Steve Jobs' Health: Why It Matters
News Commentary. Heroes aren't meant to get sick or, gasp, die. We look to them for strength, not frailty. |
Actor Christopher Reeve is a good example. The horse riding accident that left him a quadriplegic was big newsand he remained a news media darling until his death. Why? In part because he played a hero. Superman is supposed to be invincible. But Christopher turned out to be quite human and as susceptible to injury as anyone.
Is Apple CEO Steve Jobs a hero? Well, he's certainly an icon, which perhaps is herolike enough. He's a figure unlike any other in the modern computing era. More importantly, Steve is to Apple as Christopher was to Superman: viewed as one and the same. Steve Jobs is Apple, as many people see him. Their fates are intertwined. Steve's health is viewed by many as affecting Apple's health.
How iconic is Steve Jobs? Microsoft co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates built a computing empire, putting a PC on every desktop. But it is Steve, not Bill, whom people look to for a kind of computing cultural guidance. Microsoft is a force that is part of culture. Apple is a cultural force. Its products set trends for design and standards for good taste. Apple products often define cool. Translucent was everywhere in 1999, following the design trend established by the Bondi Blue iMac.
How many cell phone manufacturers now imitate iPhone, particularly with touch or multitouch features? Sprint has the Samsung Instinct. HTC Touch Diamond is now selling through some European carriers. But touch isn't new to mobile devices. Palms and Treos have had touch screens for years. But Apple made touch chic, personal. Now everybody follows Apple.
Bill Gates talks about the "magic of software." Steve is about making magicproducts that delight people; the magic of good taste. Apple is a trendsetter. Steve Jobs is the guru.
There are reasons why for years dedicated Mac users were called "enthusiasts," "fanatics" or "zealots." I recall terms like the "Mac cult" or the "Mac faithful." Faithful to whom? Steve Jobs.
Now questions persist about his health. The faithful want to know about their icon, the hero of cool and of good taste. BusinessWeek and the New York Times both had major pieces about Steve's health this week. The faithful, the followers, aren't the only ones asking about Steve's health. Shareholders and potential investors are interested, too.
The questions started on June 9, when Steve gave the keynote at Apple's Worldwide Developer's conference. He looked mighty thin. Honestly, he looked gaunt to me sitting three rows back from the stage. Apple has yet to address his health, although there is a believable explanation given by others about the treatment for his cancer a few years back.
During Monday's third-quarter earnings call, one of the financial analysts apologetically asked the question that somebody had to. What's up with Steve's health?
Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer gave a roundabout answer: "Steve loves Apple. He serves as the CEO at the pleasure of Apple's board and has no plans to leave Apple. Steve's health is a private matter."
But it's not. There are no private matters at public companies. Steve Jobs doesn't just serve as CEO at "the pleasure of Apple's board" of directors. He serves at the pleasure or displeasure of the shareholders. Restated: He serves shareholders, the real owners of Apple. Steve has obligations to them.
One obligation is to protect the share price. If Steve is sick, or his cancer has returned, Apple could protect the share price by withholding the information for fear of a massive stock sell-off. That's the problem with heroes. The people saved by the superheroes often treat them as servants. The people are not always appreciative. They think about their own interests first. For all that Apple and Steve have done for the shareholders, most will put first their own interests by dumping the stock.
Apple also can protect the share price through transparency, by disclosing the clear state of Steve's health. The president of the United States does this. He serves the American people. There aren't supposed to be private matters in public office. If the president becomes sick, then there must be a succession plan and transfer of power. The president's privacy stopped the day he entered the Oval Office, really after announcing his candidacy.
I believe that all CEOs of public companiesnot just Steve Jobsshould be required to release annual health reports. Their fitness is hugely important to the shareholders, the real owners of the companies that the CEOs serve.
Disclosure is important for another reason: Steve's iconic status. He's not like most other CEOs. His healthiness is more important because of how he is identified as being the same as Apple.
Other people will disagree with me, and I expect some flaming in the comments. If Steve Jobs were a private person, I would easily concede that his health was a private matter. But he is chief executive of a public company and a leader people look to for guidance and inspiration. It's time for truth to be told about Steve's health and Apple's plans for his succession, whether they're executed shortly or many years from now.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].

Comments (5)
Excellent definition of the cultural impact Apple and Steve Jobs has had on us all these years. I've never seen it put more elegantly. Good job!
Posted by editingwhiz | July 24, 2008 1:03 AM
Joe: No flaming from me. I can certainly understand the other side of the argument, however, that health is a private matter. After all, HIPAA and other legislation practically takes a person's health to the level of secrets of national security. We live in a society where privacy is constantly being eroded yet health is still considered a personal holy sanctum that only a few are allowed to enter.
In the case of a public company, I agree that C-level staff (and at a bare minimum the CEO) should make their annual health report a part of the annual statement to the shareholders. These statements divulge the "health" of the company and it's an incomplete picture without understanding the health of the top executive.
Posted by Jason | July 24, 2008 8:58 AM
Steve is a visionary. His design taste has elevated all of us. Good design is important (cf W. McDonough and his book, Cradle to Cradle). However, Apple should be able to continue on a path of good design even if Steve falters, which I hope he does not.
Posted by Ron | July 25, 2008 11:14 AM
Apple releases just enough info that one can draw a reasonable and most likely conclusion. Steve had a Whipple procedure over 4 years ago. Given that he's so close to the 5-year post-op benchmark used to determine whether a cancer has been cured, it's extremely unlikely that he has had a recurrence. Within a year, he will have had his cancer declared "cured".
Since the Whipple removes a large part of the digestive tract, it's not surprising that Steve has nutrient uptake issues. One possible solution is a reverse jejunem procedure that slows digestion allowing more time for nutrient uptake. It was revealed that he recently had a surgical procedure. It would be very unusual to have had a reverse jejunem if Steve had had a cancer recurrence.
Posted by KenC | July 25, 2008 2:33 PM
As a fan of Apple, I would be sad to see Steve in poor health or worse. But as a long-time observer, I say that Steve has already put Apple on a trajectory that will propel it to heights it hasn't reached yet, whether he is steering the rocket or not. I lived through 15 years of "Oh Apple? They're going out of business soon..." Finally I no longer have to listen to those ignorant rants... er... articles. Steve has done everything necessary to ensure Apple's continued success. If the stock price goes down significantly either because of speculation or disclosure, that is a golden buying opportunity for its stock. In the end, that is the best revenge Apple lovers could have on what seemed like an endlessly biased media. If it is someday discovered that cancer is induced partly by stress, I think that same media might want to look at what they have unfairly done to this man (and this company), as well as others. Even when Steve was not with Apple, he surely felt bad when "his baby" was disparaged.
Posted by Ken Totten | July 28, 2008 9:16 PM