Comments on: Should Apple Have Disclosed Jobs's Liver Transplant?

By: Trevor F

Trevor F — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:12:40 +0000

I agree with Julie S.

In addition, the idea that we have a right to every detail of a person’s private life simply because they have a public persona is ridiculous and disturbing.

Apple’s products will stand or fall on their own merit and if it all comes apart once Jobs passes on the end result won’t be changed by the timing of when we found out about the liver transplant.

By: Rusty Speidel

Rusty Speidel — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:26:37 +0000

I think when you start leveraging your public persona and celebrity for financial gain, it becomes a part of the product everyone buys. Jobs uses his status as a public face to sell more products, so there is a cost to him in reduced privacy.

By: Friday quick hits 3: Steve Jobs’s health. -- Hoover’s Business Insight Zone

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:49:34 +0000

[...] Debated with myself whether to write about this, but then my friend Gini Dietrich said it better than I could have — and from the perspective of a P.R. pro: Should Apple Have Disclosed Jobs’s Liver Transplant? [...]

By: amyconcetta (Amy LaMagra)

amyconcetta (Amy LaMagra) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:23:06 +0000

While the author makes some valid points, I disagree that Steve Jobs should have been transparent about his health http://tinyurl.com/mf5q4z

By: Julie S.

Julie S. — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:38:51 +0000

A right is a right – period.

Steve Jobs is granted a right to privacy in regard to his health, and nothing should require the abdication of that right.

The public can choose to purchase Apple products – or not – but they should not ask Steve Jobs to give up any right just because they feel an undue sense of entitlement. Yes – honesty and transparency are both needed in business, but a medical condition is an intensely personal situation, no matter who you are.

If you don’t agree, don’t buy Apple products. I, for one, will continue supporting the rights of all people while enjoying my iPod and MacBook and looking forward to my next Apple purchase.

By: Travis

Travis — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:44:39 +0000

“Steve Jobs works for a Board of Directors and shareholders not snippy communicators who can sit on the sidelines and throw barbs”. Thank you for stating what everyone knows. This isn’t a question of who Jobs works for or where his loyalty lies, it’s a question of honesty and transparency in business. How long are corporations going to fail to realize that keeping important information hidden from the public is not beneficial to the health of the company?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:36:02 +0000

I disagree. Apple shares were trading at 15 per share in 2004 and approximately 135 per share today. Steve Jobs works for a Board of Directors and shareowners not snippy communicators who can sit on the sidelines and throw barbs. Was he less than honest – perhaps. Did he break the law – I don’t know. Did he and the company provide value to shareowners – yes.

Yes, he is the face today, but he will not be forever. It appears that the brand and related products is much stronger than even Jobs himself – who I believe will ultimately outlive us all, but my great grandkids will still be buying Apple products.

By: iamaconsultant (Will Robinson)

iamaconsultant (Will Robinson) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:01:29 +0000

RT @PaulSegreto: Is Apple Inc too secretive to be ethical? http://tinyurl.com/mf5q4z . Couldn’t agree more with Paul

By: paulsegreto (Paul Segreto)

paulsegreto (Paul Segreto) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:18:41 +0000

Is Apple Inc too secretive to be ethical? http://tinyurl.com/mf5q4z

By: paulsegreto (Paul Segreto)

paulsegreto (Paul Segreto) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:38:55 +0000

Is Apple Inc too secretive to be ethical? http://tinyurl.com/mf5q4z