By now you’ve probably seen the story reported by Gizmodo that Steve Jobs (and Apple) have pulled out of Macworld this year because of Jobs’ dire health condition. Apparently, this piece of info — brought to the site’s doorstep by an anonymous source — has caused quite a stir. Like our own misreporting on Apple in 2007 (a report backed up by internal documents and direct Apple employee feedback), the company’s stock took a noticeable dip, mainstream media outlets picked up the story, and the requisite sensational Digg headline went straight to the front page.
Here’s something about the story you probably don’t know: We received a similar tip from the same tipster weeks ago — a reliable contact who just recently provided us with leaks of new Apple hardware before it was announced. This is a rock solid tipster when it comes to images of gear, but beyond that, we don’t know anything about the person. They may be a dock worker or technician… or they might be Jobs’ personal assistant. It’s unlikely that it’s the latter, but the point I’m trying to illustrate should be clear: the source of this rumor can’t be verified as having a single credible piece of knowledge about Steve Jobs’ health.
Now, I’m not saying they’re not right — they could be Jobs’ personal doctor, and they could be at his bedside right this moment. What I’m saying is that we don’t really have any reason to speculate about Steve Jobs’ health except to say that about six months ago some people who saw him said he looked thin, and in 2004 he had (and recovered from) pancreatic cancer. Your metrics may be different from mine, but that doesn’t place someone on their deathbed or make them too unhealthy to speak to a large group of people. Apple has reasonable excuses for not wanting to be part of Macworld any longer that are far less exciting than imminent death.
To give you an idea of how rumors are treated at Engadget: if someone writes to us and says they’ve seen, oh… say, the Zunephone, yet provides no physical evidence, and no credentials that we can verify which would give them access to that kind of information, we simply don’t run the story. And getting a photo of a piece of hardware versus knowing the specific details of a very private person’s medical health are two very different things.
Part of the problem here lies with Apple, of course. The company has so furiously cultivated a culture of secrecy that it makes it near impossible to get a straight answer out of them unless it’s expressly on their terms. From developers down to Apple’s PR, words and actions from Cupertino can be opaque to a point of frustration. A protectionist view of proprietary systems and new developments is one thing, but withholding reasonable information from shareholders and making fervent fans jump through arcane hoops gets tiring. Speculation doesn’t spring out of what we know — it comes from what we don’t know. Like Joe Nocera noted in his NYT article (yes, the one where Jobs called him a “slime bucket”), only on Jobs’ terms — off the record — could he be privy to information which would put rumors about the CEO’s health to rest once and for all.
But ultimately, no one is asking you not to speculate or question a company’s motives or actions — that curiosity is what drives some of our best stories. What I am asking is for you to use a bit of common sense when it comes to rumors without some verifiable information that backs them up. Just because someone says it, and just because it’s written, it doesn’t mean it’s true — and that’s doubly the case if you read it on an LCD display.
But look on the bright side, AAPL only finished $.32 down yesterday.
