Jobs Returns To Apple, But What Happens Next?

But if the lesson is that maybe -- just maybe -- Jobs is less indispensable to the company than Apple's mythology would suggest, then the answer is much less certain.

Why change what works? Apple is going gangbusters, despite the occasional share price dip that might be associated with backlash over its inscrutability regarding Jobs. Apple successfully launched its new iPhone 3G S earlier this month. The company is recovering nicely from last September's stock market crash, with shares trading at more than $140 as June comes to a close.

All of this happened without Jobs in his customary place as Apple's iconic frontman, or micromanaging day-to-day activities in his legendary fashion. Yet strangely, the last source from whom you'd hear that Apple might be capable of success without Jobs was the company itself.

Apple and its legions of fans seem to be as deeply invested in the Jobs legend as ever. During his absence, they ignored, denied and even mocked critics' frustration with the company's handling of its CEO's health situation. And now that the Tennessee hospital that performed Jobs' liver transplant has finally confirmed that the critics were right to be concerned all along -- amazingly, nothing seems to have changed.

Daring to question Apple's disclosure practices will still get you a rhetorical beating, courtesy of the company's many apologists.

And Apple itself has yet to confirm that Jobs even had a liver transplant. Meanwhile, the media have largely accepted Apple's pronouncement that Jobs is back at work on a part-time basis, though nobody seems to have independently confirmed this or determined what it even means. A terse statement from a company with a less-than-stellar record of candor appears to be enough.

Without much information about the procedure to go on, it's understandable that few journalists want to play doctor and try to guess Jobs' current state of health. There is also more than a whiff of ghoulishness to obsessing over this sort of stuff. But the resulting restraint means that most media are simply reporting that Jobs is back at work without any kind of context as to what he might be physically capable of doing there.

Is this the tireless, micromanaging perfectionist that many Apple investors believe is crucial to the company's success? So far, Apple isn't saying it is -- but they're sure as heck not saying it isn't, either.

And that could be a problem. People who just want the world to "leave Steve Jobs alone" may not like it, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that Jobs' health status is of material concern to investors, because Apple itself has publicly declared as much by linking its "future success" to "the continued service and availability" of its CEO in its most recent annual report. The SEC has reportedly opened an informal probe into Apple's disclosure practices.

To be fair, many legal experts have doubts about whether Apple has broken any SEC disclosure rules. Some cite the vagueness of the relevant Regulation FD requirements, while others say Jobs' right to medical privacy could trump investors' right to be informed of his health status.

The crazy thing is that Jobs' absence itself revealed the way Apple can most easily eliminate all of this back-and-forth between critics and fanboys. The company hummed along quite nicely without his input in day-to-day operations -- Apple could simply make it clear publicly that Jobs' role is changing and that his eventual successors are ready for what comes next.

Of course, that would require that they start reeling back the legend of Steve Jobs. And if they did that, Apple would be a lot less fun to write about.