Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

1. He turned down proven therapy and allowed his disease to progress while pursuing alternatives which had no chance of success. Shame onto those who offer false hope. May the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor.<p>2. In the context of the above, is it not possible that Mr. Jobs felt uneasy with the idea of putting Mr. Cook at risk (yes, liver surgery is a procedure with risk)?<p>3. Getting more speculative, it is also possible that by the time that Mr. Cook discovered he was an appropriate donor, the disease had become more widely metastatic (thus limiting the value of any donation).

Anyone else think it should be titled &#x27;potentially life-saving&#x27; instead? There was no guarantee it would have, though it did have more potential than the transplant he received later in the year. edit: titles -&gt; titled

&quot;Steve only yelled at me four or five times during the 13 years I knew him.&quot; am I the only one who think being yelled at by your boss is... a bad thing? Like, at all.

Of all the people in the world to donate a portion of their liver to Steve Jobs, Tim Cook was the worst possible choice. Companies have travel policies where senior execs can&#x27;t travel on the same plane together because, if that plane goes down, the organization loses leadership continuity.<p>Hundreds of thousands of people rely on Apple for their livelihood and, from Apple&#x27;s perspective, losing both Cook and Jobs would have been devastating. It was shockingly irresponsible of Cook to suggest this idea.

Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.

I wonder where Apple would be today &#x2F; a year from now if he were still around. Would anything major be different?

This has popped up three or four times on the front page today. Why? This is the least interesting piece of information I have heard in years