Thank you for your comment and welcome to my blog.

I guess Jobs is a large part of the identity of the company, and his presence as CEO inspires confidence, trust and freshness in the eyes of Apple customers in a similar way to the way in which Richard Branson is associated with the Virgin brand.

One could quite well understand how further testing could quite possibly reveal problems which were more serious in nature than what was believed to be the case after the initial diagnosis, so it is quite possible that neither disclosure was misleading. Hopefully, the results of the SEC investigation should reveal whether or not this was indeed the case.

As for the ethical issue, as long as the first release was not intentionally misleading, I cannot criticize it. It is very possible Mr. Jobs got good news at first and only found out it was worse after trying the simple treatment.

Alina Popescus last blog post..SEO School – Learning and laughing at the same time

You do have a point there – Jobs is no ordinary executive and he is very closely linked with both the identity of the company and its fortunes in the eyes of investors, and the market did move quite substantially in response to the announcement about the leave of absence.

Perhaps there is an argument that Jobs is a special case, and perhaps Jobs could have been more forthcoming about his health issues during the period of time where he was losing weight and rumors about his health were circulating. If he was not certain as to the cause of it’s problem, as appears to have been the case, then he could have at least stated as much.

That said, the company’s reasons for refusal to discuss this matter are quite understandable and I personally would not criticize them for this.

I would, however, criticize them if it turns out that the initial statement on the matter was not accurate.

Andrews last blog post..How healthy is Apple’s disclosure?

Brad Shorrs last blog post..Best of Word Sell, Posts 400-600