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 Shareholder Meeting Notes: iPhone, iTunes Movies, Jobs' Successor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If we're going actors, why not get Batman's outfitter - Morgan Freeman. He'd have the coolest tech in town
That worries me, how much will the stock tank right after he announces he is retiring?
That will be the answer for those always complainig about Apple turning into another Microsoft, LOL.
I think the wicket witch of the west is more attractive than her.
Let's face it Jobs isn't going to be replaced by just the next CEO he going to be replace by the whole 3Letter Team. There won't be the single figure type person those are rare.
Each one likely to be the star of their own keynote each year and support cast at others. Jon Ives for Product launches and Macworld share with Tim Butcher The iPod guy, Tim Cook and Robert Op stars at Financial and Shareholder functions.
Good thing most the pieces are in place.
Each one likely to be the star of their own keynote each year and support cast at others. Jon Ives for Product launches and Macworld share with Tim Butcher The iPod guy, Tim Cook and Robert Op stars at Financial and Shareholder functions.
Good thing most the pieces are in place.
Another good one. Oratory skills are key
There are plenty of them in Hollywood, not many in Cupertino.
I think Jony Ive would be a good successor. He seems like he would keep some of that old hippy-ness that Jobs had in the early days when Apple seemed so revolutionary. I think that his succession along with keeping the other executives like Tim Cook and Michael Oppenheimer in place would be a good fit. But regardless of who Jobs picks, if indeed it is primarily his decision, they will be the best person for the job.
And hey, if it turns out to be a total failure, Jobs can just step inside Time Machine and undo the damage.
And hey, if it turns out to be a total failure, Jobs can just step inside Time Machine and undo the damage.
Ive is a great designer, but Apparently Jobs and the board don't think he has what it takes, otherwise his name would have been in the list.
If we're going actors, why not get Batman's outfitter - Morgan Freeman. He'd have the coolest tech in town
Agreed. He would totally trump SLJ.
I'd like to see Ives get at least a consideration, if he declines, I'd be cool with that too. I just want the company to be in good hands when Jobs is done. I'd hate to have a repeat of what happened when he left the first time...
What do people think qualifies Ive as the successor to Jobs? So far those in favour seem to be of the opinion that he projects the right image and isn't a suit. Remember Jobs may have a strong vision for Apple but don't let the turtleneck fool you - the man is first and foremost a suit and a ruthless one and that. Perhaps this is indicative of Apple's ability to sell an image, where the CEO has to conform to some artisic ideal. As anyone who worked in Apple (and i'm sure that there are plenty others on here who did) will tell you, Apple is fundamentally not much different from most multi-national corporations.
"It's a great vote," said Scott Adams, a research coordinator at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a member of the AFL-CIO, which sponsored the proposal. Even though Apple is "a great company, shareholders still want a say on pay,"
Article Link
What business the the AFL-CIO have to determine compensation for Apple's executives? Unions, these days, just have to have their hands in everyone's pockets, don't they?
No, but there's always a chance he could just randomly die tomorrow, as much as anyone else could. Corporations plan their future decades in advance, and obviously Jobs isn't going to live forever, so it's not unusual at all for corporations to plan successors for the current CEO.
It's just like how the Constitution has an amendment that explains who will succeed who if the president died or w/e...
Things are very different this time around. The first time Jobs left, honestly, the Mac OS wasn't all that great, and the success of Windows 3 proved this. The old Apple of the 90s had a major issue with releasing hardware that was overpriced and underpowered. But the "new" Apple has the iPod, Mac OS X (which is really good) and a huge brand loyalty following. Thus, at this point, it probably wouldn't make a ton of difference who the CEO was.Agreed. He would totally trump SLJ.
I'd like to see Ives get at least a consideration, if he declines, I'd be cool with that too. I just want the company to be in good hands when Jobs is done. I'd hate to have a repeat of what happened when he left the first time...
Should that read sell the 10 millionth iPhone? I lost track of sales a while ago, but I thought the original goal was 10 million, soo....
Nope. The original goal was exactly what he said, 10 million in 2008. And it has been reiterated in multiple conference calls, this is yet another confirmation.
A number of news stories misreported it as 10M by the end of 2008, but if you look at the keynotes and conference calls, it's clearly 10M in 2008.
Management is very important. That's way the CEOs gets paid so much. The shareholders don't give the CEOs money just to be nice, they do it to get good people and to reward good performance.
The iPod and the new Mac generations came about under Steve Jobs' management. The market expects Apple to grow. Apple can't just continue selling the existing products for the next few years. The company needs to innovate and improve it's products all the time.
Would Scott Forestall be considered?
Or is he not experienced yet? Either way, I hope Steve stays at Apple for a while yet, he provides leadership and direction. People often disagree with him, but he is rarely completely wrong and often he gets it spectacularly right (too many times for it too be a fluke).
Or is he not experienced yet? Either way, I hope Steve stays at Apple for a while yet, he provides leadership and direction. People often disagree with him, but he is rarely completely wrong and often he gets it spectacularly right (too many times for it too be a fluke).
Exactly, I agree with you everything you say. All I'm saying is that there are other people who would be just as capable as Jobs is when it comes to managing the company. I think the RDF has let some people to believe that Jobs can someone only be Apple's sole CEO.
I believe that Tim Cook has been the substitute CEO every time Jobs had to briefly step down, due to health reasons, etc.
If the union pension fund holds Apple stock...a whole lot of business. Is there a reason why they should'nt? (Aside from reflexive union bashing, that is....)
Apple has traditionally done whatever is good for the company and its business instead of any dubious activities to manipulate the share price. Buying back shares means giving your hard earned cash to people who at the second they receive the money cease to be share holders. Why would you do that?
Because by removing those shareholders from the list of owners, they commit highway robbery and screw over those ex shareholders by influencing the stock to rise?
What better way to put your thumb in somebody's eye than by agreeing to buy something they are actively selling that you know will be worth more in the future! You know the secret that they don't - all those great products that are coming down the line and the profits that will start growing from ATT and O2 and the rest.
Lately, he seems to have become even more of an ego maniac then he previously was. His ideas have always been a little different, and yeah, that's what makes Apple the company we love, but some of the products that have come out lately don't seem to make a lot of sense in where they are targeted/how to use them and what they are for in general.
It seems like he's running out of great idea's, and is just pulling stuff out of his @$$.