

Steve Jobs speaks out about his health - spif
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/05sjletter.html

======
ivankirigin
I really don't like the treatment of his health. It's just kind of low class
that thousands of people are paying such close attention largely because
they'd like to maintain the value of their stock or short at the right time.

I certainly agree that Apple without Jobs isn't as good. But this treatment is
morbid.

The note at the end about saying more than he wanted is really sad.

~~~
mhartl
The secrecy surrounding the health of superstar CEOs reminds me of the way the
major sports leagues used to handle injuries. NFL teams, for example, used to
be quite cagey about their players' health---a practice you could easily
defend on the same grounds people use to defend CEOs like Jobs. The problem is
that, propriety aside, injury information is _extremely_ valuable, especially
to gamblers, and the result was that oddsmakers went to great lengths to
acquire injury information surreptitiously (by bribing trainers, etc.).
Eventually, the NFL (and other leagues) decided to stop denying reality and
institute formal injury reports; now all teams are (relatively) forthcoming
about players' injuries.

As with athletes, and like it or not, CEO health information is often quite
valuable. Vilifying those who seek to ferret it out is just shooting the
messenger.

~~~
fgimenez
Remember an athlete's injury is usually not life threatening. A broken leg is
significantly different from pancreatic cancer.

~~~
scotth
Missing the point. It's all about value. A broken leg is is an impediment to
an athlete. A pancreatic cancer, along with its treatment, is a hurdle for a
CEO.

------
brandnewlow
That sound you hear? The shuffling of papers and stomping of feet as editors
order their writers to "dig up everything you can" on hormone imbalances.

~~~
jlc
In particular, are hormone imbalances frequently comorbid with, say,
pancreatic cancer?

~~~
hcayless
Jobs doesn't have typical pancreatic cancer, or he'd almost certainly be dead
by now. He has a carcinoid, some of which do pump out hormones that can cause
effects like weight loss (and nausea, diarrhea, etc.). These symptoms are
treatable.

My father in law has a variety of this. He lost something like 70-80 pounds
before they got it under control, but has been doing well for years now.

~~~
dcurtis
Also, he's a vegan which could complicate his nutritional problems.

~~~
michaelneale
Yes he mentioned it was a nutritional problem, with a simple solution -
chances are for years he has been depriving himself unknowingly of something
important.

~~~
ars
Uh, no, chances are not that. Unless you are very stupid (and I don't think he
is....) you can get what you need with just about any diet.

~~~
likpok
Replace that with "Unless you are reasonably smart (and I think he is) you
don't get what you need with certain diets."

The issue with vegetarianism is that humans are not meant to eat just
vegetables. Therefore, great care must be taken to get certain nutrients which
are not found often in vegetables. Protein is the big one, but there are
others.

However, with a properly crafted diet (an issue that most? vegetarians run
into) you should be able to get everything. (possibly with the aid of
supplements).

~~~
redrobot5050
Yeah. Have you ever seen the food schedule for someone who beat cancer? Surf
and Turf. Steak and Potatoes. Salmon and Chicken. 4 or 5 meals a day once your
appetite comes back.

Cancer treatments typically deplete the body of protein and lean tissue, and
most doctors agree that eating meat is just the fastest/easiest way to
recover.

Its possible/probable a macrobiotic diet could contain enough protein and
still be 100% vegan, but if there's another "imbalance" (say GMO Soy or
Legumes which contain Estrogen) that could create issues he's had to deal with
during his recovery.

~~~
michaelneale
When I was in the UK I tried out "quorn" - I think that was how you spelled
it. Basically a fungal/mushroom grown substance that is high in protein. All
the vegoes I knew loved it (actually it tasted good to me), that and lots of
beans/legumes.

------
gcv
I am glad that Steve remains in pretty good health. Thank goodness. I'm a
little disgusted at how all this concern about the quality of Apple gadgets
and the price of Apple stock trumps simple human concern for a fellow human
being.

~~~
SapphireSun
I heard some of Job's speeches on philosophy and it really resonated with me.
I think he's a really cool guy even if he's a bit arrogant. The real value is
in who he is.

~~~
ruby_roo
Wha..? Where would one go to read or hear these speeches?

~~~
SapphireSun
Jobs gave an address to Stanford university's graduating class in 2005. Here's
a link to youtube if you want to watch it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA

It was quite interesting and spoke deeply to me.

~~~
jim-greer
He covered his health in that speech, but according to this CNN piece he was
pretty misleading.

[http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.f...](http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/index4.htm)
(Scroll about 1/4 of the way down)

If he's going to talk about his health, he should be more straightforward than
this.

I think once you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, your responsibilities to
your shareholders mean that you need to be more forthcoming about your health
than he has been.

~~~
redrobot5050
No, you need to be more forthcoming with your board of directors, some of
which (Al Gore) are close personal friends and can keep their mouth shut to
the press if it really is a "private matter".

The fact that Apple's board hadn't take any action was (to me) a clear
indication that he was A-Ok. Steve might be exceptional, but the rest of the
senior management has Sarbanes-Oxley to contend with -- meaning they could
face jailtime for any intentional falsification or misleading statements given
to the board of directors. And the board/stockholders have been extremely
watchful ever since the backdating options/SEC Probe scandal a year or so
back.

------
dejb
It is interesting to contrast the different approaches taken by Steve Jobs and
Sergey Brin with regards to information about health issues. Sergey seemed to
be trying to open/crowd source his (potential) problems where as Steve has
taken the closed/inhouse source approach for as long as possible.

I can understand his position though and hope he makes a full recovery. But
can't help thinking that if he released more details, an army of both
qualified and unqualified Mac fans would have spent countless hours
researching the problem and possibly come up with a solution sooner.

~~~
DanHulton
You know, I think I would place more faith in a team of highly-trained and
paid doctors who are intimately familiar with his situation and medical record
than I would in "the crowd". Especially considering the fact that doctors keep
all the embarassing little details confidential (and let's face it, being in
ill-health is embarassing to most, and especially someone who takes such pride
in being "a force of nature" like Jobs does).

~~~
Tichy
I think both approaches can have merits. Doctors are only human, and they are
not always right.

~~~
likpok
Yes, but the human body is complicated. I would not trust a non-professional
for any sort of nontrivial diagnosis. Enough people don't understand the
fundamentals of medicine (look at the success of airborne and homeopathy) that
crowd-sourcing is of dubious quality.

You can get second opinions, but generally it's smart to stick to doctors for
them.

~~~
dejb
Of course you wouldn't follow a non-profession's diagnosis withour further
support or verification. But I do think that crowd sourcing would probably be
able to find and identify the correct solution faster a few experts. As long
as the process allows the views of those with higher levels of knowledge to
predominate then it would work. In this case I believe there would be many
professionals who would devote some time to look into the matter.

Apart from you privacy the worst you are risking would be to waste some of
your expert doctors time in considering some additional possibilities.

------
tlrobinson
Gizmodo was part of the problem Steve referred to, and they're still at it
trying to cover their mistake. Their "updated" article still says that Steve
is not doing the keynote because of his health, yet nowhere in the letter does
Steve even imply that.

[http://gizmodo.com/5120687/steve-jobs-health-declining-
rapid...](http://gizmodo.com/5120687/steve-jobs-health-declining-rapidly-
reason-for-macworld-cancellation)

~~~
boucher
"A few weeks ago, I decided that getting to the root cause of this and
reversing it needed to become my #1 priority"

I'd say he is in fact implying that his decision was related to learning about
his health problem.

------
mikeyur
I hope everyone is happy now and can get over it. It's sad he had to come to
this.

Why is it your business to know about every detail of his personal life? And
don't give me this 'I'm a stockholder, I deserve to know' BS. Apple isn't
going to magically fail overnight.

3%+ shift in Apple stock since this press release hit. 100% decline in Steve's
dignity.

My thoughts and wishes are with Steve and his family.

~~~
dcurtis
If Steve Jobs died tomorrow, Apple's stock would fall a gigantic amount and
anyone who owns it would be totally screwed, at least in the short term. It is
in Steve's best interest to at least give people a small idea of what is going
on with him, so they can gauge risk. I personally think that's a sacrifice a
person has to make to be a CEO.

~~~
sanj
_It is in Steve's best interest_

Really? Why?

~~~
nailer
The justification is contained at the end of the sentence you're quoting.

~~~
sanj
I disagree:

 _to at least give people a small idea of what is going on with him, so they
can gauge risk_

That's not in his best interest. It is in the stockholder's best interest, the
company's best interest and (perhaps) that market's best interest.

I fail to see how it is in Jobs's best interest.

~~~
nailer
It in Job's interest to serve his shareholder's interest.

------
llimllib
I'm glad that Steve gets "sophisticated" blood tests, I wouldn't want him
having those simple ones.

~~~
jrockway
I think the word "sophisticated" there is to mean something like "we're pretty
sure we figured it out this time".

~~~
llimllib
which is, of course, not at all the meaning of sophisticated? Which was my
point.

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny word to use there, and people have been
modding this comment probably more than any other comment I've made. Inverse
importance/modding relationship for the win!

------
allenbrunson
wow. i think that's the first time jobs has ever tipped his hand in reaction
to stories in the media.

i don't know if it's just because it's so out of character for him or what,
but i don't like it.

~~~
a-priori
I think it's sad he feels compelled to reveal this personal information.

~~~
allenbrunson
a great deal of apple's strength is that they don't follow trends. if they
listened to what the industry thinks, they would license osx for plain-vanilla
pcs, compete against ugly low-cost hardware from their competitors, etc etc
etc, until they were indistinguishable from dell or hp, and therefore
completely uninteresting.

apple's refusal to follow trends comes right from the top. yes, it can be
construed as arrogant that jobs hasn't commented on his health before now. but
that's his way. this methodology has downsides, but it keeps the company from
slogging it out in the sewers with all the other commodity manufacturers.

this announcement is a reaction to outside pressure, which is the opposite of
what makes apple great.

~~~
rp
"a great deal of apple's strength is that they don't follow trends. if they
listened to what the industry thinks, they would license osx for plain-vanilla
pcs, compete against ugly low-cost hardware from their competitors, etc etc
etc, until they were indistinguishable from dell or hp, and therefore
completely uninteresting."

They did exactly this a year before Jobs came back. In spite of Jobs's claims
to the otherwise, the experiment did not last long enough to indicate whether
it would have been viable in the long term. What is clear is that the clone
makers where releasing computers more expandable and powerful than what Apple
actually had on the market.

~~~
unalone
But Apple isn't just about powerful computers. It's about the Apple way. And
for better or for worse, that means focusing on the complete package of the
computer.

"Completely uninteresting" in exchange for "expandable and powerful" is not a
good one for Apple to make.

------
wizlb
Please get well or just die soon please so we can stop reading about it. Thank
you, have a nice day.

------
sabat
OK, so he has now upped the ante. Either he's being completely truthful -- and
AAPL stockholders have less to worry about -- or he's lying outright. If he's
lying, people will go to jail. If Steve dies, the SEC will find others
complicit in this lie and they'll do serious time.

~~~
unalone
Do you _really_ think Steve Jobs would lie about his health like this? What
reason does he have? Why would he invent something like hormone deficiency?
Why would he lie about being at risk of his life?

~~~
gojomo
People lie^H^H^H spin all the time, Jobs included, for all sorts of reasons.
They also carefully choose words and what to reveal to make statements that
are unfalsifiable/defensible, but still give the wrong impression to most
readers.

I believe what Jobs has written here is substantially true -- the identifiable
incentives for him and the company are to reveal the smallest amount of true
information possible to assuage fan and investor fears. But there always
remains a nonzero chance he's using his famous 'Reality Distortion Field'. So
sabat's point in the grandparent post is fair.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field>

------
jyothi
A guaranteed rise in stock price!

