A CEO's Right to Privacy?
Posted by Petrice Gaskin at Jul. 22, 2008
I feel the need to point out that I don't own a single Apple product. Not one. The closest I come is to using the Quicktime Player on my ancient PC laptop; and yet, I can't seem to stop myself from writing posts about Apple, the iPhone, and Steve Jobs.
Currently, the blogsphere is all a-titter about the state of Steve Jobs' health and whether this information is a "private matter" as one apple executive told a shareholder during a conference call about Apple's 2008 Q3, or if it is indeed fit for public airing because of the heavy ties between Apple as a company and Jobs as a brand.
The mere mention of this topic has provoked outrage on some comment boards. Commentors on Silicon Alley (rather unfairly, I believe) accused Henry Blodget of fishing for clicks by writing about the topic. While some ran to his defense and wrote that the topic is indeed very worthy.
I definitely understand why Jobs wouldn't want to feel compelled to continuously comment on the state of his physical health. Jobs is notoriously secretive, rarely deigning to give interviews, and very controlling about the personal information he releases. However, Jobs' ties to Apple are unique in that I cannot think of any other major brand so strongly tied to one specific individual. To most of Apple's shareholders, Jobs=Apple. And concerns about the state of his health could very understandably affect stock prices.
Currently, the blogsphere is all a-titter about the state of Steve Jobs' health and whether this information is a "private matter" as one apple executive told a shareholder during a conference call about Apple's 2008 Q3, or if it is indeed fit for public airing because of the heavy ties between Apple as a company and Jobs as a brand.
The mere mention of this topic has provoked outrage on some comment boards. Commentors on Silicon Alley (rather unfairly, I believe) accused Henry Blodget of fishing for clicks by writing about the topic. While some ran to his defense and wrote that the topic is indeed very worthy.
I definitely understand why Jobs wouldn't want to feel compelled to continuously comment on the state of his physical health. Jobs is notoriously secretive, rarely deigning to give interviews, and very controlling about the personal information he releases. However, Jobs' ties to Apple are unique in that I cannot think of any other major brand so strongly tied to one specific individual. To most of Apple's shareholders, Jobs=Apple. And concerns about the state of his health could very understandably affect stock prices.