3 ms·

I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of t

I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $80b tied up in the company, and they have no idea if the guy running it will live another year or two. When your company goes public, a decision Steve himself made long ago, you know that from then on, what you disclose to owners of the company you effectively disclose to everyone. He knew what he was getting. Speculating as to his health doesn't worsen it or harm him in any way. If anything is immoral, it's Steve's purposely hiding it and even, this year, lying about it.

xenophanes 18y ago
Yeah. Health speculation doesn't even really fit on this list: 0) speculation that isn't mean 1) insults and mean rumors 2) spitting 3) death threats
zhyder 18y ago
Worrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  How they approached it was due to his blatantly lying about it, in the rare instances in which he addressed it at all. He chose to make it tabloid-like. He could have ended it at any point by simply being upfront. Remember when John McCain had a team of Mayo Clinic doctors examine him and publicly announce the results? It was because he knew that if he were elected, his health was our business. People may have joked about his health, but there wasn't the tabloid-like obsession with digging up dirt. Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.
rbanffy 18y ago
Not only that. Think about those who have MSFT stock. Where will MSFT copy stuff from if APPL ceases to innovate due to the health of its main driving force ;-) ?

xenophanes 18y ago

Yeah. Health speculation doesn't even really fit on this list: 0) speculation that isn't mean 1) insults and mean rumors 2) spitting 3) death threats

zhyder 18y ago

Worrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.

mattmaroon 18y ago
How they approached it was due to his blatantly lying about it, in the rare instances in which he addressed it at all. He chose to make it tabloid-like. He could have ended it at any point by simply being upfront. Remember when John McCain had a team of Mayo Clinic doctors examine him and publicly announce the results? It was because he knew that if he were elected, his health was our business. People may have joked about his health, but there wasn't the tabloid-like obsession with digging up dirt. Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.

rbanffy 18y ago

Not only that. Think about those who have MSFT stock. Where will MSFT copy stuff from if APPL ceases to innovate due to the health of its main driving force ;-) ?