Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned • Hacker News Board

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#61

Post by gojomo » Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 7:20 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #38

gojomo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs is a figure of mythic proportions who is of keen interest to technologists, entrepreneurs, and the general public. He's been featured in movies; books have been written about him; he's granted the media many levels of access, from photos through interviews, to boost his products. That attention can't be turned off like a spigot. Even if Jobs weren't still actively involved in Apple, people would be deeply intere…

True enough, but this particular article is completely unsourced. It is very little more than gossip at this point.

The WSJ doesn't run "unsourced" news; they had confirmation of the key details from multiple sources (even if the exact sources aren't named) before running the story.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#62

Post by sho » Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 7:30 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #31

sho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've written and deleted about 3 attempts at answering that question, not happy with any of them and obviously I have to get my thoughts in order. It's quite the "question for the ages" : D I'll get back to you ...

Typically, this means you have an pre-conceived opinion, and are looking for a rationalization.

Or it could mean that I have a lot of complex thoughts on the matter, and it will take some time to distil them into a pithy comment. That's the problem with rapid-fire sites like this, the pressure is on to respond quickly, before the thread sinks into oblivion - you have actually asked an interesting question and I would like to give it some thought.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#63

Post by ramidarigaz » Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 8:51 PM UTC

iron_ball wrote: post #55

mynameishere wrote: post #12

Reminds me of the fact fame and fortune aren't worth much compared with health. I wouldn't trade places with him [...takes another sip of wine.]

Look into the difficulty of securing a liver transplant. Fame and fortune can directly purchase health.

To a point. Medicine can't do everything (yet).

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#64

Post by a-priori » Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 10:35 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #40

mixmax wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as the saying goes: "If you invite the press for the wedding they will also cover the divorce" Steve Jobs invited the press to the wedding.

Out of curiousity, what are your examples of Jobs inviting people into his private life? From where I stand, he's always been very demanding about the need to keep his private life private. Apple does not rely on Jobs' public profile for success. Yes, they do rely on his ability as a driver of innovation, but if Jobs were never to say a word in public again, it wouldn't seem to hurt Apple (at least, that's my opinion…

I agree. The fact that this took two months to come out tells me that Jobs does not want it to be public information. I think that his privacy should be respected.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#65

Post by mr_eel » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 1:23 AM UTC

zackattack wrote: post #59

demallien wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiousity, what are your examples of Jobs inviting people into his private life? From where I stand, he's always been very demanding about the need to keep his private life private. Apple does not rely on Jobs' public profile for success. Yes, they do rely on his ability as a driver of innovation, but if Jobs were never to say a word in public again, it wouldn't seem to hurt Apple (at least, that's my opinion…

Your "opinion" is wrong. Apple's stock price is extremely correlated to Jobs' public profile. e.g. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10057521-37.html e.g. http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/so-apple-lied-about-st...

Correlation on it’s own doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure we could just as easily dig up counter-examples where there are no correlations.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#66

Post by spoondan » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 5:46 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #36

spoondan wrote: post #8

Bury this. Jobs's medical condition, whatever it is or was, is a private matter about which he has elected to not speak. He's met all reasonable obligations by announcing when he was going to be out and when he expected to return. The rest is small-minded gossip.

Steve Jobs is a public figure and is perceived as the creative driving force behind Apple's success, and Apple is a publicly-traded company. His health, thus, is of concern to Apple users and shareholders. And competitors too, but in a different, probably evil, way. His health worries me too - and I am neither a heavy Apple user nor a shareholder, but I am deeply concerned about innovation in this market if he ever r…

Put yourself in Jobs's shoes; would you so blithely assume that it's OK for the public to dig into your medical history? The only reasonable obligation on Jobs is to announce that he won't be performing his duties for some period. He did that.

You should care as much about his wishes for privacy as you do for his well-being because they are one and the same. There are a multitude of reasons someone might want to keep their health challenges private, including concerns over how young children will be able to deal with scary-sounding information (especially once it gets filtered through the rumor mill). There's no morality in rumor-mongering.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#67

Post by spoondan » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 6:02 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #25

spoondan wrote: post #8

Bury this. Jobs's medical condition, whatever it is or was, is a private matter about which he has elected to not speak. He's met all reasonable obligations by announcing when he was going to be out and when he expected to return. The rest is small-minded gossip.

Jobs is a figure of mythic proportions who is of keen interest to technologists, entrepreneurs, and the general public. He's been featured in movies; books have been written about him; he's granted the media many levels of access, from photos through interviews, to boost his products. That attention can't be turned off like a spigot. Even if Jobs weren't still actively involved in Apple, people would be deeply intere…

How does Jobs being well-known imply that we don't have to respect his desire for privacy? I simply cannot see how our interest legitimates our prying.

And make no mistake: This is prying. You said that attention can't be turned off like a spigot, which may be true but isn't apropos. Water flows effortlessly from the spigot. Gossip like this is dug up and mongered at effort.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#68

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 7:08 AM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #49

gizmo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we rise above it? What's wrong with estimating somebody's worth in dollars?

If I have a widget that I'll sell to you for $4 then it's worth $4 to me. If you'll only pay $2 for it then it's worth $2 to you. To whom is a human worth money? You can't own people, can't buy or sell them. Can't recreate them, can't even get an accurate clone. You can talk about a sportsperson's value to their team in terms of how much money they bring in in ticket sales, how much sponsorship, how much media attent…

Your comment reminds me of how much the stock market (supposedly) used to rise and fall based upon the thickness of Alan Greenspan's briefcase.

If Steve dies or retires, that's a risk to Apple. If he lives and works, that's a benefit. And the stock market relentlessly uses all information they can. The kind of private stuff you're talking about? That's insider trading, and that's why it's illegal for, say, Steve's doctor to short Apple stock based upon his medical examinations of Steve.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#69

Post by gizmo » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 8:06 AM UTC

sho wrote: post #62

gizmo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, this means you have an pre-conceived opinion, and are looking for a rationalization.

Or it could mean that I have a lot of complex thoughts on the matter, and it will take some time to distil them into a pithy comment. That's the problem with rapid-fire sites like this, the pressure is on to respond quickly, before the thread sinks into oblivion - you have actually asked an interesting question and I would like to give it some thought.

Of course you can have complex thoughts on the matter. That's why I said "typically". I didn't make any kind of judgment. From my own experience I know that if I have an opinion but don't have the supporting arguments readily available my opinion is either wrong, or right only by coincidence. These arguments don't do well in sound-byte sized chunks though, I grant you that.

Re: Jobs had liver transplant 2 months ago; expected to return to work as planned

#70

Post by tjogin » Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 8:19 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #61

tjogin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough, but this particular article is completely unsourced. It is very little more than gossip at this point.

The WSJ doesn't run "unsourced" news; they had confirmation of the key details from multiple sources (even if the exact sources aren't named) before running the story.

I understand if you hold the WSJ in very high regard, as do many people, myself included. But they have not published in which way they've obtained the information, not even in vague terms. As far as we know, it is completely unsourced.