Steve Jobs’s Return is Still Vaporware
Apple is once again up to its media manipulation tactics, or so I allege. Surely I can’t be the only person seeing just how transparent was yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Steve Jobs liver transplant story. The timing, on day of iPhone 3GS launch, helps protect Apple’s share price and deemphasize an important fact: Steve isn’t really coming back this month.
I could copy and past my June 5 post, “Steve Jobs’ Return is Vaporware,” in response to the story. Once again, WSJ reporters Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann Lublin recount information that could only have come from Apple and, again, timing is to the company’s strategic benefit. This kind of manipulated reporting makes me really mad. I worked as a journalist for a long time and know that the first question to ask when presented with leaked information is “Why?”
Once again, I challenge Yikari and Joann to dispute my assertion that their main source was from inside Apple and most likely someone in corporate communications. Of course, to protect their sources and source of future Apple leaks, the reporters can make no defense. But WSJ will get lots of page views and inbound links from the leaked story.
The story, appearing online yesterday and in print today (page one), sets the stage for Steve’s partial return and a future transition. To be absolutely clear, he’s not coming back—certainly not as full-time CEO. What I can’t discern is whether the story’s subtle insinuation, and I mean subtle, makes the point from leaked information or good reporting.
First, there is the bombshell—the kind that sends a company’s stock free-falling: Steve Jobs had a liver transplant about two months ago. The information confirms, at last, that Apple’s CEO was way sicker than previously revealed.
Steve Jobs' last major public appearance, October 2008
Only shareholders can answer whether Apple should have revealed the seriousness of Steve’s sickness. There is no SEC rule that requires Apple to reveal this information. I’m repeatedly on record as saying there should be. There are no private health matters at public companies. President Barack Obama serves the public, too, and that obligation requires him to reveal any health or other problems that could interfere with his ability to fulfill his daily duties. Leaders of public companies should be held to similar standard of disclosure.
Survival Rates
Liver transplant is a serious matter. In the 1990s, a friend got a liver transplant from his wife (she gave half; the liver can grow back). He languished for about a year and, sadly, died. I’ve got to say that before and after the operation, he looked gaunt—as Steve has for more than a year.
According to the American Liver Foundation: “Most patients can return to a normal or near-normal lifestyle six months to a year after a successful liver transplant. When practical, transplant recipients should avoid exposure to people with infections.”
If Steve had his transplant just two months ago, he’s not coming back to work at the end of June, folks. The Journal story sets the stage for a Steve Jobs stand in:
When he does return, Mr. Jobs may be encouraged by his physicians to initially ‘work part-time for a month or two,’ a person familiar with the thinking at Apple said. That may lead Tim Cook, Apple’s chief operating officer, to take ‘a more encompassing role,’ this person said. The person added that Mr. Cook may be appointed to Apple’s board in the not-too-distant future.
Yeah? What this really means: Apple’s series of WSJ leaks is leading one place. Steve Jobs isn’t really coming back as CEO. Tim Cook will assume the role sometime very soon, with Steve staying on as Chairman. The liver transplant sadly suggets that Steve’s pancreatic cancer returned—and to another organ. He should put his health and livelihood before Apple.
As seen on TV: iPhone 3GS
I hadn’t read all the Journal story before pulling together all the sources for this post. We used different sources to research liver transplant survival rates. According to American Liver Foundation:
The outlook for patients is often expressed as a five-year survival rate. This refers to the percentage of liver transplant patients who are still alive five years after their transplant. The five-year survival rate for liver transplant patients is about 75 percent. Patients who receive livers from living donors have a slightly higher survival rate than patients whose livers came from deceased donors.
Calculated Misdirection
All this brings me roundabout to the timing of the shocking news: Launch of iPhone 3GS. Yesterday, Jim Dalrymple blogged: “iPhone 3G S draws attention away from Steve Jobs.” Jim posted many hours before the Journal story appeared online.
Jim and I were talking about the iPhone 3GS launch on Thursday. We’ve been friends for about a decade. Right now, we share similar fate: Two senior level editors, and long-time tech journalists, laid off around the same time. He and I are talking more than ever, as we both plot our reinventions. Anyway, Jim put forth this Steve Jobs distraction theory on Thursday. I told him: “You should blog that,” which he did. Jim writes:
Apple is brilliant. The company has been trying to get the media to leave Steve Jobs alone for months and nothing has worked. Until now. Apple used the oldest trick in the book—they drew attention away from Steve’s health and pending return to the company by showing us something new and shiny. The brilliance is that everyone fell for it.
Not everyone. Jim saw through it. He’s right. Based on AT&T contract dates, I expected Apple to release iPhone 3GS in mid July. Jim thought so, too. He writes:
I was convinced there would not be an iPhone released at the conference. I fully expected that a new iPhone would be released at a special event in July. This would be the return of Steve Jobs. He would show the world this incredible new device and people would be in awe of the master.
But there could be no Steve Job’s July iPhone announcement. If 60-days post liver transplant, he is still too sick. Jim didn’t know that when blogging yesterday. But he nailed the point: “If it wasn’t for the release of the iPhone 3G S, media outlets would be clogging their virtual pages with rumor and speculation about the health of Jobs.”
I say the iPhone 3GS distraction goes even further, with Apple using the launch to blunt the severity of really bad news: The CEO was sicker than revealed, he recently had major life-saving surgery and he really isn’t ready to return to his duties. Read my copy: Steve Jobs is not returning to his duties at the end of June.
Mr. Vaporware
Apple will play nuances, but there are legitimately none. The company has been promising his return as CEO following six-month medical leave. Go back and read the announcements from January, folks. The intention was clear: Steve would take a six-month medical leave and return to full-time duties.
iPhone 3GS
On the day when every blog or news organization is covering the iPhone 3GS launch, Apple drops the public company equivalent of an atomic bomb. Buzz about iPhone 3GS will obscure much of the fallout. Come Monday, Apple will release data on number of iPhones shipped, quite likely mixed iPhone 3G and GS numbers together, which will inflate overall sales figures.
I assert that this has all been carefully orchestrated by Apple to sugarcoat the very bad news about the CEO’s health and to diminish the medicine’s most bitter taste—that he’s not really returning to work later this month and may never again assume the duties of full-time chief executive.
Ultimately, mitigating bad news is about one thing: Protecting, some people might argue manipulating, Apple’s share price. As I write this, Apple’s stock price is up in after-hours trading to $139.83. Shareholders are giddy about iPhone 3GS. Apple’s strategy is working.
As for the WSJ journalists, their story is thorough and reasonably impartial. But it’s also reasonable that Apple’s leaker knew this would work to the company’s advantage, as it did with the last leaked story, on June 5. The reporters’ impartial tone actually reduces the severity of the news they report.
In my post on the last leak, I wrote: “I’m not suggesting that Steve Jobs won’t return as CEO. But I am asserting that today’s news about his imminent return is really vaporware.” I now do assert that he’s not returning as CEO, certainly not full time at the end of June and likely not full time ever. News of his return is even more vaporware now that it was two weeks ago.
Do you have an Apple or Steve Jobs story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.
who cares about mr jobs health? the poor man is already dead, the company has the commitment to prove than it can survive without mr jobs presence.
Jeez – what a linkbait story. Have you checked the stock price increase since Jobs has been away? Apple’s done fine with him not at the forefront.
[...] Wilcox is convinced the ‘leak‘ about Steve Jobs’s liver transplant was carefully orchestrated by Apple (AAPL) “to sugarcoat the very bad news about the CEO’s health” and to [...]
My apologies to everyone who tried to comment but couldn’t overnight. I wondered why there were no comments today. reCAPTCHA apparently lost the API keys that make it work and, in crisis, blocked all commenting.
I’m not sure if there is a bug, or if some comment spam attempt disabled the CAPTCHA plugin. Comments are back, with my apologies.
Joe
About this: “Go back and read the announcements from January, folks. The intention was clear: Steve would take a six-month medical leave and return to full-time duties.”
How does the saying go?
“When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind; What Do You Do?”
Yes, Apple may (and does) manipulate things to their advantage. On the other hand medical conditions change over time. 6 mos. was their best guess at the time of when he would return.
I think the important thing here is that Apple has been able to keep up the media manipulation (photos of lines at Apple stores on iphone release) with no Jobs for quite some time. I was worried about an Apple without Jobs losing the brand and I’m not anymore. I think more people now realize that Apple is a great company (for now) even without Jobs at the helm.
http://www.zon.com
Joe,
Sorry to say this, but your post gives us nothing.
- Months ago, Apple told us that Jobs’ condition was “more complex than a hormone imbalance” and required six months absence. Sounded consistent with a liver transplant to me at the time. What about you, Joe? Did you speculate that he took six months off to trim his toe nails?
- Sure, Apple timed the announcement shrewdly. Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Did you expect different of them?
- Steve Jobs has had cancer and a liver transplant. Knowing this, are we SHOCKED that he won’t have 100% of his strength ever? Are we SCANDALIZED that’s he’s going to die eventually? I for one am not, but it sounds like you are Joe.
Chris Jones
Additional comment. What does a company do when CEO is a superstar and that superstar leaves or dies? (Buffet, Gates, Jobs, Trump, JFK?)
One of the advantages of having a superstar ceo is that you can attract better people, right? And superstars generate millions in free publicity. A superbowl ad is millions for 30 seconds, a superstar ceo blows that metric out of the water. And everyone fawns over superstar ceos. Here is Mike Arringtons
meeting with Bill Gates:
http://www.crunchnotes.com/2006/03/20/so-i-had-lunch-with-bill-gates-today/
But isn’t the eventual death/departure of the CEO already built into the stock price?
One thing that seems peculiar to me in this analysis is the assertion that Apple moved up the launch date of the iPhone 3GS. This isn’t the type of thing that Apple can do with the flip of a coin. Clearly, the iPhone 3GS was ready to ship in large volumes this past Friday. Matching the 3.0 software release with the new phones is also a very logical thing, and 3.0 was clearly ready to go and needed to ship sooner than later simply based on market pressure. Preparing manufacturing lines (and ramping up manufacturing) is something that must happen many months in advance. Apple had to have been ready and planning to deliver the iPhone in June for some months; they couldn’t have artificially moved the date up a month or two ago. That’s just not how it works.
The June shipping date was probably picked early this year or late last year, based on engineering and manufacturing realities, and not arbitrarily. In this highly competitive market, Apple wouldn’t have hung around for a month until July when they could reach market in June, especially given that it then takes several months to roll out worldwide. Although I tend to think market and engineering realities were behind the date, you might argue that Apple originally picked a June date because (a) they thought Steve Jobs would be healthy enough by then to make a splashy introduction or (b) if he wasn’t healthy enough, it would provide a splashy distraction, so win-win. That may have been part of the calculus, but Apple’s focus has always been on delivering great new products as quickly as they can and planting the seeds for long-term growth and innovation; they’ve never been too interested in the day-to-day value of their share price.
You’re a douchebag.
[...] Joe Wilcox – Steve Jobs’ Return is Still Vaporware [...]
[...] “The timing, on day of iPhone 3GS launch, helps protect Apple’s share price and de-emphasise an important fact: Steve isn’t really coming back this month,” he wrote on his blog. [...]
I guess Apple didn’t have to mix in the old model sales into the 3GS sales figures after all…
I couldn’t help but leave a comment here because I couldn’t believe you wrote this irresponsible nonsense and call yourself a…journalist, editor?? whatever.
Above all, Mr. Jobs does NOT have a pancreatic cancer. He has a very rare disease called pancreatic \neuroendocrine\ tumors, which is a completely different disease and has much much better prognosis than the pancreatic cancer.
How do I know, because I have the exact same disease. I’ve been living for years with this disease which has been already spread to the liver. The disease is fairly treatable and manageable. Some healthcare professionals don’t even think this a real \cancer\ because the tumors are so slow growing and much less aggressive.
I know a lot of people who successfully manage this disease and live with it for years and even decades and lead a perfectly normal life (working full time, etc.) even after liver transplants.
A lot of ignorant people like you think cancer = death.
Please do some homework before you write any article.
[...] “The timing, on day of iPhone 3GS launch, helps protect Apple’s share price and de-emphasise an important fact: Steve isn’t really coming back this month,” he wrote on his blog. [...]
reports from today seem to conflict with your analysis on Steve Jobs’ slow return; I tend to believe you can’t stop him no matter what you do. but I absolutely agree that there is no such thing as coincidence in corporate communications (though I attribute less ill will than you do).
Joe you called this one as about as well as Apple failing in “this economy”.
Love your columns though!
[...] the news of Jobs being on the mend has been met with a positive reception, others have accused Apple of being "up to its media manipulation tactics", deliberating letting the [...]
[...] officially returning to work two years to the day that iPhone launched. I’ve asserted that he won’t return to full-time work as chief executive, and that COO Tim Cook will eventually be promoted to CEO. That opinion isn’t changed, but I [...]
[...] returned to work after a six-month medical leave of absence. Twice this month, on June 5 and 10 days ago, I said that you wouldn’t return as full-time CEO. Call me a liar. Make me the idiot. By [...]
[...] Steve Jobs’ Return is Still Vaporware « Joe Wilcox http://www.joewilcox.com/2009/06/steve-jobs-return-is-still-vaporware – view page – cached #Joe Wilcox RSS Feed Joe Wilcox » Steve Jobs’ Return is Still Vaporware Comments Feed Joe Wilcox The Summer of iPhone’s Judgement Why Is There No iLife-Equivalent for Windows? Iran and the Internet Democracy — From the page [...]
I’ve followed the stock rise, Tom. Clearly Apple would like to keep it that way. The company has seen its share price plummet in the past based on bad news. Any news about Steve’s health is being carefully managed to protect the share price.
Hi, Chris,
This isn’t and shouldn’t be about feelings. It’s about business. If you’re on a sports team and injured, people can feel sorry for you but it doesn’t change that you can’t play.
Steve Jobs is CEO of a public company, which means it’s owned by shareholders whom he and the board of directors have a responsibility to (I’m not an investor, by the way). Apple hasn’t been at all clear about his health and ability to return.
A story in the Wall Street Journal story is not a clear and concise announcement from Apple about his health or ability to resume his duties.
But let’s talk emotion, since you seem to want to. Steve has made huge contributions to the technology market–and he has had huge cultural and societal impact, too. He deserves a break. He should put his health and well being first. He should do what’s necessary now to ensure that he lives as long and as vitally as possible.
Steve is such an iconic figure, Apple could make an announcement and put it exactly in those terms. Even heroes grow old. The goodwill towards him and Apple would be enormous, and it doesn’t hurt the that stock has rebounded nicely while Tim Cook minded the shop. An emotional transition would be good business, good marketing. Instead, Apple chooses to be secretive.
Goodwill can be healing. Steve has earned it, and he deserves it. But Apple’s secretive and manipulative tactics steal that healing goodwill from him. You’re happy with that?
Joe,
With all due respect, I disagree. Apple’s tactics in no way have stolen any goodwill. I myself am an investor and I don’t consider their tactics “secretive and manipulative”. I think they’re discreet, shrewd and honest. As an investor I know (1) Jobs has been stricken with some extremely serious health issues; (2) he wants to return and make a contribution as soon as possible; (3) he’ll probably return in some capacity at the end of June, and (4) he’s put an extremely capable team in place to support him both in his presence and absence.
From my viewpoint, it’s the blogosphere that’s inappropriately adding emotions to business where they don’t belong, accusing Apple of being secretive, manipulative, and stealing goodwill. The stock market is also, of course, emotional but that’s to be expected from the investment community; as they say on The Wire, it’s all “part of the game”.
Coincidentally, Steve Jobs, I and my wife are all from exactly the same generation. I like what Steve Jobs does with Apple, but I loved her, so when she was stricken with cancer I had strong feelings. And I can tell you, well-meaning friends were constantly in a near state of panic wanting to know more and more details. Some of the details we had but perhaps were uncomfortable sharing, and other details we didn’t have. When you stripped away much of the noise it seems they wanted to know “tell me, exactly WHEN is she going to die?” So I understand that people like you think Apple owes the public more information, but I don’t see how you’ve made a case it all. As an investor I’m completely satisfied with how they’ve dealt with it, and I’m also pleased as punch that it looks like Mr. Jobs will continue to make contributions in the future.
As for my wife, she was a realist who did everything possible to stay healthy, but she refused to indulge the morbid interests of friends who had no need to know the low-level details. She was adamant that she would live as much as possible, and deal with the disease with the help of her doctors, not her layman friends. She perished all-too-soon, but that’s part of the game, right? I wish Steve Jobs all good health, but eventually even he’s not going to be able to change the rules of this game.
Chris
Hey Larry,
Of course you’re right. The eventual death/departure is already built into the price. The market knows Jobs had cancer and it may come back; the market knows he took a significant leave-of-absence; and as of now, the market knows he probably had a liver transplant. For some reason, Joe wants us to see something big and nefarious here. Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.
Chris
You’re assigning a mind to the market, Chris. Individual investors may not know and would be concerned. But that’s not the point. My post is about media manipulation and the media participating in that manipulation. It’s about Apple, not Steve Jobs’ illness.
In our banter back and forth, I let my responses get pulled aside. Your view assigns no responsibility to Apple for its actions. But Apple should be responsible for its actions, because it is a public company.
Please accept my condolences for your own loss. But ask how much maybe that clouds your judgment about Steve Jobs and Apple’s public responsibility to its shareholders, partners and customers.
Tim Cook’s team has done a wonderful job while Steve has been on medical leave. The team’s excellent work is all the more reason for Apple to give clear and concise disclosure. Also, if the stock price reflects Steve’s possible departure, as Larry and you assert, then there is another reason for Apple to be more forthcoming.
You’ve yet to answer how leaked information constitutes responsible disclosure.
Let’s end it here. You and I don’t agree, and I don’t expect that to change because of our bantering comments. But the discussion is good for other people who might side with either or neither of us.
Again, my condolences for your personal losses. I’ve had friends and relatives die of cancer, too, but none as close to me as what you suffered.
Very sensible, Scott. I should have put it in similar context of the “win-win.” I agree. You make a smart observation.
Clearly, it’s a great start for iPhone 3GS. Caveat: When Apple says sold, it usually means shipped. Based on previous statements of sold, the actual number could be 30 percent to 50 percent lower than stated. But even 500,000 units would be a helluva good start.
The Q: Distribution. Pics from international locations indicated really small lines. Don’t be surprised if the majority of new iPhone models were sold in the United States.
My condolences for your illness.
The post makes one reference: “The liver transplant sadly suggets that Steve’s pancreatic cancer returned.” Nor does the post anywhere say that his “cancer = death.” You’re distracting from the point, by nitpicking. The Steve Jobs’ issue I wrote about: When will he be well enough to resume his duties following his liver transplant.
It’s my understanding that Steve Jobs had an Islet-cell variety of pancreatic cancer. The US National Cancer Institute explains: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/patient
Hi, Sarah,
I don’t attribute ill well but manipulation, which is what companies do to manage the message.
Showing up at Apple, if the reports are true, isn’t the same as returning as full-time CEO. There’s no way that Steve should, two months after a liver transplant. It’s best for his health to take it easy.
I still fully expect a slow return and eventual change in role. Steve can be inspirational as chairman, while letting Tim Cook continue to run day-to-day operations but as CEO.
Indeed – although what does that indicate if most iPhones were sold in the US..?
On another matter – what is the implication of the survey data that says 56% of iPhone buyers are replacing a previous iPhone.
Should that be seen as “the bulk of purchases are made by the same hardcore Macheads, so the iPhone isn’t really reaching new customers” or “the iPhone has fostered brand loyalty”. In other words, is that a normal percentage after only 2 years in the market?
Well, whatever, I would expect a high percentage upgrading from the original iPhone as normal, if they’re satisfied.
You scenarios each get a yes. Definitely the same old Macheads are buying as they usually do, and the iPhone has garnered brand loyalty (creating a generation of mobile Macheads).
The real test is what happens over the next 60 days. In the countries where iPhone 3GS launched last week, I expect sales to drop off rather steeply but continue to be steady. I’m not with the Wall Street guys on this one. There will be a new wave of sales in the US after September, when more people qualify for discounted upgrades. I do expect iPhone 3G sales to be fairly consistent and quite good. The $99 is just too appealing.
That said, Apple’s contained launch (eight countries, if memory is correct) isn’t just logistical. It’s marketing, too. New countries mean new sales surges, which means more media attention and continued sales surges. But that doesn’t mean real growth, as in adding lots of new subscribers.
Competition is heating up. Lots of good smartphones, pretty much all able to run background applications, are coming to market. I think you’ll see less carrier churn, as acceptable alternatives come available. Sprint customers buying Palm Pre on T-Mobile users choosing myTouch 3G are lost new iPhone 3GS customers for AT&T. Same applies to new handsets available in overseas markets.
Thanks for the answers to my questions – much appreciated.
I think you’re right that background applications are a competitive advantage, but i also think Push Notification Services is a competitive advantage for it’s own reasons – and will continue to be so even *when* the iPhone runs background apps.
It’s not realistic or practical or even convenient to run a large number of WSJ style content apps, Stock alert kind of apps, multiplayer games, etc in the background all the friggin time.
In essence i look at PNS more as a kind of souped up RSS for iPhone Apps, rather than a long term background app replacement – and that’s very valuable in it’s own right i think.
Please read my response to Sarah. I haven’t called it wrong, Avro.
A one-day appearance doesn’t mean he is coming back full time or that he will resume duties as full-time CEO. I still fully expect a slow return and eventual change in role. Steve Jobs will be the inspirational chairman, while letting Tim Cook run day-to-day operations but soon as CEO.
From my post: “I now do assert that he’s not returning as CEO, certainly not full time at the end of June and likely not full time ever.”
If Steve works a 40 hour week as CEO for the next month, then you can call me wrong. If Tim Cook isn’t appointed CEO by the beginning of Apple’s next fiscal year (or around time of Snow Leopard’s release), then you can call me wrong.
And I’ll gladly do a separate post about my misjudgment.
manipulation: yes, I’d agree to that.
it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out; I have an unwavering belief in Steve Jobs complete unwillingness to admit defeat