Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls New 'Haunted Empire' Book 'Nonsense'

[IJ Reilly]

And Tim Cook has made what was probably going to be a quickly forgotten book with mediocre sales into a best seller.

The author couldn't have bought advertising that good....

You really are . This book was already getting plenty of play in the media before Cook said anything. Now at least the reviews (mostly damning) can and do cite his response. As in:

Under Timothy D. Cook, who took over as chief executive shortly before Steve Jobs died in October 2011, Apple “teeters at the edge of a reckoning,” Ms. Kane writes. Its executives, she adds, “cannot find their own way forward. They are tired. They are uncertain. The well of ingenuity has run dry.”

After the book’s release earlier this week, Mr. Cook said in a statement that it was “nonsense.”

He’s right.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/apple-after-jobs-pretty-much-the-same-as-ever/

 

[SlCKB0Y]

You really are . This book was already getting plenty of play in the media before Cook said anything. Now at least the reviews (mostly damning) can and do cite his response.

Errr... everyone would expect that Tim Cook would not have agreed with the book...by actually speaking out he has legitimised the book and made himself (and Apple) look insecure.

His actions imply that had he not spoken out, people would have taken the book seriously instead of the tripe that it probably is.

 

[samcraig]

The number 1 responsibility of the CEO of a publicly traded company is generating SHAREHOLDER VALUE.

Wow are you wrong. That's not the #1 responsibility. Maybe therein lies your problem and faulty logic for the rest of your post.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Errr... everyone would expect that Tim Cook would not have agreed with the book...by actually speaking out he has legitimised the book and made himself (and Apple) look insecure.

His actions imply that had he not spoken out, people would have taken the book seriously instead of the tripe that it probably is.

No, that's not how it works. The author was already being interviewed on major media outlets. Cook would have been asked about her accusations anyway, to which "no comment" is always the worst response. By putting out a statement refuting the book, he can refuse to say anything further and journalists reviewing it can insert his response into their stories. This is exactly what has occurred. It's PR 101.

 

[samcraig]

No, that's not how it works. The author was already being interviewed on major media outlets. Cook would have been asked about her accusations anyway, to which "no comment" is always the worst response. By putting out a statement refuting the book, he can refuse to say anything further and journalists reviewing can insert his response into their reviews. This is exactly what has occurred. It's PR 101.

You and others keep insisting the comment "no comment" would have been a mistake as if that's the only response he could have made instead.

His comment showed that he read or was briefed on a lot of the content. He didn't just dismiss a comment in the book - he dismissed the entire book as nonsense.

He could have just as easily said similar to - I don't know anything about the book but I can't imagine how accurate or timely it would be as no one currently at Apple granted interviews. I can say that Apple has some amazing products in the pipeline...yadda yadda....

 

[mccldwll]

You and others keep insisting the comment "no comment" would have been a mistake as if that's the only response he could have made instead.

His comment showed that he read or was briefed on a lot of the content. He didn't just dismiss a comment in the book - he dismissed the entire book as nonsense.

He could have just as easily said similar to - I don't know anything about the book but I can't imagine how accurate or timely it would be as no one currently at Apple granted interviews. I can say that Apple has some amazing products in the pipeline...yadda yadda....

"I don't know anything about the book" would not be believable. Everyone has known for months that the book was coming. To simply ignore it would be like sticking his head in the sand.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

"I don't know anything about the book" would not be believable. Everyone has known for months that the book was coming. To simply ignore it would be like sticking his head in the sand.

*sigh*

It was an example - pick your own.

How about "I haven't read the book but maybe I should - i've been telling myself to make more time for reading fiction *chuckles*".

 

[IJ Reilly]

You and others keep insisting the comment "no comment" would have been a mistake as if that's the only response he could have made instead.

His comment showed that he read or was briefed on a lot of the content. He didn't just dismiss a comment in the book - he dismissed the entire book as nonsense.

He could have just as easily said similar to - I don't know anything about the book but I can't imagine how accurate or timely it would be as no one currently at Apple granted interviews. I can say that Apple has some amazing products in the pipeline...yadda yadda....

How would that have been any different?

 

[mccldwll]

*sigh*

It was an example - pick your own.

How about "I haven't read the book but maybe I should - i've been telling myself to make more time for reading fiction *chuckles*".

No need to pick my own, and no need to second guess the professionals involved in the decision of how Apple should respond to a question about Kane's tabloid effort. Those who always second guess the actions of those with the responsibility are called "backseat drivers" for a reason.

 

[Rogifan]

This one?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...-the-same-as-ever/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Yep. The more excerpts I read and the more interviews Kane gives leads me to believe much of this book is nothing more than trashy gossip. Stuff that makes great headlines for places like Business Insider. She did an interview with them about how Jony Ive supposedly has a massive ego (because according to her all brilliant designers have to have massive egos) and that he's very controversial inside Apple. Yet at the end of the interview she backpedals and says Ive's office politics isn't personal and isn't about self aggrandizement but wanting design to reign supreme at Apple. There are a number of instances like this where she backs off the assertions she made in the book which makes me doubt how factual any of the book is.

----------

How would that have been any different?

It wouldn't be. I would have loved it though if Cook called it nonsense and then said he'd move it to the fiction section in the bookstore if he could.

 

[samcraig]

How would that have been any different?

If you don't see the difference between "This nonsense belongs with some of the other books I've read about Apple. It fails to capture Apple, Steve, or anyone else in the company. "

and what I wrote - I can't help you. One clearly implies he knows the full contents of the book and is dismissing it as nonsense. In the other case it doesn't imply he's read it at all.

Big difference.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you don't see the difference between "This nonsense belongs with some of the other books I've read about Apple. It fails to capture Apple, Steve, or anyone else in the company. "

and what I wrote - I can't help you. One clearly implies he knows the full contents of the book and is dismissing it as nonsense. In the other case it doesn't imply he's read it at all.

Big difference.

Then you can't help me, probably because you can't actually explain the difference. We all know that this kind of statement, any kind, would be received the same way. Lots of the complaints weren't about what was in Cook's statement, but about the very fact that he acknowledged the book and supposedly gave the author a bunch of "free publicity." Nothing in what you say changes that in the least.

 

[Apple Corps]

I can't find the exact quote, but Jobs always mentioned the issue of agility and being able to change directions. I was referring to whether Jobs had given input over potential product lines that didn't exist while he was alive and don't exist today. The categories where Apple enjoyed the most success after his return weren't non-existent. He brought growth to those product categories regardless of what existed in the wild. The imac guaranteed Apple the sale of a display with every consumer desktop sold. The ipod paired with itunes outsold the other mp3 players in spite of not providing superior sound quality. Apple had a complete system for it with itunes, a very unique design, and strong marketing. When the iphone debuted, everyone I knew switched from Blackberries. Email and web browsing already existed on phones. The category wasn't so much new. Apple brought growth to it.

Anyway I don't know what would be an obvious mark today in terms of hardware. Their previous work has really involved consolidating other product categories. No one carries a point and shoot camera anymore. They don't need a dedicated mp3 player for most things They use their PCs less, and a phone can be used for payments in some cases. The device has value added by taking on functionality. I think improvements in auto translation would be amazing for app distribution. Analyst speculation is always in terms of Apple releasing another gadget, yet they miss the fact that Apple has never really increased the number of items people carry at any given time. I really don't know what hardware they would approach right now, and their approach up to this point has been cheaper (high quality) software justify the value of hardware.

Solid, well thought out points. The market may rigidly associate new Apple hardware as the game changing innovation that underpins Apple as a growth stock. Now it may carry more of a Microsoft profile.

My best thought about a game changer was an Apple TV (not hardware) that consolidated much of the video world as iTunes had done for music. I use the Apple TV - it is "ok" but nothing all that exciting. It has been in a "hobby" or whatever mode it is now in for 7 years I believe - tick tock. I simply do not see Cook as having the clout to pull off an iTunes offering in the video world.

----------

Wow are you wrong. That's not the #1 responsibility. Maybe therein lies your problem and faulty logic for the rest of your post.

You clearly do not have any business / corporate / executive experience.

Returning value to shareholders (owners of the corporation) IS #1.

Most everything else is how you do it.

 

[samcraig]

You clearly do not have any business / corporate / executive experience.

Returning value to shareholders (owners of the corporation) IS #1.

Most everything else is how you do it.

You're clearly wrong now on several fronts but enjoy believing otherwise.

 

[mccldwll]

----------




You clearly do not have any business / corporate / executive experience.

Returning value to shareholders (owners of the corporation) IS #1.

Most everything else is how you do it.

You really don't understand what you're talking about. You just think you do.

 

[Apple Corps]

You're clearly wrong now on several fronts but enjoy believing otherwise.

There is no "clearly wrong" about it. We shareholders own the company and expect attractive returns on our investment. Cool products / game changing innovation / new market segments / new markets are all things that accomplish the ROI.

It is our money that funded Apple - quit squandering the cash on useless buybacks and low return instruments.

How many shares do you own and for how long???

 

[samcraig]

Then you can't help me, probably because you can't actually explain the difference. We all know that this kind of statement, any kind, would be received the same way. Lots of the complaints weren't about what was in Cook's statement, but about the very fact that he acknowledged the book and supposedly gave the author a bunch of "free publicity." Nothing in what you say changes that in the least.

There's a difference between being asked about a book and saying you only know about it but haven't participated in it nor know what the contents are vs what Cook said - which was that he was intimate with the contents of the book enough to know it was nonsense.

Again - can't really be clearer than that for you. Whether or not his comments would be received the same is your conjecture. But if you can't understand the different between a statement which acknowledges the content vs acknowledging simply that the book exists - well, again, as we've established - I can't help you...

 

[IJ Reilly]

There's a difference between being asked about a book and saying you only know about it but haven't participated in it nor know what the contents are vs what Cook said - which was that he was intimate with the contents of the book enough to know it was nonsense.

Again - can't really be clearer than that for you. Whether or not his comments would be received the same is your conjecture. But if you can't understand the different between a statement which acknowledges the content vs acknowledging simply that the book exists - well, again, as we've established - I can't help you...

Several people (including you, I believe) have stated that the basic problem was simply Cook's acknowledgement of the book, and much less what he said about it. I think neither is a problem, and demonstrably so. Consider: all of this fretting about Cook's statement is confined to this board, as nearly as I can tell. I have yet to read a review of the book that dinged Cook for going on the record. In fact some reviewers (such as the NY Times review cited here) used his "nonsense" quote as a way of framing their own critiques of the book. And that's a problem how, exactly?

So conjecture it is not, since we've seen the results in black and white.

 

[mccldwll]

There is no "clearly wrong" about it. We shareholders own the company and expect attractive returns on our investment. Cool products / game changing innovation / new market segments / new markets are all things that accomplish the ROI.

It is our money that funded Apple - quit squandering the cash on useless buybacks and low return instruments.

How many shares do you own and for how long???

The more you go on, the less sense you make. Claiming "our money funded AAPL" (i.e., existing shareholders' money) is about the silliest thing you've said yet. Just keep telling yourself that you're an "owner" of AAPL (or that any shareholder in a major corporation is an "owner") if that helps you sleep better at night. In reality, you're the owner of a piece of paper giving you certain defined rights, and also certain liability protections. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The more you go on, the less sense you make. Claiming "our money funded AAPL" (i.e., existing shareholders' money) is about the silliest thing you've said yet. Just keep telling yourself that you're an "owner" of AAPL (or that any shareholder in a major corporation is an "owner") if that helps you sleep better at night. In reality, you're the owner of a piece of paper giving you certain defined rights, and also certain liability protections. Sorry to break it to you.

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

The stockholders of a public company own that company's equity. How that differs from "owning the company" is a matter of degrees, or debate, but it isn't silly to argue that a stockholder owns more than a piece of paper. It is also a bit disingenuous to suggest that "existing" shareholders are in some way less invested in the company than the holders of the shares when they were created, however many years ago. Were it not for the equity markets, those original shares would have never been created. It is our willingness to buy and trade those shares that makes the entire equity system function.

FWIW.

 

[mccldwll]

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

The stockholders of a public company own that company's equity. How that differs from "owning the company" is a matter of degrees, or debate, but it isn't silly to argue that a stockholder owns more than a piece of paper. It is also a bit disingenuous to suggest that "existing" shareholders are in some way less invested in the company than the holders of the shares when they were created, however many years ago. Were it not for the equity markets, those original shares would have never been created. It is our willingness to buy and trade those shares that makes the entire equity system function.

FWIW.

Yes, a matter of degree. And, no, I didn't say it was "silly to argue" that a shareholder owns more than a piece of paper. However (and I'm sure you're very familiar with the debate) with .9Bn shares outstanding, persons buying stock really are buying something so far removed from even fractional ownership that you might as well call it a piece of paper with rights. The fact that the anti-Cook poster seemed to believe that corporate actions at variance with his views regarding buybacks, etc. were inherently wrong demonstrates just how far removed from ownership a shareholder is (I assume he would feel the same way regardless of how many shareholders favored the actions he opposes).
Also, I didn't say that existing shareholders are "less invested" than original investors, just that the nature of their investment is different. I believe it is more than a distinction without a difference that current shareholders are purchasing from other shareholders, not from Apple. There was a direct benefit to Apple on the initial IPO. There is no direct benefit to AAPL from subsequent purchasers of those same shares.
I won't argue with your last two sentences, which belong in a NYSE pamphlet.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, a matter of degree. And, no, I didn't say it was "silly to argue" that a shareholder owns more than a piece of paper. However (and I'm sure you're very familiar with the debate) with .9Bn shares outstanding, persons buying stock really are buying something so far removed from even fractional ownership that you might as well call it a piece of paper with rights. The fact that the anti-Cook poster seemed to believe that corporate actions at variance with his views regarding buybacks, etc. were inherently wrong demonstrates just how far removed from ownership a shareholder is (I assume he would feel the same way regardless of how many shareholders favored the actions he opposes).
Also, I didn't say that existing shareholders are "less invested" than original investors, just that the nature of their investment is different. I believe it is more than a distinction without a difference that current shareholders are purchasing from other shareholders, not from Apple. There was a direct benefit to Apple on the initial IPO. There is no direct benefit to AAPL from subsequent purchasers of those same shares.
I won't argue with your last two sentences, which belong in a NYSE pamphlet.

I am familiar with this debate, but I've always thought the debate was a bit of a pointless one. If you wanted to buy an entire public company, how would you do that? You'd buy all the outstanding shares from the current owners of those shares, is what you'd do. Then you'd own the company. Happens all the time. So in that sense, shareholders very definitely do own a piece of the company. And yes, that entitles the stockholders to complain to the management if they think the company isn't being run properly. That happens all the time, too. Shareholder revolts also happen sometimes, where they turn the board of directors out or insist on some other changes.

I think it truly is a distinction without a difference to regard current shareholders as somehow "different" than the original buyers of that equity stake. IPO investors are a special class of insiders with a lot of money. They don't get into an IPO without the ability to cash out. Whether the company benefits from subsequent trading is irrelevant. They benefited from the equity markets by selling stock in the first place. Everything else comes with the territory; it's inherently part of the deal. If they should later decide they no longer want to play by those rules, then the solution is to go private. This happens sometimes too, but less than it might because in fact they do continue to benefit, because public companies frequently issue stock and options to their execs as part of their compensation.

 

[samcraig]

My comment was in regards to "The number 1 responsibility of the CEO of a publicly traded company is generating SHAREHOLDER VALUE."

I don't agree. I think it's extremely important. It might share the top 3 things a CEO's responsibility is - but I don't believe it's number one.

I also believe that if you buy stock, you are investing in a company and are entrusting that investment to the company based on past and potential performance in the hopes that that investment brings reward. So unless particular policies are voted on, and while you're free to gripe as much as you want, that doesn't mean you have a a say in what the company does. Today it's whether they match a charity contribution - what's next - you're going to complain that they don't serve pasta on thursdays or that you think it should cost .25 more per meatball?

You can not like it all you want. But some people choose to rant with "It's my money and I don't want him spending it on that" - The put up or shut up. You have options. Don't invest because you don't like how he runs the company. Sell your shares because you don't like how he runs the company. Fire off an email or letter and register your complain.

But coming on here as if it matters is ridiculous. And I think most here know that those complaining about charity matching on here are doing just that - complaining on here. They aren't sending a letter to Tim or the Board. So again - if all those people who are complaining aren't taking real action - then I find the rant pretty much a waste of time.

 

[gnasher729]

Errr... everyone would expect that Tim Cook would not have agreed with the book...by actually speaking out he has legitimised the book and made himself (and Apple) look insecure.

Tim Cook read your post and said "nonsense".

----------

"I don't know anything about the book" would not be believable. Everyone has known for months that the book was coming. To simply ignore it would be like sticking his head in the sand.

What about "I told my assistant to inform me about any books with interesting information about Apple. I don't know anything about this book".

 

[mccldwll]

I think it truly is a distinction without a difference to regard current shareholders as somehow "different" than the original buyers of that equity stake. IPO investors are a special class of insiders with a lot of money. They don't get into an IPO without the ability to cash out. Whether the company benefits from subsequent trading is irrelevant.

You acknowledge that IPO investors, the ones who actually gave AAPL money for stock, are a special class, but say it's irrelevant. I say it's not. We disagree.