7 ms·

Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

76 points by bsgamble 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
markbao 17y ago
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Jobs+Had+Liver+Transplant http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=... Click first link for full article.
mailanay 17y ago
This sure sounds more serious than those "Hormone Imbalances" that we have been hearing. My dad suffered a long time because of Liver Cirrhosis before meeting his end last year. I know first hand how painful liver related problems can get.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  I am sorry to hear that. Going through that kind of thing with a family member is never easy.
TrevorJ 17y ago
I find it odd that disclosing a liver transplant and not disclosing the condition that precipitated it is the way they chose to go here. I would think that once the transplant cat is out of the bag, you might as well be open about the condition. After all none of the reasons for needing a new liver are good and people will probably assume the worst as it is.
- wozer 17y ago
  There was some speculation back in January: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/16/steve-jobs-bloomberg-transplant-claim http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/16/steve-...
- rms 17y ago
  I didn't get the impression that this was an official disclosure.
  - Timothee 17y ago
    It wasn't very clear... the fact that they cited an Apple spokeperson made me think there was some official disclosure, because they usually just not comment at all on something they haven't released. Whether or not it was official, I don't think we need to know the exact condition. What would that change? I can't help him, and the one who can have probably been working on it for some time now.
- cdibona 17y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but real liver problems can follow any serious course of hard core pharmaceuticals. The man had cancer. He took chemo drugs, which likely destroyed his liver.
sho 17y ago
"Apple has previously drawn criticism from some shareholders over what they have called limited disclosure of Mr. Jobs's health problems" "once Mr. Jobs resumes work, the company will have to be "very careful" about what it says" This strikes me as almost unbelievably cynical, that Jobs' health could be factored into the price of Apple shares. I understand why, of course, but still, I hate it and I wonder how SJ himself feels. "Don't die yet, Steve, I'm long AAPL!" I think he should retire soon. He's had a good run. Apple will be fine.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  It's insane not because it's cynical, but because we've now seen twice that when Steve Jobs is gone, Apple falls back on TimCookPhilSchillerEddyCueJonathanIve and every other one of its other brilliant, beauty-minded industrialists. Jobs once said that he views Apple as his lasting triumph, not the Mac or the iPod, because with Apple he took his ideals and embedded them within the company upon his return. The result is that any one of the people at Apple is as brilliant as Jobs is. Some would argue that Tim Cook is a better Jobs than Jobs himself.
- vaksel 17y ago
  He is only 54, plenty of things he can still do
  - sho 17y ago
    Since he's already had surgery for pancreatic cancer, and now this, I wouldn't be too sure about that.
- DavidSJ 17y ago
  How is it cynical to price the health of an organization's key person into its value?
  - sho 17y ago
    Because it's basically placing monetary bets on another human being's health. Yeah, I know he's the key person, I know why they do it, I just think it's depressing that our society still hasn't risen above putting a dollar value on life.
spoondan 17y ago
Bury this. Jobs's medical condition, whatever it is or was, is a private matter about which he has elected to not speak. He's met all reasonable obligations by announcing when he was going to be out and when he expected to return. The rest is small-minded gossip.
- jmtame 17y ago
  "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" this is a private matter for steve jobs, and it felt like the community was supportive of giving him his privacy. i'm surprised this is still alive tbh.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Jobs is a figure of mythic proportions who is of keen interest to technologists, entrepreneurs, and the general public. He's been featured in movies; books have been written about him; he's granted the media many levels of access, from photos through interviews, to boost his products. That attention can't be turned off like a spigot. Even if Jobs weren't still actively involved in Apple, people would be deeply interested (and concerned!) about his health, making it a legitimate area for reporters (and biographers!) to report about, as long as the information is obtained in a honest manner. I believe it's a valid story (for both the WSJ and here) because we care about Jobs, we care about his creative output (including Apple), and we often best learn about things in life -- including dealing with health challenges -- by seeing how they affect prominent people.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    True enough, but this particular article is completely unsourced. It is very little more than gossip at this point.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      The WSJ doesn't run "unsourced" news; they had confirmation of the key details from multiple sources (even if the exact sources aren't named) before running the story.
mynameishere 17y ago
Reminds me of the fact fame and fortune aren't worth much compared with health. I wouldn't trade places with him [...takes another sip of wine.]
- il 17y ago
  Jobs and Apple have changed the world in so many ways. WTF have you done with your life?
  - hko 17y ago
    Relax, he's not attacking Jobs or bragging about himself, just saying he's fortunate to be healthy.
  - mynameishere 17y ago
    Quit downmodding this guy. Jesus, I hate the downmod arrow. Here's some elucidation: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html Read it. Time is the great equalizer. Warren Buffett is worth ten thousand times more than you are, assuming you are worth $5 million. But he is 78 years old. Not many people would want to trade places with him, one for one. Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, but I'd rather be me than him, Is that strange? No! Because time treats humans like call options--decay is priced in, and hits zero at the set date. Steve Jobs is very, very close to zero, no matter his accomplishments.
    - Confusion 17y ago
      Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, Why? Because he is famous? Because he is rich? Because he, debatably, has 'made the world a better place'? Screw all those default judgements based on cultural indoctrination. Why is it Good to be famous, rich, innovative, an effective leader, ...? As far as I'm concerned, Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett are no better than you or me when I consider what I think is important in life. Stop pressing culturally correct expectations and judgements on others. Develop your own code of ethics.
jsz0 17y ago
They made the right choice in how they handled this. His personal medical issues would have completely overshadowed Apple's recent product announcements and completely derailed the carefully crafted Apple PR train. Instead of talking about Macbooks & iPhones we'd be talking about the details of liver transplants. That would not have been good for Apple or its investors -- some of which will surely be upset over how this was handled but they really need to consider the alternative before getting too worked up over it
satyajit 17y ago
I am not concerned about AAPL or any cool products it makes. To me, Jobs is a visionary, and embodies what the company preaches "Think Different"! And agree with someone said here, his medical condition is his private matter, and we should respect that.
ComputerGuru 17y ago
Smart that this comes out today. Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone and it proved that investor's feel good about the prospects of an Apple without Jobs at its helm day-in, day-out. If this article had come out before, I think Apple would've taken a hit.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone Link? http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl suggests it hasn't broken out of 130-140 in quite a few days. Particularly not jumping to > 200 yesterday.
  - ComputerGuru 17y ago
    Sorry, I must have mis-read it or something.
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
Hopefully he's learned his lesson and started eating lots of meat.

76 points by bsgamble 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Jobs+Had+Liver+Transplant http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=... Click first link for full article.

mailanay 17y ago

This sure sounds more serious than those "Hormone Imbalances" that we have been hearing. My dad suffered a long time because of Liver Cirrhosis before meeting his end last year. I know first hand how painful liver related problems can get.

TrevorJ 17y ago
I am sorry to hear that. Going through that kind of thing with a family member is never easy.

TrevorJ 17y ago

I find it odd that disclosing a liver transplant and not disclosing the condition that precipitated it is the way they chose to go here. I would think that once the transplant cat is out of the bag, you might as well be open about the condition. After all none of the reasons for needing a new liver are good and people will probably assume the worst as it is.

wozer 17y ago
There was some speculation back in January: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/16/steve-jobs-bloomberg-transplant-claim http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/16/steve-...
rms 17y ago
I didn't get the impression that this was an official disclosure.
- Timothee 17y ago
  It wasn't very clear... the fact that they cited an Apple spokeperson made me think there was some official disclosure, because they usually just not comment at all on something they haven't released. Whether or not it was official, I don't think we need to know the exact condition. What would that change? I can't help him, and the one who can have probably been working on it for some time now.
cdibona 17y ago
I hate to break it to you, but real liver problems can follow any serious course of hard core pharmaceuticals. The man had cancer. He took chemo drugs, which likely destroyed his liver.

sho 17y ago

"Apple has previously drawn criticism from some shareholders over what they have called limited disclosure of Mr. Jobs's health problems" "once Mr. Jobs resumes work, the company will have to be "very careful" about what it says" This strikes me as almost unbelievably cynical, that Jobs' health could be factored into the price of Apple shares. I understand why, of course, but still, I hate it and I wonder how SJ himself feels. "Don't die yet, Steve, I'm long AAPL!" I think he should retire soon. He's had a good run. Apple will be fine.

zimbabwe 17y ago
It's insane not because it's cynical, but because we've now seen twice that when Steve Jobs is gone, Apple falls back on TimCookPhilSchillerEddyCueJonathanIve and every other one of its other brilliant, beauty-minded industrialists. Jobs once said that he views Apple as his lasting triumph, not the Mac or the iPod, because with Apple he took his ideals and embedded them within the company upon his return. The result is that any one of the people at Apple is as brilliant as Jobs is. Some would argue that Tim Cook is a better Jobs than Jobs himself.
vaksel 17y ago
He is only 54, plenty of things he can still do
- sho 17y ago
  Since he's already had surgery for pancreatic cancer, and now this, I wouldn't be too sure about that.
DavidSJ 17y ago
How is it cynical to price the health of an organization's key person into its value?
- sho 17y ago
  Because it's basically placing monetary bets on another human being's health. Yeah, I know he's the key person, I know why they do it, I just think it's depressing that our society still hasn't risen above putting a dollar value on life.

spoondan 17y ago

Bury this. Jobs's medical condition, whatever it is or was, is a private matter about which he has elected to not speak. He's met all reasonable obligations by announcing when he was going to be out and when he expected to return. The rest is small-minded gossip.

jmtame 17y ago
"If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" this is a private matter for steve jobs, and it felt like the community was supportive of giving him his privacy. i'm surprised this is still alive tbh.
gojomo 17y ago
Jobs is a figure of mythic proportions who is of keen interest to technologists, entrepreneurs, and the general public. He's been featured in movies; books have been written about him; he's granted the media many levels of access, from photos through interviews, to boost his products. That attention can't be turned off like a spigot. Even if Jobs weren't still actively involved in Apple, people would be deeply interested (and concerned!) about his health, making it a legitimate area for reporters (and biographers!) to report about, as long as the information is obtained in a honest manner. I believe it's a valid story (for both the WSJ and here) because we care about Jobs, we care about his creative output (including Apple), and we often best learn about things in life -- including dealing with health challenges -- by seeing how they affect prominent people.
- tjogin 17y ago
  True enough, but this particular article is completely unsourced. It is very little more than gossip at this point.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    The WSJ doesn't run "unsourced" news; they had confirmation of the key details from multiple sources (even if the exact sources aren't named) before running the story.

mynameishere 17y ago

Reminds me of the fact fame and fortune aren't worth much compared with health. I wouldn't trade places with him [...takes another sip of wine.]

il 17y ago
Jobs and Apple have changed the world in so many ways. WTF have you done with your life?
- hko 17y ago
  Relax, he's not attacking Jobs or bragging about himself, just saying he's fortunate to be healthy.
- mynameishere 17y ago
  Quit downmodding this guy. Jesus, I hate the downmod arrow. Here's some elucidation: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html Read it. Time is the great equalizer. Warren Buffett is worth ten thousand times more than you are, assuming you are worth $5 million. But he is 78 years old. Not many people would want to trade places with him, one for one. Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, but I'd rather be me than him, Is that strange? No! Because time treats humans like call options--decay is priced in, and hits zero at the set date. Steve Jobs is very, very close to zero, no matter his accomplishments.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, Why? Because he is famous? Because he is rich? Because he, debatably, has 'made the world a better place'? Screw all those default judgements based on cultural indoctrination. Why is it Good to be famous, rich, innovative, an effective leader, ...? As far as I'm concerned, Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett are no better than you or me when I consider what I think is important in life. Stop pressing culturally correct expectations and judgements on others. Develop your own code of ethics.

jsz0 17y ago

They made the right choice in how they handled this. His personal medical issues would have completely overshadowed Apple's recent product announcements and completely derailed the carefully crafted Apple PR train. Instead of talking about Macbooks & iPhones we'd be talking about the details of liver transplants. That would not have been good for Apple or its investors -- some of which will surely be upset over how this was handled but they really need to consider the alternative before getting too worked up over it

satyajit 17y ago

I am not concerned about AAPL or any cool products it makes. To me, Jobs is a visionary, and embodies what the company preaches "Think Different"! And agree with someone said here, his medical condition is his private matter, and we should respect that.

ComputerGuru 17y ago

Smart that this comes out today. Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone and it proved that investor's feel good about the prospects of an Apple without Jobs at its helm day-in, day-out. If this article had come out before, I think Apple would've taken a hit.

jodrellblank 17y ago
Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone Link? http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl suggests it hasn't broken out of 130-140 in quite a few days. Particularly not jumping to > 200 yesterday.
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  Sorry, I must have mis-read it or something.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago

Hopefully he's learned his lesson and started eating lots of meat.