Comment Re:Who will replace her? (Score 4, Interesting) 356
I wouldn't be surprised if she was under a non-compete preventing exactly that.
I wouldn't be surprised if she was under a non-compete preventing exactly that.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
I can't, but I can't think of another company where the CEO plays as influential a role in public perception of the company as Steve Jobs.
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
You're absolutely right that Apple's under no obligation to respond. What I said is that the simplest way to silence the "nutjobs" is a strongly-worded denial.
I believe a very large part of that can be blamed on Apple. When lawyers and the SEC are involved, the lack of a strong denial sounds like a confirmation. To my knowledge, Apple has never said "Steve is not sick--" they've only flirted with the question ("Steve's BP is 120/80") or avoided it ("We're not here to talk about Steve's health.")
A simply-worded denial could dramatically tone down the questions, if that's their goal.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"