Scribd
Upload
117 views2 pages

Steve Jobs' Health Disclosure Impact

The document discusses whether Apple disclosed enough information about Steve Jobs' health condition while he was CEO. It provides perspectives on Apple's obligations to disclose information to public investors according to SEC regulations in 1990. While the SEC requires disclosure of information that could materially impact a company, it does not mandate specific health details. The document also considers whether Apple would be in danger without Jobs, noting the company has continued to succeed under Tim Cook's leadership.

Uploaded by

Trí Võ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views2 pages

Steve Jobs' Health Disclosure Impact

The document discusses whether Apple disclosed enough information about Steve Jobs' health condition while he was CEO. It provides perspectives on Apple's obligations to disclose information to public investors according to SEC regulations in 1990. While the SEC requires disclosure of information that could materially impact a company, it does not mandate specific health details. The document also considers whether Apple would be in danger without Jobs, noting the company has continued to succeed under Tim Cook's leadership.

Uploaded by

Trí Võ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

What do you think?

Did Steve Jobs disclose enough about his health to keep the company moving
forward?
In my opinion, Apple disclosed information about Job’s health was enough for public
investors. Because, according to SEC regulations in 1990, although they require
companies to disclose information that may affect the company, the SEC does not require
specific information. Therefore, Apple did the right thing when announcing information
about Steve Jobs' health condition.
When considering the popularity of Apple’s newest products (iMac, iPod, iPad,
iPhone) is the company in danger of going under without Jobs?
To be honest, it is so hard to say at that time “How Apple will going to be without Steve
Jobs?” But looking back we can see that since the year that Steve’s death. Apple under
Tim Cook’s operation now is 2nd largest company which accounts for 27.49% market
share of the smartphone industry with an average growth rate of nearly 12% from 2019-
2021 and even 2021-22 the lack of chips due to the Covid-19 pandemic hurt this industry
significantly.
In conclusion, Apple is not in danger without Steve Jobs. On the other hand, Apple
products like iPhone, MacBook…are widely used in the global market.
Did Apple & Steve Jobs have an obligation to be more straightforward with the
public/ was this a matter of personal privacy?
According to the SEC regulations in 1990, the disclosure of the above information is an
obligation for Apple, but the disclosure of detailed information will not be an obligation
because the SEC regulations do not require it specifically for this information.
Summary case
25/8/2011, Jobs resigned from his position as CEO of Apple.
1/17/2011, Jos stated, “continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for
the company…”
2004, Jobs treated for a form of pancreatic cancer
2009, he underwent a liver transplant
 Job’s evasions about his weight and general well-being confused and angered
Apple investors and leaders
E.g Jerry York, a former member of Apple’s board that interviewed with the Wall Street
Journal said “Jobs’s lack of clarity “disgusted” and he considered quitting his to protest.
2004, Jobs treated for a form of pancreatic cancer
2009, he underwent a liver transplant
 Job’s evasions about his weight and general well-being confused and angered
Apple investors and leaders
E.g Jerry York, a former member of Apple’s board that interviewed with the Wall Street
Journal said “Jobs’ lack of clarity “disgusted” and he considered quitting his to protest.
 The lack of clarity about Job’s condition leads to anxious the future of Apple from
the shareholders + customers
 Arthur Levitt (Who headed the SEC in late 1990) claimed of Job’s cancer was
well-established, and the board did not need to share more details with the public
(Although publicly traded corporations need to disclose events and changes that might
“materially” affect the company, SEC does not specifically require disclosure within the
legal limit.

You might also like