media players and phones, Apple completely smoked the competition in pricing. Wasn't the Samsung tablet for example like $799 for a version competing (badly) with the $499 iPad?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- powertower 15y agoAnd if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure. It's easy to pretent you have 20/20 hindsight on other peoples lives.
- ceejayoz 15y ago> And if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure. Not really. "Spontaneous remission is rare but it happens, lucky man!" would be the far more likely response.
- alatkins 15y agoThere was also a detailed answer related to this a few days ago on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-not-to-effectively-treat-his-cancer/answer/Ramzi-Amri http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-no... EDIT: Please see the link to the answer comment below, which I hadn't seen until now. As always, a grain of salt and all that...
- pella 15y agohttp://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-not-to-effectively-treat-his-cancer/answer/Ramzi-Amri/comment/567595 http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-no...
- itsnotvalid 15y agoI thought a much detailed explanation was found in another article that was posted to HN earlier this month [1]. The article referred to a 2008 blog post about that. --- [1] http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-alternative-medicine/ http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to... and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176
- tremendo 15y agoI really dislike all these after-the-fact rationalizations and second-guessing, and wish we could simply let the man rest in peace. That said, for those interested, an actually well reasoned and knowledgeable piece on the subject comes from Science Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-steve-jobs/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-s... Some quotes: "Did Jobs significantly decrease his chance of surviving his cancer by waiting nine months to undergo surgery? It seems like a no-brainer, but it turns out that that’s actually a very tough question to answer. ... So, is it possible, even likely, that Jobs compromised his chances of survival? Yes. Is it definite that he did? No, it’s not... In fact, based on statistics alone, it’s unlikely that a mere nine months took Jobs “from the high end to the low end of the survival rate,” Now, let's hope this thread dies instead.
- jholman 15y agoI just need to mention that tremendo's link to sciencebasedmedicine contains a MUCH higher quality of commentary than the half-dozen other articles I've read on the subject. I know an upvote ought to be enough, but it didn't seem so.
- MichaelApproved 15y agoI'm sure he's resting just fine. This is a biography that is for us to contemplate and discuss. It's quoting his own words. Edit: removed "authorized" from biography since I don't know for sure.
- Flenser 15y agoYou could have left authorized in. Walter Isaacson was his official biographer.
- tripzilch 15y agoThis was also discussed in this blog post, shortly after his death: http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-alternative-medicine/ http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to...
- CamperBob 15y agoA nicely written article. However, this point: "In retrospect, we can now tell that Jobs clearly had a tumor that was unusually aggressive for an insulinoma." ... seems to undermine the author's own argument that Jobs's nine months of ineffective dieting and dithering was not necessarily a problem. Was it an aggressive tumor, or not? If so, then the early CAT scan was a lottery win, and it was incredible that Jobs failed to cash in the winning ticket. If not, then sure, maybe nine months more or less didn't matter. As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.
- b0rsuk 15y agoI think Steve Jobs acted stupid. "The first 90 percent of the task takes 10 percent of the time. The last 10 percent takes the other 90 percent." Do you see where I'm going ? If you believe there's some truth in this saying (quote, murphy law, whatever it is) then you should fix problems as early as possible. Granted, you don't always have time for that, and this saying applies mostly to such situations. Software projects, for example. But if you have an opportunity to fix a complicated problem/task early, don't procrastinate. There are often unexpected complications. Solve them early. If you start earlier, the chance you into the deadline is smaller. I think it's perfectly possible that Steve Jobs acted brilliant in some situations and plain stupid in this case. There are no 100% brilliant and 100% stupid people. It's not binary, a smart person is not immune to stupid actions. http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidit...