Posts for Tag: steve jobs

Steve's health - A sticky issue

News broke this morning that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has disclosed he has a hormone imbalance that lead to his steady decline in weight this past year. Rumors about him on his deathbed, I suppose, are greatly exaggerated. I've been on the fence regarding whether he was right or wrong to not share this information earlier. A person's health is nobody's business but their own. But as the CEO of a very public company, doesn't he have the obligation to his shareholders to disclose any and all information that might affect the health of the company they own? Put it that way, the answer seems clear. However, put it another way like so - as the owner of a business, do you have the right to ask about the private health matters of your employees? Your answer may be different.
 
In the end, I think that Apple has always been a secretive company and Steve Jobs has always been very tight lipped about his personal life. However, I think that this whole thing could have been diffused very quickly by either offering full disclosure early on - "Steve is undergoing tests to figure out why he's losing weight. We've ruled out a return of his cancer and the best medical team in the country is on the case. They have assured us that his life is not in any danger." Or by having a very clear succession plan - "The success of Apple can be attributed to many good people, not just Steve. In the event that Steve wishes to step down, it'll be in the good hands of Person X." One thing I'll give Microsoft is that the ascension of Ballmer to the throne was gradual and very clearly laid out. You can at least rule out any succession ambiguity as the cause of their recent woes.

Google and Yahoo search deal goes down ... Good thing?

So news comes today that Google has pulled out of its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo. I once said that an independent Yahoo is good for the entire online ecosystem. I still believe that today but I have a hard time thinking that Yahoo can survive without the added cash-flow that the Google deal would have provided. The latest amended deal sent to Congress would have limited the time-frame of the deal to two years and set the maximum revenue that Yahoo could generate from Google at 25% of its search revenue. I thought this was a great compromise but I guess that wasn't what Google had originally wanted.

My first job was at a database marketing consulting firm which had Apple as its client. This was back in 1996 when Apple wasn't doing too well. Gil Amelio was CEO and the company was floundering. One of his final acts was to buy NeXT which would lead to his eventual ousting and the return of Steve Jobs. I remember in 1997, Steve Jobs is giving one of his first "Stevenotes" and in the middle of the speech, who would appear on the big screen behind him but Bill Gates to announce a $150 million investment in Apple. Thought sacrilegious at the time, this investment would provide the capital that Apple needed to carry out its plans to launch the first generation iMac and iBook. The rest is history. Maybe Yahoo needs something similar - a little jolt of outside investment from an old enemy. The question is ... Microsoft or Google?