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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That would be correct - why else would an investor be investing their money in a company's stock for goodness sake?
It is called INVESTING.....
Last edited:
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.
----------
Yup. So why are we debating as though it isn't obvious?
----------
Excellent.
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.
Those self confidence books on tape you've been listening to are really doing wonders for your attitude, Mums. You're so assertive now.
Yes, and Steve knew how good he would be at the front of apple even before he was.
----------
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.
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 exactly what she said. From an interview with Kane:
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:
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.
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 Steves reaction was, Thats it? He was very disappointed. So he wouldnt 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 wouldnt want Tim Cook to do better than he did" - her? 3rd party?
That's interpretation and a leap in logic regardless.