Leave Steve's liver alone
By Carmi Levy | Published June 22, 2009, 2:08 PM
It's a question friends and family have been asking me ever since The Wall Street Journal reported last Saturday that Apple Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs had undergone a liver transplant two months ago: Should our health records be made public?
I admit I'm of two minds on the issue. On the one hand, Apple shareholders have the right to know how the company they essentially own plans to manage itself both today and in the future. They deserve enough information to make informed decisions about whether they wish to retain their ownership stake and how they wish to remain involved, as shareholders, in the evolution of the company. It's a fundamental pillar of our economic system that publicly traded companies provide enough transparency to keep shareholders informed -- not to mention senior leaders honest.
On the other hand, CEOs are regular people, too. And they deserve the same right to not have their insides displayed, in color-enhanced 3D relief, on the evening news. We'd get really upset if Aunt Martha's blood test results were scanned and uploaded, complete with scripted narration, to YouTube. Yet we seem to believe similar openness is acceptable with near-rock stars like Steve Jobs because, well, they're near-rock stars. Somehow, somewhere within the complex interrelationship between captains of industry and their vast communities of shareholders, customers, suppliers and observers, a line has been crossed.
Are they inseparable?
When it comes to senior leadership, few companies are under as close scrutiny as Apple because, frankly, few companies have tied their future success as closely to the big kahuna. He is known widely for walking into product planning meetings and redirecting entire projects to suit his drive for simplicity and style. He's so closely tied to the company's products that a Jobs-less Apple is simply inconceivable to some. A colleague once likened the Apple-Steve Jobs relationship to a favourite lunch choice, peanut butter and jelly. While you could indeed make a sandwich of one ingredient without the other, it just wouldn't be the same.
Although I'm not willing to directly compare apples to peanuts, I think all the wondering about Apple's future either with or without Steve is fair game...to a point. Love him or hate him, we all agree he isn't the typical, tie tied-too-tight, anonymous CEO. Lost in near-oblivion during the lean years following his ouster, Apple has done more than simply regain profitability and industry relevance since his return. It has redefined entire new markets -- media players and smartphones -- and established new industrial design and marketing benchmarks. It's stretched beyond its roots as a tech company, even dropping the "Computer" from its name, to become a cultural pacesetter, the kind of company other companies want to be when they grow up.
Sh-h-h, not so loud
Apple is also a company that raises corporate secrecy to a high art. It's not something I say grudgingly. Indeed, in an industry where you're only as hot as your latest device, uncontrolled leaks of information can erode your competitive advantage in a blink. Apple's response has always been to tightly control what's shared, when it's shared, how it's shared, and who does the sharing. In the Internet Age, when an anonymous blog posting by a disgruntled employee can go viral before lunchtime, this level of control is remarkable.
That secrecy lies at the root of the current debate over the health of Steve Jobs. In Apple's world, even anonymity is delivered with an extra dose of stealth: The Wall Street Journal's original story was unsourced, meaning the paper didn't even want to say it had received its information from anonymous sources. CNBC later confirmed the story through anonymous sources, and in doing so reinforced how seriously Apple takes its external silence. In the absence of any hard evidence of succession planning, shareholders and observers have had little alternative but to speculate on Apple's future plans, and how deeply the absence of its uber-leader will affects its long-term prospects.
On the surface, Apple events aren't as much fun in recent days as they used to be. Marketing VP Phil Schiller, who delivered the Macworld and WWDC keynotes in the CEO's absence this year, isn't anywhere near the showman that Steve Jobs is. While his presentations are informative and well delivered, they don't make audience members feel like dancing in the streets. Operationally, Tim Cook seems to be doing a great job filling in as CEO. Share prices are up, most of the company's hardware offerings have been nicely refreshed, and the iPhone 3G S introduction seems to have gone well.
But Jobs hasn't been gone long enough for his absence to really be felt on the product pipeline. It'll take years of product introductions to get a real sense of whether Apple can go it alone without its one-of-a-kind co-founder and whether or not the bench was deep enough to maintain his legacy. My take: Anyone smart enough to turn a failing computer company into the cultural powerhouse of its time is probably smart enough to build a team that can carry the ball after he's gone.
He's just a regular guy
For all the wild success Steve Jobs has achieved in business, he remains a husband and a father facing down a serious, potentially life-ending illness. The image of a robust, confident, billionaire captain of industry clad in his iconic black turtleneck and jeans as he delivers yet another blockbuster message to the world does little to mask the frightening reality of his current state. Sick or not, every CEO eventually leaves the post. And life goes on.
If you currently own Apple stock or are mulling over the possibility, you either do or do not believe that the company has enough of a succession plan in place to keep things going after his inevitable departure. You'll make your buy/hold/sell decision based on whatever information you can assemble at the time, and then you'll work with your financial advisor to maximize your returns and minimize your exposure to risk.
Hopefully along the way, you'll leave the speculation over the health of Steve Jobs out of it and let the company's performance speak for itself. Whatever we do for a living, we all deserve some quiet time to lead our lives as we see fit. Steve Jobs should be no exception.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.

What about when he finally does die? We all die, so with that said, when he does kick the bucket does Apple die with him? Or does he raise from the dead and lead apple still? People get over it. When Jobs does die, Apple will live on. You people think its the end of the world of Jobs isn't leading Apple. Damn!!
Score: 0
|"He's just a regular guy"
Regular guys waiting for years to get a liver. There was something fishy going on with this regular guy.
Score: -1
|Yes. I agree, but do you remember what happened to Apple when SJ was not leading ????
They had to call him back and after that Apple rose again.
So, watch out. Cook & others can be good managers, but I don't think anyone can replace SJ's insight, vision and genius.
Score: 0
|I for one love the hype, and if Jobs dies I'll buy buy buy while others sell. This is how Buffet kicked a** in the 70's and 80's. He saw potential in companies that others had abandoned.
Sheep. Bah. bah bah, as pc_ would say.
Score: -3
|Ummm, since when are betanews readers all shareholders in Apple?
Secondly, if your main reason for investing in a company is based upon a single personality, then that risk can not be mitigated sufficiently simply by insurances of the current health of this personality. Steve could be killed instantly for any number of reasons. Steve could retire at a moments notice if he so chooses etc. etc. And the shareholder has ZERO control over this. Leave Steve alone.
Thirdly, even if a "private" memo was sent to shareholders, they have absolutely no right to demand "detailed" information. it would be enough to know whether his mental or physical abilities are at any imminent risk of change.
Finally, being a shareholder means taking a certain amount of reasonable "risk" when investing in a company. Delving into the private lives of any and/or all of the employees personal situations should definitely be very limited for obvious reasons. If the employees of Apple do not have the right to invade into his private life - why should shareholders? - who are often just lazy arm-chair gamblers with too much extra money - trying to make even more extra money off of others hard work - with little ethical interest in how the company effects the world in general - mostly only caring that Apple do everything possible to ring every last dollar using whatever means necessary to support their short-sighted self-interested greed. Sorry if I've offended anybody.
Score: 2
|actually, i believe you misunderstand who deserves privacy or not.
steve jobs and others who wear golden shoes had a choice of whether becoming famous or living in the mountains with the bears and the birds.
if steve jobs decided to give the company up and become a reclouse, then he will earn the right to privacy. in doing so, he will become forgotten and past time and perhaps a has been.
but that isn't what he truly wants.
carmi, stop sucking up.
Score: -2
|Actually, I thought we already saw quite a lacklustre product refresh all round.
MacBook Pro updates were dull, iPhone update was dull, and Snow Leopard is still 3 months away. I thought we were already seeing a company that was, frankly, directionless without Jobs being there.
Hell, products being demonstrated at the latest WWDC didn't work. Can you imagine that happening while Jobs was at work?
I don't think the company is doomed if he leaves/dies but I certainly think it won't make anywhere near the rapid growth it has been making. Take for example the numbers of users who bought the latest iPhone. It's almost exactly the same amount of people buying it as the last iteration. i.e. 0% growth.
But that is of course personal opinion. Either way with Jobs coming back we're unlikely to see this problem rear its head for at least another couple of years.
Score: -1
|"I don't think the company is doomed if he leaves/dies but I certainly think it won't make anywhere near the rapid growth it has been making. Take for example the numbers of users who bought the latest iPhone. It's almost exactly the same amount of people buying it as the last iteration. i.e. 0% growth"
Thats not quite right. It would have been 0% growth if all the sales were from previous owners of the 3G upgrading to the 3GS. This is another 1 million Apple users. The growth is the same as previous generation. I consider growth an addition of users to the current populous using the product. In which case, Apple's growth is still going strong. Not to mention, I haven't seen anything about how the $99 iPhone 3G is doing either... so I'm sure that might be even more users on top of that.
Score: 0
|From another BN article..."between Friday's launch of the iPhone 3GS and Sunday evening, its third full day on the market, more than one million units were sold"...
Where does it say..."another 1 million Apple users"...?
Score: 0
|As Bogunch says below *edit* erm... above: We have a figure of 1,000,000 iPhone 3GSs sold. This is the same amount as the 3G. If we add in those who didn't upgrade from the original iPhone to the 3G then we have a significant number of people who now have upgraded to the 3GS (as they get the subsidised rate). Add in the usual Apple "oh God, it's got an apple logo on it, I have to purchase it RIGHT NOW" then I'd be surprised if there are many new customers at all this time around.
Score: 0
|