From CNN: Remainder of the story at the link. Between Jobs' rapidly deteriorating physical appearance (he truly looks like a shell of his former self), his absence from MacWorld this month and now this news, it's hard to keep from speculating about Apple's future -- and Jobs' future, as well. For those who have forgotten, Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in late 2003, and had surgery to remove the islet cell tumor in June 2004. The five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is anywhere from 4 percent to 25 percent, and the 10-year survival rate is, as I recall, only in the high single-digits. Is Apple's CEO not long for this world?
I saw a photo comparison of him with one photo from September 2007 and the other from September 2008. During that single year you could see a dramatic weight loss (I'd estimate around 40lbs.), his hair going from salt and pepper to totally gray as well as a notable loss of hair as well. From his current appearance, it looks to me like he is undergoing chemotherapy. I do hope his condition improves. Jobs is a marketing genius. Without him, the idea of computers are for everyone may never have happened.
Wrong kind of pancreatic cancer. His was the lesser lethal type, caught extremely early and he's been clear since then. Also he's only stepping back from the daily running of things. He will still be in on all the major decisions and directions of the company. --Ted
I don't know, it's a big deal when Steve Jobs turns down a Keynote, the man lives to talk in front of groups of people. We'll see what he does with the keynote at developers in June, since that's the big one.
That was his initial diagnosis, yes. But cancer has recurrences. Just because a cancer is initially treatable and "lesser lethal" doesn't mean that it can't come back. That Jobs will be involved with "major strategic decisions" during his absence can be taken in any number of ways; it's not like it's exactly hard for someone to weigh in on the latest iPhone revision proposal while he's undergoing chemotherapy. And given that Jobs has already had a Whipple's operation, which generally precludes further surgical means of pancreatic cancer treatments, this means that if his cancer has indeed had a recurrence (which is, by far, the most logical explanation for his disturbingly sudden change of appearance, his absence at MacWorld and now his six-month leave of absence) ... well, the median survival rate for the more aggressive rates of pancreatic cancer is six to eight months. All of this is still idle speculation, of course. But what we do know is that Jobs hid the fact of his illness from the board and the public (and the shareholders, to whom he holds a duty; the owners of a company have the right to know whether or not the chairman is dying) in the first place and tried an alternative treatment for nine months before getting the real treatment. Since then, at every stage, the pessimists have been proven justified, from the "Steve's a bit thin but he's fine" of last fall to the "There's a bit of an issue but the treatment will cure it" of earlier this month to the "I'm on leave for six months" of today. Is he doing it deliberately? He did the first time, when the cancer cropped up. He's a control freak about information and he clearly resents having to give out info on his personal situation. The timing's a bit wonky: two weeks ago everything was under control and now he's gone for months? The truth at the moment is we don't know how bad things are, and I don't trust what Jobs is saying, as his previous statements have proven very quickly inoperative.
Here's some speculation: The combination of Cook, Ives, and Schiller means Apple is going to be just fine. If you'd asked me that 6 months ago that's what I would have said, and look, that's how it's working out. I am constantly confused by the tech press' hand-waving over this issue. "What will Apple do??" they cry at every turn. Anyone who seriously follows the company knows exactly what they'll do. It's not confusing and it's very obvious. I guess they think that sells magazines. I guess they're right. I hope Steve gets better and comes back, but either way, Apple will be just fine.
It's not obvious. Who's going to be in charge? You can't have a triumvirate running a major public corporation -- it's a recipe for disaster, potentially even worse than after Jobs' initial ouster in 1984, when the company fractured into fiefdoms. It's easy to say that Apple will be just fine, but we're dealing with a pretty bizarre stock market right now -- the stock price has already seen a significant drop today. There's no arguing that Jobs' presence at Apple, and his magnificent work delivering keynotes and being the face of the company, has been one of the biggest factors in AAPL's stock resurgence over the last decade. Yeah, both Cook and Schiller are logical candidates to take over the company in the event of Jobs' resignation or passing (I don't see Ives doing it; he's a designer and indeed a visionary, but not a guy to run a company). But to act as though it's ridiculous to speculate over a potential succession plan, potential shake-ups in Apple's management structure in the event of a new CEO ascending, etc., strikes me as somewhat odd.
Cook. Who do you think has been running the company? Haven't you heard of all the micro-managing Steve does? Does that sound like someone who's ACTUALLY running the company? Remember how Bill Gates sort-of-retired and quit being CEO to be "Chief Software Architect?" Steve did the same thing, basically, but didn't give up the CEO title. Cook has been the one really running the company while Steve focuses on the products themselves. That WAS important in making Apple relevant again. But that job is done. The next phase is to continue to turn out amazing products that the public wants. The people I named are the ones currently doing that. They just have to KEEP doing what they've been doing. I didn't say I'm not interested in speculating, I just think it's obvious what's going to happen. Yeah, the stock will crash for 2 years. Seller's loss. Once they find out that no, Steve wasn't magic and Apple is still making a ton of money, then all will be forgiven on wall street.
It's not an anti-Apple thread at all. It actually seems to be more concern over Steve Jobs' health, wishes for his recovery, and questions about Apple's next move should something happen to Steve, all of which are calm, rational questions one asks when faced with this latest news revelation. J., typed this on an iMac
Sorry, but the man is ill and the only thing you guys seem concerned with is the effect on Apple's stock price.
It's hard not worry about what will happen to the company without Jobs running it, I think that's what JKTim is saying.
A little bit less of the "Think of the shareholders! He lied to the board! He's a control freak!" business would be nice, though.
I'm a Mac user and fan myself, and it came across that way just fine for me, and apparently for JKTim, SmallWhiteCar and JW. None of us seemed to have a problem with the tone, and everything seemed civil. There was definitely no anti-Apple tone in this thread whatsoever. The emotion I saw the most was concern, and not just for stocks, but for Steve Jobs himself. None of us want to see him succumb to cancer. J.
I own two MacBook Pros, my wife owns a MacBook, and we both own iPod Touches, and I own AAPL stock. I don't think it's outrageous for me, or for anyone else, to look at Jobs' history of obfuscation, and to ponder the future of the company, its co-founder, its products and its stock price. Granted, the idea that a company's stock price should be so intrinsically tied to the health of its public face is rather absurd, and it would be nice to see some logic in the market as opposed to the mad sell-off that happened yesterday. In any event, I would like nothing more than for Phil Schiller to deliver the keynote at June's Worldwide Developers Conference, and after it had seemingly wrapped up, the words "One More Thing..." to pop up on the display screen, only for Jobs to come out, 40 pounds heavier and looking like the paragon of health, and say, "Oh, yeah. I'm back."
^Fair enough, some of the posts in this thread did not come out all that sympathetic. Thanks for the clarification.