Once again, Steve Jobs is on the cover of Fortune magazine. He is there because Apple is the most admired company in America. No, wait. He is there because investigative reporter Peter Elkind wrote a 12-page takedown of his Steveness. It turns out both are true. Jobs is steering the most admired company in America and he is a “reckless” CEO whose “behavior put the company and its shareholders at risk.”
I am all for balanced reporting, but which one is it? Not to be completely cynical, but Apple is a big advertiser for many Time Inc. magazines. And I imagine that Jobs would have no compunction about threatening to pull all of Apple’s advertising to kill a story he did not like. In fact, he did just that at Business 2.0 after we ran a positive, but unauthorized, cover story in April, 2005 that showed an artist’s rendition of the iPhone before it was launched. Jobs did not like this story either. (He refused to talk to the writer. Pairing the story with another one on the cover that says “Apple is No. 1″ does soften the blow. (Jobs had no problem talking to another Fortune writer for that interview, in which he reveals how great he is).
This isn’t the first business magazine to go negative on Apple. Fast Company laid out what could go wrong with Apple in its December cover story, but at least it focused on strategic and business pitfalls that could take everybody’s favorite company down. (It wasn’t very convincing either). The Fortune story is more personal about Jobs himself. It digs up a lot of dirt we’ve heard before about Jobs’ personal life, temper tantrums, and family history. You learn for instance that Jobs’ 76-year-old biological father, who put him up for adoption, now “works as food and beverage director at the Boomtown Hotel & Casino near Reno.”
The article also spends a lot of time on the options backdating scandals at both Apple and Pixar that came to light a couple years ago. Elkind paints a picture of the Apple board (and Pixar’s before that) letting Jobs get away with pretty much whatever he wants. Of course, we already knew that. (”Can I have a plane, guys?”). After months of investigating, the only important new revelation Elkind can come up with is that Jobs and Apple’s board hid his cancer from shareholders for nine months before disclosing it. Jobs explored special diets and alternative remedies before opting for surgery.
That’s pretty bad, right? The not disclosing part. Except that, if you read the article all the way through, near the end you find out:
When the CEO of a publicly traded corporation is diagnosed with a serious illness, what is his obligation to inform shareholders? There is no clear answer.
During the mid-1990s, for instance, Intel CEO Andy Grove did not disclose his own cancer for a year and nobody ever complained about that. Oh well, perhaps the trouble is not with Steve Jobs. It’s with the story.
(Full disclosure: I once worked at Fortune).
Sure, the apple stock is falling, but isn’t 99% of all stocks?
You sir (that’s you Erick) are an idiot. So many of your so-called articles point out the obvious.
Gee, Fortune magazine said something negative about Jobs? How dare they !
Listen up junior (that’s you Erick). Go find a real story for once. Techcrunch is worse off for having you.
Fair enough, a public company and its officers have a different set of responsibilities. However, disclosing cancer? Where does your privacy end if you are an officer in a public company?
I think we all confuse our fiduciary duty to share holders, whether private or public, with our personal responsibilities.
Do you have something against your previous employer? sounds like a grudge to me.
both articles are very clear in their target; one is about the greatness of the apple company, and the other is about the personal life of the CEO at helm.
do different stories. two different perspectives.
I suppose if they were admiring him in the same two articles it would have been ‘bias’ right? Come on guys, you guys make ridiculous claims and i know exactly what for; to bring controversy and stimulate debate. classic way to get the techcrunch brand into the ranks!
I read both articles.
Please tell me why a media source cannot tackle both sides under one name?
I guess it comes down to ‘Apple on the cover gets you newsstand sales’ — it’s just a pity that the articles that go with the covers are fairly vacuous!
It’s also a reflection of the fact that Apple control their PR pretty well and rarely have product leaks, making it very hard to fill those 6-8 pages which have to go with the covers.
Does anyone read Fortune anymore?
If it is going to be in print and from the east coast, WSJ > *
Sigh. At this point you really cannot separate Apple from Steve Jobs. Professing admiration for one while striking down the other—at the same time, on the same cover—is contradictory.
I have no problem with critical stories about Apple. I’ve written some myself. In this case, the story fell short of its promise. It promised a takedown. And failed to deliver.
That doesn’t mean I hold a grudge against anybody. For the record, I think Elkind (who I know and is a former colleague) is a terrific journalist generally, and I admire his work. Even this story, with all of its flaws, is a great read. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss its merits, Wade.
Didn’t Warren Buffett talk about this kind of scenario on his last annual letter? That if a company needs a ’superstar’ CEO, then the company isn’t a good company. I’m not saying that Apple isn’t a good company, but as Erick just said…is there really a separation between Apple and Steve Jobs? What will happen when he leaves? A lot of CEOs are getting older and even if they have a great successor, most of time it isn’t the same.
Steve, sales would go up if you wore a belt.
Funny shit! Good one Erick. lmao @ “I am all for balanced reporting…”
p.s. techcrunch is better off for having you. you seriously do bring a lot more depth to the table.
I followed your link and read Elkind’s article, expecting to sneer. Instead, what I found was excellent. It was informative, in-depth, and extremely well researched.
That makes me question this “take down” of Elkind. It’s far too easy to write stuff like this. Elkind spent months putting together his research. You’ve spent 5 minutes giving your opinion without even engaging his text in a thorough way.
This post (and most of Duncan Riley’s) makes me wince for its emptiness and bias. You can do so much better.
well its only a matter of time and we can forget all about ‘fortune mag’ pencil it in for the DP.
You learn for instance that Jobs’ 76-year-old biological father, who put him up for adoption, now “works as food and beverage director at the Boomtown Hotel & Casino near Reno.”
Yeah, and? He’s supposed to bankroll the man who put him up for adoption just because they share some DNA? Come-on, I know Steve is loaded but he isn’t a charity. Where do you draw the line? Some of his teachers probably contributed more to Steve’s life than his biological father, should he bankroll them too – teachers don’t make that much cash.
Yeah, the man has a short fuse and is arrogant and so on. But he knows how to make (or market) darn good product.
Frankly, Fortune is a trash magazine, especially when you compare it to The Economist. I only read Fortune for the Stanley Bing page. Otherwise it is mostly void of content, original research and relevancy. By the way, I never renewed my one year subscription to Fortune for these reasons.
— “When the CEO of a publicly traded corporation is diagnosed with a serious illness, what is his obligation to inform shareholders? There is no clear answer.” —
Senior executives should be entitled to some privacy in these cases. Until it gets to a point where the person cannot perform the required duties, there should be no need to make public something very private to someones personal life. Even if and when something like cancer gets to the point where an executive is not being able to perform duties, that should be able to take a leave of absence and not have to disclose exactly what the medical reason is. I certainly see the need to have the leaders of major companies inform shareholders of their ability to perform their required duties but something like cancer is very personal and they should be entitled to some level of privacy. There are so many privacy acts and regulations about personal/medical information in the workplace, these CEO’s should have some level of privacy protection as well.
Whatever, I admire steve jobs, especially his speeches.
He is the best story teller.
I have been a long time follower and admirer of Steve Jobs.
Steve is a man of contradictions. I admire the way he persisted for 13 years after being ousted from Apple.
I have a hard time understanding why he would not support his own daughter when he himself was an orphan.
Other than that I am not too concerned about criticism of Jobs.
Jobs should definitely deserve credit for Apple. I remember the times for Apple prior to 2001 and I-Pod. Many CEO’s tried unsuccessfully to revive Apple.
Hey suckers, trash him, kick him, spit on him, but you know what?
We love him and he is the greatest of all!
Damn envy…
Steve is great – despite his arrogance, temper, character, whatever!
He made my life so much more interesting with his products, he built stealth-growth companies, he has great speeches – and I respect him for all that.
Who the hell cares HOW you are if what matters most is WHAT you do – especially to shareholders?
WTF?
I am trying to post a comment and I see a WordPress message saying: “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down”.
Anyone from TC cares to explain? Too many spammers here and you guys are trying to fend’em off?
I’ve said this before (I think when Fast Company wrote the article about Apple that Erick references), but for all Apple’s successes, they have at least one major lingering issue that I do not see analyzed much, and it directly relates to both the company and to Jobs.
There is no succession plan.
Jobs has done a tremendous job piloting the company since his return. And one of his greatest feats has been to surround himself with a very talented, long-tenured executive team (Phil, Jonathan, Tim, others), and despite his reputation and tendencies, has let them do their jobs. Jobs can emote about the characteristics he wants a product to have, and he knows good design when he sees it, but he can’t actually design his way out of a paper bag. That’s where Ive, his design teams, and their equally talented engineering teams come in.
And while Ive has gotten a lot of visibility (at least initially, not as much lately), where is Tim Cook in the press? What has he done but significantly improve product quality, reduce inventory levels, move products to more standardized components, and helped make Apple more price competitive. And he’s just one example. Ive, the head of their stores, Rubenstein when he was there… by all accounts, Jobs has assembled a crack executive team.
So which one succeeds Jobs? Who the heck knows… the company doesn’t have a publicly stated succession plan, and because it is such a cult of personality, Apple will take a huge hit in the capital markets when Jobs steps aside voluntarily or otherwise.
— “When the CEO of a publicly traded corporation is diagnosed with a serious illness, what is his obligation to inform shareholders? There is no clear answer.” —
The answer is clearer than the article presents.
Consider this story: the CEO of a high-flying technology company steps down suddenly because he is no longer able to perform his duties. We learn that he has been diagnosed with an incurable disease, so the company is now moving to replace him in his capacity.
Let’s say the company in question is Google, and the CEO is Eric Schmidt. What will the market reaction be? My guess is that the shareholder market fluctuation would be little, because Dr. Schmidt himself is not the Google brand.
Let’s say the company in question is Apple, and the CEO is Steve Jobs. What will the market reaction be? My guess is that the shareholder market fluctuation would be substantial, because Mr. Jobs himself IS the Apple brand.
Steve’s cult of personality is a goodwill asset to Apple. Because Apple is a publicly traded company, disclosure about pending and/or possible events that can affect the value of the company in a material manner are why things like Sarbanes-Oxley exist.
Apple dodged a bullet, but the longer they sat on that information, the more likely they would be liable to shareholder lawsuits.
Who tucks in their shirt without wearing a belt?
@Sam ..
Well, you need guts to do that in formal meetings, conferences, parties etc. Steve Jobs shows his guts in whatever he does.
Well, Steve is a polarizing person, and yes, his cult-of-personality generates both love and hate. But in any case, Apple is now in the position of heavy reliance on his abilities to innovate and communicate with fanbois and Luddites alike to keep up the product churn. Thanks for your thoughts on Fortune’s timely Janus-like coverage.
Jobs is a scumbag.