Filed under: Apple Corporate, Apple
WSJ: Jobs had liver transplant, on schedule to return to work in June
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs had a liver transplant two months ago in Tennessee, but is still expected to return to work by the end of the month.Jobs, who went on a medical leave from Apple in January, has had continuing medical issues related to a bout with pancreatic cancer. The type of pancreatic cancer that Jobs has will often metastasize in other organs, particularly the liver. According to the WSJ article, it is expected that Jobs will work part-time upon his return to the company in order to speed his recovery.
The 54 year-old Jobs missed the Apple shareholder meeting in February, and hasn't been flying in his corporate jet (one of the perks he receives along with his US$1 annual compensation) as much as he had in the past.
The TUAW staff, along with many of our readers, is looking forward to the return of the Steve Jobs to the company he helped to create.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dimplemonkey said 12:53AM on 6-20-2009
and just like that Apple stock plummets...
I was still hoping during the WWDC for an appearance. Hope his recovery is as complete as possible!
Reply
eric f. said 12:16PM on 6-20-2009
...which makes it a perfect time to buy.
Darren said 1:01AM on 6-20-2009
He also stopped logging into iChat around February, according to people on his buddy list.
Reply
Stephen said 1:13AM on 6-20-2009
"one of the perks he receives along with his US$1 annual compensation"
ummm....He definitely gets paid more than that. Why would a surgery like that impact his flight schedule, though?
Reply
Leslie said 1:16AM on 6-20-2009
Steve Jobs makes a yearly salary of $1 a year. He makes his money through his company shares.
Michael Rose said 1:17AM on 6-20-2009
No, he doesn't.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/BU9O155G65.DTL
IvanP91 said 1:46AM on 6-20-2009
Steve used to make $1, now he actually gets the big amount.
IvanP91 said 1:50AM on 6-20-2009
Sorry to reply twice, but
Why he makes $1 : http://www.macshrine.com/2006/12/31/steve-jobs-takes-1-salary-again/
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1047_3-6049166.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
Leslie said 1:14AM on 6-20-2009
This story was bound to get out; how appropriate that this story has the same release time as the the iPhone 3G S. . .
@Dimplemonkey is right: the stock *should* drop. However, with the world snapping up new iPhones, even this type of news won't cause Apple's stocks to plummet.
Reply
Stephen said 1:36AM on 6-20-2009
I was mentally including that in my estimate. Sorry about the confusion that may have caused.
Reply
Nate said 2:19AM on 6-20-2009
So a theoretical timeline goes: In January, Jobs decides to get a liver transplant. He (his staff) does the research and finds that Tennessee has a 48-day waiting list, so he knows he can get it within 2 months. (Remember that weird rumor about Mr. Jobs moving to Memphis. Probably he just bought a house there so he could recover in private.) Add some time for recuperation and he figures he'll be back on the job by the end of June, so he announces that.
Now that it's over, and with the press focusing on the iPhone, Apple has a source reveal some details. If investors focus on the "now that it's over" part, the stock may not take too much of a hit.
Reply
Dom said 4:54AM on 6-20-2009
I don't think you understand how transplants work.
There's no such thing as a '48 day waiting list'. You have to wait for somebody else to die - and that someone needs to be as close a match as possible.
The only possible way for their to be a 48 day waiting list would be if there were people out there "arranging" car crashes for suitable donors. And I don't think even Steve Jobs gets that kind of service.
Tennessee may have shorter waiting lists, but there's no guarantees when it comes to cadaver transplants.
DrWho said 7:33AM on 6-20-2009
The 48 days quoted is the median wait time for such a transplant in Tenessee versus 306 days nationally. It's in thr article.
Wheels said 2:46PM on 6-20-2009
With a liver, you don't need to wait for someone to die, you just need to find a live match who is willing to to donate a large portion of their liver to the recipient. Once the transplant happens, the two pieces of liver will regenerate themselves into a complete liver in about three or four months. The liver is the only major internal organ that grows back.
I don't know if I necessarily buy that this is related to his Pancreatic cancer of 2004, only since it seems that it took the cancer long enough to metastasize to the liver, or that it took this long to detect if routine cancer screenings were adhered to. A very good friend of mine had colin cancer, and it had metastasized to his liver within a year. In my friends case, his doctors cut out the cancerous portion of his liver in hopes of stopping it. (Also, in this case, the liver grew back.) But it was too late because the cancer had already metastasized to his lungs and brain.
Having cancer on the liver is serious, the worst place to have it. The liver is the body's filter and is interconnected with everything, and once a cancer has access to the organ it's like having access to a freeway. That why I'm doubtful that this cancer is rooted back to 2004. If it had been in Steve's liver since then, given his relatively young age, it would've had a field day on him by now. Given what I know, which is not much.
If the transplant was done, it means that doctors are fairly certain that they caught this cancer in its early stages.
SjG said 2:33AM on 6-20-2009
Steve Job's health concerns are pretty much baked into the price of Apple shares right now. I don't imagine we'll see that much of a long-term dip (percentage wise) based on this or other rumors, even if confirmed. His death would have a larger effect, but even that will have only a moderate long-term effect, unless there are a number of missteps by the company subsequently. I'd expect a big momentary dip due to panic spending, but either the company has long term value or it doesn't. I don't think any rational investor believes that today's Apple is a pure Steve company.
Disclaimer/Disclosure: I own a pathetically small number of Apple shares.
Reply
Tony said 2:43AM on 6-20-2009
Has anyone read the article? The WSJ article requires login. There's a "preview" of couple paragraphs, but they don't mention any sources in the part that's available without logging in.
Is this speculation (like 99% of everything else regarding Jobs,) or is there a credible source?
I don't know about you, but "According to the Wall Street Journal..." doesn't exactly inspire confidence when it comes to anything tech related. They've been wrong more than Alvin Toffler.
Reply
Royal said 6:18AM on 6-20-2009
The WSJ isn't some random unqualified blog. Even though once in a while, big newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal get small details wrong, something as big as this would have multiple credible sources.
Tony said 11:06AM on 6-20-2009
Ok...finally read the article. Not a single source cited. At all. Perhaps they do have a credible source...but they didn't even so much as hint at one. Not even "sources say..." or "according to an inside source..." Nothing.
And I don't hold the WSJ up higher than anyone else if they're not going to cite their sources. Ever heard of the New York Times? It's a fairly large newspaper. And they've had reported who have fabricated stories or failed to properly vet their sources in the past. Just because it's the WSJ doesn't mean it must be true.
Royal said 9:52PM on 6-20-2009
"Perhaps they do have a credible source...but they didn't even so much as hint at one. Not even "sources say..." or "according to an inside source..." Nothing."
Apparently you've never read a newspaper, because a journalist doesn't reveal his sources, since then they wouldn't be sources very much longer.
"And I don't hold the WSJ up higher than anyone else if they're not going to cite their sources."
So you're saying some blog and the WSJ/NYT are equal unless the newspapers reveal their sources in the story? That's the most foolish statement I've heard in a long time.
"Ever heard of the New York Times? It's a fairly large newspaper. And they've had reported who have fabricated stories or failed to properly vet their sources in the past."
I'll assume you meant reporter instead of reported there.... Yes, The New York Times had Jayson Blair plagiarize parts of his stories and fabricate other sections. His stories were human interest stories, not claiming that a CEO of a major tech company had a major organ transplant. The implications of reporting such a story that wasn't vetted would be disastrous. The WSJ would be sued by Apple, the effect on the stock price could bring investigation, etc.
"Just because it's the WSJ doesn't mean it must be true."
It appears to have been true. What a shock! Maybe next time they'll concoct a big news story. When that happens, let me know....
Tony said 1:02PM on 6-23-2009
"Apparently you've never read a newspaper, because a journalist doesn't reveal his sources"
Obviously you're the one who doesn't read newspapers much. Most stories cite their sources, and if a source is anonymous they at least mention they have a source.
Here's an example from today's NY Times:
"CAIRO — Iran’s most powerful oversight council has ruled out overturning the results of the contested presidential election, Iranian state television said Tuesday, as new details emerged about the scale of the government’s crackdown against its opponents."
See what they did there? They cited a source (Iranian state television.)
Here's another one:
"WASHINGTON — A day after the worst Metro subway train accident in the history of the city’s system, emergency officials continued to comb through the wreckage, searching for additional victims and indications as to what could have caused the crash, officials said."
See that? "...officials said." It's anonymous, but cited.
"It appears to have been true. What a shock! "
According to who? There's been no official announcement (nor does there need to be.) Just because others keep repeating the original story doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's not, either, but my original point stands: it's shoddy journalism not to at least mention that you have a source.