And what exactly did you do in the publishing industry?
----------
Exactly. And it's called DENIAL of the 'broken halo' effect.
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.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls New 'Haunted Empire' Book 'Nonsense'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And what exactly did you do in the publishing industry?
----------
Exactly. And it's called DENIAL of the 'broken halo' effect.
The book was intended to drive a negative perception of AAPL. That was Kane's agenda from the start, despite her claims to the contrary. The list of interests with beaucoup bucks which would profit by damaging/slowing AAPL is long. Kane would fail a polygraph on this issue alone--the agenda behind the book and the slanting of the "reporting". It was nothing but a hit piece and AAPL knew it was coming. Cook's remark was required.
Who is angry?? Which part of the comment angry?? All I see is the record being set straight.
I run my own company/work from home. But all the applications I need for work are under Windows (with a few for OSX). Rather than having to buy a new computer I'd rather Apple just fix the problem a lot of people are having, y'know?
It's a shame Apple pushed so much to get us to ditch everything in favour of using iPhones. If this problem isn't fixed I'm going to have to get a different phone for calls+GPS, and maybe a separate MP3 player. Because "leave your phone at home" negates the point of the phone, no?
There's a famous quote from the Godfather book and he says to his son:
" Never get angry ".
There's a reason why he made that advice.
Tim Cook FAILED in that.
Oh, and blindly following Apple is very " 1984 ". Read the book by George Orwell some time.
----------
No, I smell a set up. I suspect since Tim cussed out a Republican shareholder at a recent meeting regarding environmental issues, she may have been given a 'green light' to release her secret work out in the limelight to give Cook a hard time. It may be politically and financially motivated by Wall Street.
But it's possible Forstall may have been talking to her in secret behind the scenes. Who knows?
----------
I agree with Tim Cook, book is nonsense. It's been 30 years. Yes, apple has had some rough times but they are doing well now and they will be fine.....:
You agree with Cook without READING the book? Did you actually READ it?
I think that most people won't pay any attention.
Or at least, they wouldn't have if Cook hadn't acknowledged the book like he did.
It's the same mistake that Apple made going after Samsung. All it did was validate Samsung as a competitor, and give them years of publicity for less money than they spend in a single month with their own ads.
Hey, if it's in a book or on the internet, "it must be true" (tm)
It's also unfortunate that deep research seems to be a lost art in reporting.
I guess people don't realize that Kane already was getting publicity for this book? She was interviewed on CNBC and NPR and in the NY Times. She was also part of a panel discussion on Apple run by Adam Lashinsky of Fortune magazine. Becky Quick from the CNBC shows Squawk Box emailed Tom Cook asking him what he thought of the book. Sure he could have said "no comment". But it wouldn't have stopped CNBC from talking about it and debating its premise.
Kane was already getting attention before Cook said anything.
But I say let her get more of it. Because the more people hear her speak the more put off they'll be by her. Especially with garbage about Steve wanting Apple to fail after he died because he couldn't stand the company being successful without him. And that somehow Apple declining after he'd gone would secure his legacy. I wonder what Tony Fadell thinks of her "reporting" that he wanted Apple to acquire Nest because he had designs on Cook's job.
Kane was already getting attention before Cook said anything.
But I say let her get more of it. Because the more people hear her speak the more put off they'll be by her. Especially with garbage about Steve wanting Apple to fail after he died because he couldn't stand the company being successful without him. And that somehow Apple declining after he'd gone would secure his legacy. I wonder what Tony Fadell thinks of her "reporting" that he wanted Apple to acquire Nest because he had designs on Cook's job.
So. You claim that he failed to follow the advice of a fictional mob boss to his fictional son? I believe the expression is: "Whatever".
This book was greenlighted months ago and everyone knew what was coming. Kane was pushing it in a New Yorker blog and was roundly trashed for its tabloid quality, nonsensical conclusions and absence of attributions. It's a negative hit piece. Reading it would be complete waste of time. Please feel free to waste your time if you really believe it's anything more than tabloid trash, but don't expect anyone else to waste theirs.
True, but nothing raises a flag like a book's target commenting on it.
It's like when someone attacks you on the internet. If you cannot bring simple facts in return, then the best action is to ignore it, because ...
Exactly. It's always better to let a person make themselves look foolish, than to try to do it yourself, which often validates them to people instead.
Who's claiming innovation with the 8GB 5C? It's an entry level smartphone for a different market. It's not even for sale in the U.S.
Give them "years of publicity for less money than they spend in a single month..." You're kidding, right? Surely you know about Samsung's ad budget. But heh, your assertion is on the internet and, if it's on the internet, "it must be true."
I admit to not reading the book. However I don't think you have either. Did she state that or are you coming to that conclusion. Did she actually say or imply that Jobs wanted the company to NOT be successful or "fail" - or did she intimate more that Jobs was hoping that his presence would be missed and that he had hoped that the company would never be the same without him.
You know - there's a hyperbolic difference between saying Jobs wanted Apple to FAIL vs saying Jobs never wanted someone to be as good as he was for the company. Or even that he was hoping that Apple was never AS successful as when he was in charge.
Big difference.
Is it not possible to just cancel the sync? Seems like there are easier solutions. I have had syncs that were taking a while so I just canceled it and restarted.
Did you not look at the Apple Support thread? People have tried that and everything, there is something wrong with iTunes that causes syncs to take 6-24 hours just to send over something as small as a new song. Restarting, formatting, loading up the device in iExplorer and removing files. Nothing works.
Word. Apple released so many disappointing products in the past few years... who is believing in such delusional nonsense, when the only thing you did as the CEO was iterating?
The only thing Apple has done since SJ is to iterate things 'he' invented. Another iPhone, another iPad, another iPhone, another iPad... in all sizes, wrapped in every material... and keep talking about how innovative and awesome Apple is. This PR talk was always at least questionable, but such praises are starting to get more and more ridiculous, when TC keeps failing to deliver any of this 'phenomenal awesomeness'.
Don't get me wrong, I like Apple, but I'm getting really skeptical towards this companys and CEOs 'behavior'. Will we ever get some of this awesomeness or is this a dead company talking about life?
This is what she said. I'm sorry but I do think its nonsense that Steve gave Cook the CEO job because he wanted Apple to fade after he died. How is that making his legacy complete, since Apple the company is really his legacy? Apple fading after he's gone would only prove that Steve wasn't good at succession planning or leaving behind a company that could thrive without him.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/steve-jobs-wouldnt-want-tim-cook-do-better-he-did
Last edited by a moderator:
Disappointing probably isnt the right word. Maybe the phrase "non-innovative" would be better? I love my ipad Air but its really just a later gen version of the ipad 1. Same for the phones and iPod touch....
Nothing new about any of it.
Worse than naive, it is unprofessional and purely self-serving. Essentially it's a cheap rhetorical trick: "anyone who disagrees with me or corrects my errors is confirming just how right I was in the first place." It's the kind of thinking you see on chat boards like this one, and isn't the type of reasoning that should come from a professional journalist.
Well... Apple has changed. Is not longer as a computer company but is going towards a technology company. With the iPhone and the iPad things changed big time.
Then, innovation... that is something that Steve Jobs did. Tim Cook is not an "innovator" he is a manager.
Then, innovation... that is something that Steve Jobs did. Tim Cook is not an "innovator" he is a manager.
Becky Quick from CNBC emailed Tim Cook and asked him about the book. Whether his response was a carefully planned response crafted by Apple PR or an off the cuff response we'll never know. But I still think the people giving her attention would have done so regardless of whether Cook responded or not. There's nothing CNBC loves more than gossip about Apple and debating whether Apple is doomed or not.
well what did u expect it to be? What would have made the iPad Air innovating? You can't answer that.
There is no doubt about the fact that Apple has been treated differently in the press since Jobs died. I just hope this increased skepticism about the prospects of the company won't lead it to make stupid decisions, like releasing new product categories to appease the doubters, rather than because they solve a genuine real-life problem.
Because we all tend to overestimate our own personal capabilities and impact on the world (and because it makes for easier, catchier stories), people tend to exaggerate the impact of individuals on nations, organizations, etc. Jobs' aura protected Apple from market skepticism in the past but there's no real basis for expecting that an Apple with Jobs would have been able to sustain the innovative pace of the iPod-iPad era better than Tim Cook's Apple.
Because we all tend to overestimate our own personal capabilities and impact on the world (and because it makes for easier, catchier stories), people tend to exaggerate the impact of individuals on nations, organizations, etc. Jobs' aura protected Apple from market skepticism in the past but there's no real basis for expecting that an Apple with Jobs would have been able to sustain the innovative pace of the iPod-iPad era better than Tim Cook's Apple.