6 ms·

Just terrible news and so unfortunate that it has to play out this way. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to have to deal with a (seemingly) serious med

Just terrible news and so unfortunate that it has to play out this way. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to have to deal with a (seemingly) serious medical issue and have to justify every related move to the public.

gamache 18y ago
He doesn't have to justify anything to anyone. It's just that Apple's runaway success has depended, depends, and will probably continue to depend on Steve Jobs being there. He knows it, and everyone with AAPL stock knows it too.
Alex3917 18y ago
What's more terrible and unfortunate is the fact that not only is this the top story on CNN and Google News, but today's supreme court decision doesn't even make it onto either page. Not even below the fold.
- jfornear 18y ago
  This shouldn't be surprising at all. Priority in news is not determined by what we might consider to be of real or objective importance.
  - brandnewlow 18y ago
    How many people in the audience that advertisers care about would be affected by Apple tanking? A lot. How many people that advertisers care about would be affected by new police evidence rules? Nowhere near as many. Seems pretty cut and dried. If advertisers pay the bills you write to the audience they're interested in.
- lyime 18y ago
  Thats not terrible at all. I am rather glad that is not in the likes of breaking news. Somethings should be low key. His life is not everyones business. People who need to know about Mr. Jobs will find out either way.
  - sabat 18y ago
    Actually, the health of a CEO is very much the business of the stockholders of his company.
- someperson 18y ago
  For those of us who are out of the loop, what was todays supreme court decision?
  - divia 18y ago
    The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?h...
    - andreyf 18y ago
      Also, mid-article: The question [...] was whether the requirement established in Apprendi applied to the decision whether a defendant convicted of multiple crimes must serve consecutive or concurrent sentences if the harsher punishment required a judge to find facts not determined by the jury.
TomOfTTB 18y ago
This is not terrible news. Terrible news would be him staying on while he was sick and making it worse. The man is taking a really brief respite to rest after contracting an illness. That's what he's SUPPOSED to do. Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. That's what's happening here. If this were undiagnosed, or a really serious condition, or life threatening, or anything like that I'd have a different opinion. But as of right now all I see is a bunch of people trying to make a really big deal out of a relatively small thing in order to drive hits/sell newspapers.
- ConradHex 18y ago
  >Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. Pretty often, actually, people get sick and then die. Especially people who've had cancer. :( Reading between the lines here, I suspect his health is in really bad shape. I hope I'm wrong, though.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized. More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover. Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?
    - dcurtis 18y ago
      A hormone imbalance is serious. Anything "more complex" than that is very serious. Anything so serious that it could cause a CEO to leave a company for six months is extremely serious.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]

gamache 18y ago

He doesn't have to justify anything to anyone. It's just that Apple's runaway success has depended, depends, and will probably continue to depend on Steve Jobs being there. He knows it, and everyone with AAPL stock knows it too.

Alex3917 18y ago

What's more terrible and unfortunate is the fact that not only is this the top story on CNN and Google News, but today's supreme court decision doesn't even make it onto either page. Not even below the fold.

jfornear 18y ago
This shouldn't be surprising at all. Priority in news is not determined by what we might consider to be of real or objective importance.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  How many people in the audience that advertisers care about would be affected by Apple tanking? A lot. How many people that advertisers care about would be affected by new police evidence rules? Nowhere near as many. Seems pretty cut and dried. If advertisers pay the bills you write to the audience they're interested in.
lyime 18y ago
Thats not terrible at all. I am rather glad that is not in the likes of breaking news. Somethings should be low key. His life is not everyones business. People who need to know about Mr. Jobs will find out either way.
- sabat 18y ago
  Actually, the health of a CEO is very much the business of the stockholders of his company.
someperson 18y ago
For those of us who are out of the loop, what was todays supreme court decision?
- divia 18y ago
  The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?h...
  - andreyf 18y ago
    Also, mid-article: The question [...] was whether the requirement established in Apprendi applied to the decision whether a defendant convicted of multiple crimes must serve consecutive or concurrent sentences if the harsher punishment required a judge to find facts not determined by the jury.

TomOfTTB 18y ago

This is not terrible news. Terrible news would be him staying on while he was sick and making it worse. The man is taking a really brief respite to rest after contracting an illness. That's what he's SUPPOSED to do. Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. That's what's happening here. If this were undiagnosed, or a really serious condition, or life threatening, or anything like that I'd have a different opinion. But as of right now all I see is a bunch of people trying to make a really big deal out of a relatively small thing in order to drive hits/sell newspapers.

ConradHex 18y ago
>Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. Pretty often, actually, people get sick and then die. Especially people who've had cancer. :( Reading between the lines here, I suspect his health is in really bad shape. I hope I'm wrong, though.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized. More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover. Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?
  - dcurtis 18y ago
    A hormone imbalance is serious. Anything "more complex" than that is very serious. Anything so serious that it could cause a CEO to leave a company for six months is extremely serious.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]