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 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.
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.
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![]()
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.
You sound like you're thinking of your own bank account, not a lot else.
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.
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 that's obvious....
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.