Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Angela Ahrendts May Delay Apple Start Until Mid-Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anybody who doesn't think that Tim wouldn't be capable of waiting a bit longer so she could get her bonus, or if he couldn't wait but really wanted her wasn't capable of throwing a signing bonus equivalent to her annual Bb bonus on the table to get her sooner might rethink these premises.
If after looking for a year, she's his gotta-have gal, then I don't think Tim would see the bonus amount as too big a number to pay, to get her on board sooner, as he might in some other expenditure category.
To be honest, Apple is throwing off so much money, Apple can well afford to spend too much on either gambles, mistakes or acceleration measures, just to increase the scope and size of its revenue and profit. This becomes more true as the base numbers (against which % changes are calculated) increase.
And who's to say she's not moonlighting outside of her Bb workhours? (Both companies get served, Bb gets a transition coach, Apple gets a not yet hands-on SVP that transitions in from a short-term consulting position.
If after looking for a year, she's his gotta-have gal, then I don't think Tim would see the bonus amount as too big a number to pay, to get her on board sooner, as he might in some other expenditure category.
To be honest, Apple is throwing off so much money, Apple can well afford to spend too much on either gambles, mistakes or acceleration measures, just to increase the scope and size of its revenue and profit. This becomes more true as the base numbers (against which % changes are calculated) increase.
And who's to say she's not moonlighting outside of her Bb workhours? (Both companies get served, Bb gets a transition coach, Apple gets a not yet hands-on SVP that transitions in from a short-term consulting position.
Last edited:
And I agree, as it appears she has earned it. Conversely, when high-level executives do not meet expectations, or worse, screw up, those bonuses should definitely be off the table, as in those cases they are an affront to regular working people, and are somewhat linked to the cynicism of society towards those in the higher echelons.
*Gasp!*
Dissing the President of the 12 Colonies? You're not Gaius Baltar in disguise are you?
Johnson't mistake was taking the JCP job to start with. Bunch of gutless wonders on the board who didn't have the huevos to follow through on a vision that might have saved a dying company. After watching what the guy did at Target and Apple they would have to be idiots not to know what he had planned for the dinosaur that was JCP.
They'll fail no matter what, and he was their best, last chance. The real tragedy is that he was a rising star before taking the job, and their blind idiocy damaged his reputation.
As far as the idea that Johnson was trying to make changes too quickly, that's BS. Apple didn't need Browett to turn the retail side into a bunch of bean counters in order to survive. JCP is pretty much on life support. When the doctor walks up to the table and sees a patient who's dying he doesn't order a sponge bath.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
surely this is not turning into a debate on Battlestar Gallactica
Apple should just buy the Gallactica!
Gallactica is an abomination and stupid since it doesn't run iOS or OS X
New thinner & lighter Gallactica? Shut up and take my money, I'm already in line, etc.
New Gallactica feels snappier
New Gallactica G5 on Tue
How can it be called a good move? She hasn't done anything yet. And there is no way the success of one company can be attributed to one person. Yes, not even to Jobs.
At those levels it always a tradeoff between higher title and higher ceiling..Being the retail Head of Apple and being successful at that opens up a ton of doors for her both at apple or at a different company, much larger than Burberry. She surely hasn't come this far by making stupid decisions..
From managing ~$3.5 bn to managing ~$ 200 bn doesn't sound like a downgrade to me. This division is much larger than her current company. The difference is that she can't make major strategic decisions without Tim's ok. But if they play well, they'll head the same direction anyway. I think it's a win-win-win situation.
If her successor(s) are not ready to handle things themselves after 6 months, that's not a very good sign for them.
But it isn't BS. Johnson's moves at JCP were not working on the financial side of the business, which in the end is all that matters. They were rapidly alienating their longtime customer base and not finding a new customer base. Johnson had the opportunity at Apple to start a retail operation from scratch, which he did brilliantly, but at JCP the problem was quite a different one. The bottom line was the bottom line. His plan wasn't working.
What Apple needed on the retail side you have no idea. But as with Johnson at JCP, Apple had to know why they hired Browett. I personally suspect it had to do with efficiencies. Deride that as "bean counting" if you don't have more imagination for the subject, but it changes nothing. In the end Apple had no more stomach for Browett's plans than JCP had for Johnson's. Whether either one could have helped their companies had they stuck to the plan, we will never know.
... and next-in-line to be CEO of Apple after Tim retires. No one else currently at Apple (except on the board) has any experience running an entire high-profile big corporation.
The board may even require this as succession planning in case Tim takes a bad fall on a bike ride or some-such.
Well at least on paper. Time will tell if she is 1) a good fit with Apple's corporate culture & 2) she understands why people love Apple products. Steve Jobs thought John Sculley was a great pickup when he convinced him to jump from Pepsi.
Burberry seems a much better fit for Apple's culture than Pepsi does or ever did, Jobs was wrong on that one. Same thing with Browett, Dillard's seems pretty much the polar opposite of Apple culture (by all accounts, I'm not in the UK), and that predictably failed.
Burberry sells high end products to people "with taste and discrimination" (real or perceived, doesn't matter), and values a long term relationship with their customers almost above all else (again, here's what Browett didn't understand). They value impeccable presentation and they prefer to sell to customers who can afford the higher end at the expense of casting the widest possible net to sell to everyone on the planet (i.e. Pepsi).
And along the way they hope to get some people who are perhaps less affluent to aspire to own their products. If the products are desirable enough, perhaps they stretch their budget to afford them. In any case, whether they get a particular sale or not, there is a status and desire created for the brand. But at the same time, they have a range of products that a large number of people can afford, so it's not super exclusive like very high end fashion, watches, etc.
Which all sounds a lot like Apple, so I think she will be a pretty good fit from that perspective.
