Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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???

You sound like you're thinking of your own bank account, not a lot else.
 
I read the book

It seemed good until the trial segment, then it seemed that the author took a much more severe turn into the jeremiad territory and I found it hard to agree with. Is Apple slowing a bit, yes. But they are one of the biggest companies in the world now, and that was inevitable. They are transitioning from a rapid growth to a slower growth path. Still very profitable, margins are a bit less now, but their competitors would certainly take the profits Apple makes any day. The stock is less of a darling, but Wall Street is schizoid anyway.
 
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.

Special, in that they have the minimum stake required to be invited to the IPO party. Typically this is $1M. Irrelevant is not the word I used to describe their distinction as investors, but how I described the importance of subsequent trading to the company. You lopped off the rest of my point, apparently so you wouldn't have to address it.

So you disagree with an argument I haven't actually made, and responded to pretty much nothing that I actually did say. Feel free to discuss further, but not in these terms. Thank you.
 
More strikes against this book :D

167ov0x.jpg
 
More strikes against this book :D

Image

I don't think it matters a bit how many people hate the book. As I have maintained - if anything, it will fuel sales because people will be curious what has everyone so "upset" about.

Your glee and posting of every negative review is amusing though.
 
I don't think it matters a bit how many people hate the book. As I have maintained - if anything, it will fuel sales because people will be curious what has everyone so "upset" about.

Your glee and posting of every negative review is amusing though.

No my glee is getting a response from you every time I post something about it. :D

Anyway if she can't get something as simple as what car(s) Phil Schiller owns right then it doesn't give much confidence to the accuracy of the rest of the book.
 
No my glee is getting a response from you every time I post something about it. :D

Anyway if she can't get something as simple as what car(s) Phil Schiller owns right then it doesn't give much confidence to the accuracy of the rest of the book.

It just doesn't matter though. I would imagine now that people would read it just to see HOW wrong she has it or to see what the hoopla is about.

But I'm glad you're just posting this for my benefit. Clearly that's the reason ;)
 
It just doesn't matter though. I would imagine now that people would read it just to see HOW wrong she has it or to see what the hoopla is about.

But I'm glad you're just posting this for my benefit. Clearly that's the reason ;)

It does matter, though. Granted some people are attracted to trash, but most serious people don't have time to waste on it. Put it this way: it won't sell like the Steve Jobs biography, which for its faults, was seen as a serious effort.
 
It just doesn't matter though. I would imagine now that people would read it just to see HOW wrong she has it or to see what the hoopla is about.

But I'm glad you're just posting this for my benefit. Clearly that's the reason ;)


I personally don't know anyone willing to waste the time and money on what arguably is tabloid trash. Your mileage may vary.
 
Special, in that they have the minimum stake required to be invited to the IPO party. Typically this is $1M. Irrelevant is not the word I used to describe their distinction as investors, but how I described the importance of subsequent trading to the company. You lopped off the rest of my point, apparently so you wouldn't have to address it.

So you disagree with an argument I haven't actually made, and responded to pretty much nothing that I actually did say. Feel free to discuss further, but not in these terms. Thank you.


Our disagreement is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I was responding to Apple Corpse's statement that "t is our money that funded Apple - quit squandering the cash on useless buybacks and low return instruments." IMO, its ridiculous for an individual shareholder in a publicly held corporation to consider himself an owner whose opinions on management's decisions are entitled to any weight (unless he can convince a majority). More like the rantings of a mad man.
 
It does matter, though. Granted some people are attracted to trash, but most serious people don't have time to waste on it. Put it this way: it won't sell like the Steve Jobs biography, which for its faults, was seen as a serious effort.

Well that's obvious....
 
Our disagreement is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I was responding to Apple Corpse's statement that "t is our money that funded Apple - quit squandering the cash on useless buybacks and low return instruments." IMO, its ridiculous for an individual shareholder in a publicly held corporation to consider himself an owner whose opinions on management's decisions are entitled to any weight (unless he can convince a majority). More like the rantings of a mad man.


Well, I agree with that much. This debate really isn't relevant to the story at hand. That being said I wouldn't take the position that it's ridiculous or mad for a relatively small stockholder to express their views about how the company is run. It might be unrealistic to expect any results, but it's certainly within their rights. Individual stockholders were asking Steve Jobs about dividends at annual meetings long before one was declared, so maybe it wasn't such a fool's errand after all.

----------

Well that's obvious....

Yup. So why are we debating as though it isn't obvious?

----------

Incontrovertible proof that this book is nonsense...

Rob Enderle thinks its good.

:D

Excellent.
 
Where, in Tim's statement, does he say anything about "art by committee"? So, Steve did all the programming and Jony designed every piece of hardware by himself while the rest of Apple's employees brought them coffee every day? Tim is giving credit where credit is due. It takes a great team to build a successful company and to create successful products.

Jobs DROVE the company. He had balls and wit and wasn't afraid of making waves. Cook cites 85,000 employees as justification for Apple's continued existence. If you don't get the significance, you're probably a follower.
 
You are so smart. Steve put him at the helm. Is Steve just an ignorant judge of people's ability. If Tim is clueless I guess Steve must have wanted the company to fail so it would make him look like the only person able to run Apple. It is amazing how stupid some people are. He would not have the Job if he was not up to the challenge. Most people these days judge people by the way they look. Shallow, ignorant, judgmental hypocrites.

Yes, and Steve knew how good he would be at the front of apple even before he was.

----------

If you say it in that context sure. But that 8GB phone has a 8MP camera dual core processor clocked at 1.3 GHZ 1GB of RAM and a 326PPI IPS display. Thats not a product from 2008.

What?

Is it slow?

Is the screen bad?

Does the camera take bad pictures?

No, so the hell up, I know quad-core phones that are slower, and 20MP cameras that take worse pictures.

How much pipelines does that processor have?

How much cache memory?

What's the latency of that ram?

What's the pixel pitch of that camera?

If you aren't an engineer, don't pretend you are, don't even think you can read specs.
 
You are so smart. Steve put him at the helm. Is Steve just an ignorant judge of people's ability. If Tim is clueless I guess Steve must have wanted the company to fail so it would make him look like the only person able to run Apple. It is amazing how stupid some people are. He would not have the Job if he was not up to the challenge. Most people these days judge people by the way they look. Shallow, ignorant, judgmental hypocrites.

Well the author of this book apparently believes this. She claims to have sources who say Steve would never want Apple to be more successful under Cook than it was under him.
 
Well the author of this book apparently believes this. She claims to have sources who say Steve would never want Apple to be more successful under Cook than it was under him.

That is NOT what she said. Just because you keep asserting it doesn't make it true. You're just as guilty as she is for making knowingly inaccurate statements.

Congratulations.
 
That is NOT what she said. Just because you keep asserting it doesn't make it true. You're just as guilty as she is for making knowingly inaccurate statements.

Congratulations.

That is exactly what she said. From an interview with Kane:

“I have talked to people who knew Steve who speculate that part of the reason he chose Tim Cook was that he knew Tim Cook would do a good job leading Apple and running the business, but that he knew that he also wasn’t going to exceed Steve Jobs at being Steve Jobs. His legacy wouldn’t be complete until Apple was seen to fade a little bit.”

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/steve-jobs-wouldnt-want-tim-cook-do-better-he-did
 
"Steve would never want Apple to be more successful under Cook than it was under him."

No - she asserted that Steve was seen to fade a bit. "never" be more successful is a bit extreme.

You are just obfuscating now. Further:

Do you think Steve Jobs would be taking a little pleasure in Tim Cook’s struggle?

“The first time it was announced that Steve Jobs had cancer the stock fell only 2 percent. And Steve’s reaction was, ‘That’s it?’ He was very disappointed. So he wouldn’t want Tim Cook to do better than he did.”

Right from the mouth of the ol' horse. The statement made by Rogifan was perfectly accurate as a representation of Kane's opinions, bizarre though they may be.
 
You are just obfuscating now. Further:



Right from the mouth of the 'ol horse. The statement made by Rogifan was perfectly accurate as a representation of Kane's opinions, bizarre though they may be.

We know exactly what she meant. I guess the Jobs worshipers here who think he was perfect and could do no wrong but think Cook & Co. are failures must feel the same way.
 
You are just obfuscating now. Further:



Right from the mouth of the ol' horse. The statement made by Rogifan was perfectly accurate as a representation of Kane's opinions, bizarre though they may be.

We see what was want to see. And I don't have any stake in what she did or didn't imply nor Tim or Steve.

However.
"“The first time it was announced that Steve Jobs had cancer the stock fell only 2 percent. And Steve’s reaction was, ‘That’s it?’ He was very disappointed. So he wouldn’t want Tim Cook to do better than he did.” "

He was disappointed that reports of his health didn't have a greater impact on the stock is not the same as wishing others failure. Whose quote us "So he wouldn’t want Tim Cook to do better than he did" - her? 3rd party?

That's interpretation and a leap in logic regardless.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.