Monday, January 5, 2009

Steve Jobs - what's private and what's public?

Apparently Steve Jobs made some disclosures today to combat the rumor-mongering about his health. I frankly don't get it-- and maybe the truth is I don't understand it because I just don't want to do so. The "stockholders have a right to know" argument just doesn't hold water with me because if you chose to invest in a company that depends upon the health and well-being of a specific, single individual to flourish-- well, much as I hate to say it, you made a bad choice.

It's funny, but I find myself struggling to write about this. If anything, this seems like the perfect bizarre intersection of the three things about which I'm most passionate. You have a company that produces innovative, ground-breaking *technology*-- and it engages the consumer in distinctive, brand-building ways that change the paradigms we live within (sounds like *psychology* to me!)-- but stockholders/fanboys/analysts all appear to be worried that the stock and the performance of the company hinges completely upon the health of its (CEO? Shaman? Messiah?).

It's simultaneously fascinating and revolting-- we've got plenty of financial fraudsters out there that no one gives a second glance (three letters to the SEC! Three!??), who bilk people and philanthropic organizations for millions of dollars, and yet we feel we have the right, the entitlement to compel personal health disclosures from a guy who's really busted his ass to make the world a better place.

No comments: