
Steve Jobs in good health following second surgery - report - terpua
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/23/steve_jobs_in_good_health_following_second_surgery_report.html
======
biohacker42
The only way Apple can succeed without Jobs, is if they find another super
productive sociopath perfectionist with a 1 in a million sense of design. A
sugar water executive won't do.

~~~
henning
What about promoting Jonathan Ive
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive>)? He definitely has good design
sense. I don't know about the maniacal sociopath perfectionist bit, though.

~~~
unalone
He's a damn good designer, but he's not a social designer. I figure Apple
wants another performer to step up to the lead when Jobs is gone.

Besides, Ive is good exactly where he is. He's doing what he does best. A
promotion would make no sense.

~~~
michaelneale
It could end up being like google where there are 2 or 3 with complementary
skills that lead. Ive would probably be one of them.

~~~
unalone
Possibly - but I doubt it. Different mindsets.

Apple is all about focus. They hone in on little bitty details that require a
single mind's perfectionist worldview. No compromises. And I can't think of
any multi-man team that focuses that much, excepting the Coen brothers.

Google doesn't need airtight focus. Apple does.

------
jonknee
I find the "Steve’s health is a private matter" line a bit odd. According to
the SEC it's not a private matter. His health directly impacts $150B in AAPL
shares. My health is private because I don't have billions of dollars in other
people's money counting on it.

~~~
a-priori
What, you think the SEC is going to compell him to publicize his health? It
doesn't matter how much stock you own, your health is always a private matter
unless you want it to be otherwise.

~~~
jonknee
I could definitely see some new rules being put in place sometime in the near
future. Steve Jobs is absolutely critical to Apple and a serious disease
should be an obvious material disclosure. Not all CEOs are so vital, but Steve
Jobs has tens of billions of dollars invested in his well being, it would be
borderline fraud to be hiding a career threatening disease. Not to mention an
insider trading nightmare.

~~~
a-priori
I find the very idea of forced disclosure of medical information downright
scary, regardless of who the person is or how vital they are.

~~~
jonknee
I agree, but no one is requiring him to be the CEO of a public company. He
shouldn't have to post his blood tests on the web, but something like an
annual checkup would be reasonable. Athletes do it before they get signed.
Politicians do it before running. Pilots have to do it every year. Etc etc.
Right now he could be dying (I don't think he is) and the board/investors are
just counting on Steve to let them know. That's not cool especially after he
showed them he wasn't willing to do that the first time (going on for months
with natural treatments and waiting to the last possible time to disclose that
he was very seriously ill).

~~~
marvin
That's a pretty interesting idea - public disclosure of health seems very
wrong (where every investor could read the doctor's annual report on Jobs's
health), but something in the direction of what pilots do seems quite
reasonable. The pilot is checked by a doctor, and the only information
publicized is a "pass/fail". Any conditions remain between the pilot and the
doctor, and in particular any conditions which are irrelevant to the task at
hand. (If Jobs has erectile dysfunction, no one would ever know)

Anyhow: The way Apple works today, there is little reason the SEC should be
involved. Everybody knows that Jobs kept a life-threatening illness from
investors until the last minute, and everybody knows that the company would be
in deep shit if he had died. Hence, the risk of him keeping any current
serious condition secret is known to investors and the share price reflects
this. This is also why a (minor?) issue such as this one causes so much noise.
Speculators are speculating.

~~~
timr
Also, the disease he had wouldn't kill him immediately. Even if he had
disclosed earlier, the only purpose it would have served would have been to
make the stock more volatile for a longer period of time. It's reasonable to
argue that keeping the disease secret was a responsible decision.

------
albertcardona
It's unfortunate that, at least as seen from the outside, the outcome (and the
shares value) of a company depends on a single man.

There are a few out there like Steve Jobs. They just don't work any further
after the first couple million. It's a matter of incentive and motivation.

