Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#61

Post by Zev » Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:54 PM UTC

gravitycop wrote: post #51

Zev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How Steve was outed in the 80's is far different then how he would leave if he had to leave today. In the 80's, he was forcibly removed from his position and couldn't set anything up. Today? Apple has people like Schiller, Ive and Cook - all more then capable - to run things. //edit: Fixed the dates. Thanks for pointing it out. And yes, I did typo twice ><

Steve was outed in the 90's 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Beginnings_of_Apple_...

Typo. They keys are right next to each other and all. Sorry about that.

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#62

Post by TomOfTTB » Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:56 PM UTC

ConradHex wrote: post #49

TomOfTTB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not terrible news. Terrible news would be him staying on while he was sick and making it worse. The man is taking a really brief respite to rest after contracting an illness. That's what he's SUPPOSED to do. Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. That's what's happening here. If this were undiagnosed, or a really serious condition, or life threatening, or anything like that I'd…

>Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. Pretty often, actually, people get sick and then die. Especially people who've had cancer. :( Reading between the lines here, I suspect his health is in really bad shape. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized.

More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover.

Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#63

Post by gravitycop » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:01 AM UTC

Zev wrote: post #60

gravitycop wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has people like Schiller, Ive and Cook - all more then capable - to run things. Why don't Schiller, Ive or Cook deliver the keynote address?

Schiller did deliver the keynote address.

Not in 2008. They had some guy named Steve Jobs deliver it. Why?

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#64

Post by dcurtis » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:04 AM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #62

ConradHex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. Pretty often, actually, people get sick and then die. Especially people who've had cancer. :( Reading between the lines here, I suspect his health is in really bad shape. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized. More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover. Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?

A hormone imbalance is serious. Anything "more complex" than that is very serious.

Anything so serious that it could cause a CEO to leave a company for six months is extremely serious.

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#65

Post by ConradHex » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:04 AM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #62

ConradHex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Realty check: People get sick and they rest and then they get better. Pretty often, actually, people get sick and then die. Especially people who've had cancer. :( Reading between the lines here, I suspect his health is in really bad shape. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized. More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover. Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?

The fact that he's taking a significant leave of absence makes me think maybe his doctors said "you have a one in X chance of beating this thing". Again, I really want to be wrong.

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#66

Post by gravitycop » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:06 AM UTC

Zev wrote: post #61

gravitycop wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve was outed in the 90's 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Beginnings_of_Apple_...

Typo. They keys are right next to each other and all. Sorry about that.

Why did you say: he was forcibly removed from his position and couldn't set anything up. ?

Did you mean Apple couldn't set anything up, or Jobs couldn't set anything up?

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#67

Post by Zev » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:06 AM UTC

comatose_kid wrote: post #54

Zev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How Steve was outed in the 80's is far different then how he would leave if he had to leave today. In the 80's, he was forcibly removed from his position and couldn't set anything up. Today? Apple has people like Schiller, Ive and Cook - all more then capable - to run things. //edit: Fixed the dates. Thanks for pointing it out. And yes, I did typo twice ><

Steve was outed in the 80s. And yes, he's leaving a company in much better shape than it was back then. Yet I'm not as optimistic as you are. None of the people you mentioned have comparable salesmanship abilities, or product vision. Sure, Ive can create great designs, their engineering teams are awesome, and Cook is operationally without peer. But who comes up with the next iPhone, or decides to simplify the product…

Maybe I'm just looking at things differently, but (to me) you can't just compare Jobs Apple to Post-Jobs Apple. Look at who the rest of the industry has as well. Is there any company that can consistently come close to Apple for any of the things you mentioned?

I think Apple will manage with Schiller delivering keynotes instead of Jobs. The Schillernote at MWSF wasn't bad.

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#68

Post by TomOfTTB » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:07 AM UTC

Simple question for those who think there's more to Jobs' sickness...

Imagine you're a millionaire hundreds of times over. You get a sickness that makes you tired, causes your hair to fall out and results in you not necessarily being able to control your bladder. Wouldn't you take a few months off?

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#69

Post by Zev » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:09 AM UTC

gravitycop wrote: post #63

Zev wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schiller did deliver the keynote address.

Not in 2008. They had some guy named Steve Jobs deliver it. Why?

Fast forward to January 2009. They had some random guy named Philip Schiller deliver the keynote. Why? See todays news.

Re: Apple: Jobs to Take Medical Leave of Absence

#70

Post by TomOfTTB » Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:10 AM UTC

ConradHex wrote: post #65

TomOfTTB wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that often and those who are ill enough to be at risk of death are usually hospitalized. More to the point he has a disease that causes depression, fatigue, hair loss, urinary tract infections, and other embarassing conditions. So it makes perfect sense for him to stay at home to recover. Other than he had Cancer 5 years ago what lines are you reading in between that makes you think he's sicker than he says?

The fact that he's taking a significant leave of absence makes me think maybe his doctors said "you have a one in X chance of beating this thing". Again, I really want to be wrong.

Are you kidding? You think things are so bad that it could be fatal yet he's just hangin' out at home? If something's that close to being fatal a person get's hospitalized.

Second this isn't a significant amount of time off. Perfectly healthy 53 year olds with millions of dollars in the bank take sabbaticals all the time.