Apple unbruised

 Yet another storm of controversy has been created by reports in the Wall Street Journal that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs had a liver transplant about two months ago.

The always tight-lipped Apple PR machine has, not surprisingly, refused to confirm or deny the reports.

“Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June and there is nothing further to say,” a spokesman says.

It’s this comment that has tech writers angry. Surely, they argue, Apple has a responsibility to its investors, staff and customers to provide transparent information about the health of the company’s most important executive.

These writers have a very good point, but Apple has two quite legitimate reasons for keeping its response to the health speculation as brief as possible.

Firstly, there’s arguably not too much the company can say. Apple would also realise that the more information it gives out on Jobs, the more people will demand and the company has sensibly been careful not to get to a point where it needs to give monthly or even weekly Jobs updates. That would probably create more uncertainty, rather than less, as investors buy and sell on each Jobs health announcement.

But the questions around Jobs’ health have also allowed the company to spin a second subtle message: this company can perform in Steve’s absence. Ill health or not, Jobs isn’t going to be around forever and Apple knows that it needs to get away from a situation where investors think the company’s fortunes are dependant on one person.

The performance of Apple’s share price – up more than 60% since Jobs went on leave – suggests that Apple’s subtle message is finally getting through to investors.