It has been reported that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has had a liver transplant. Source: Tech Crunch. The interesting background to this story is that for the last year or 18 months there has been much speculation about the state of Jobs's health. After a series of health-related issues in the past, without explanation Jobs pulled out of the Macworld Conference early this year, and it was later uncovered this was for undisclosed health reasons. Jobs then took a 6-month leave of absence, citing the increased speculation on his health was becoming a distraction for the company, and that his health issues were 'more complex' than first thought. Apple COO Tim Cook was left in charge of daily operations, but Jobs said he would still be involved in executive decisions.
While I'm not suggesting that Jobs is at all obligated to disclose his personal matters to anyone - although the argument has been made that Jobs does in fact have an obligation to Apple shareholders to be open and transparent about the state of his health, given the unusually close correlation between his celebrity and Apple's business image - I find it especially interesting that Jobs takes the secretive 'closed shop' approach that Apple the company has exemplified for many years to his personal issues.
I disclosed ages ago that I've started using a new generation iMac. I do like the way I don't have to think about computing when using it. At this stage of my life, I'm all about creating content, not learning how to operate, and that's why Apple products are good for me at this time. With an iPhone, iPod, or Mac computer, you don't have to configure or set up functionality, not nearly as much as you would with a iRiver, Blackberry, PC or open source OS like Linux. Apple's systems are Apple's systems: You use it their way. And it works.
The same philosophy can be seen at Apple's corporate level. They are the antithesis of open-source, even more so than Windows, which seems to be coming round the idea, albeit slowly, if they want to survive against Apple on one side and Google on the other. Apple's new product launches are renowned for being shrouded in secrecy. I remember waiting to get my new iMac, it was just before semester started. I wanted to get the new upgraded model, and there were rumours aplenty at MacRumors on when it would be released, but nothing in stone so I really didn't know whether to hold off or just buy because I was getting really close to needing a new computer. It was annoying and it smacks of arrogance - Apple does this because it can. It has fostered a cult around its objects - fetishises them, if you will - to the point that it just plays with its loyal customers. Yes, the products are good (except for iPods being notoriously cheap and short-lived), so I guess Apple customers don't care that they are at the mercy of the company.
Another funny story: This week I went to the new Apple Store in Doncaster Shopping Town with my friend to help him buy a new MacBook Pro. My friend's not so scruffy with computers, and wanted some extra RAM built in. He was tossing up whether to get them to add it in in-store, or whether he should buy some cheaper RAM separately and install it himself. He asked the Apple guy where Apple gets it RAM from, because obviously Apple doesn't make its own RAM, and the guy point blank wouldn't tell him. He basically said that if it has the Apple sticker on it, its Apple. Sure, dude. My friend ended up getting the RAM in-store, to save him the hassle. That's what Apple does, it saves you the hassle. But at what cost?
If Steve Jobs doesn't want to talk about his health, that's fine, I guess. But he should at lease recognise that when your customers are tech-savvy, they're going to want to know what's going on, eventually. And what happens when Apple hits a rough-patch, which all businesses go through? Perhaps we will start seeing a different, open, more talkative Apple.