Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"but the impression Kane gives readers is that she reached her conclusion before even embarking on the project, proceeding to selectively choose anecdotes to support her predetermined view"

What a completely subjective view of the book, stated as fact.
 
A simple Google (gasp!) search for whatever device concept you'd like to see will suffice. No need to post what I'd prefer here.

Is this your refusal to give a direct answer?
You said there are many different concepts better than Apple ones.
I said "which ones, tell everyone here so we all know".
You said "go search it yourself".

Telling us to go find an answer does not mean that answer exists. It does not mean the answer does not exist either. It just means for whatever reason, you refused to give an answer.
 
Is this your refusal to give a direct answer?
You said there are many different concepts better than Apple ones.
I said "which ones, tell everyone here so we all know".
You said "go search it yourself".

Telling us to go find an answer does not mean that answer exists. It does not mean the answer does not exist either. It just means for whatever reason, you refused to give an answer.

Sigh. No, I gave an answer, even if you didn't understand it.

Let me clarify: what I said is that there are many Apple concepts that I prefer. I don't have those readily available, which means I'd have to search for them, attach them here, and then listen to you and others say how much they suck. I don't need to justify my taste to anyone. Which is besides the point I was trying to make in the first place: I am ready to see a different person at the head of design at Apple.

Some folks here believe that saying "this is better" actually makes it a fact. There are a few though, that actually see through the inane cheerleading and understand it for what it really is: opinion.
 
Sigh. No, I gave an answer, even if you didn't understand it.

Let me clarify: what I said is that there are many Apple concepts that I prefer. I don't have those readily available, which means I'd have to search for them, attach them here, and then listen to you and others say how much they suck. I don't need to justify my taste to anyone. Which is besides the point I was trying to make in the first place: I am ready to see a different person at the head of design at Apple.

Some folks here believe that saying "this is better" actually makes it a fact. There are a few though, that actually see through the inane cheerleading and understand it for what it really is: opinion.

Yep. And I'm not sure what Dieter Rams has to do with anything. The last thing I think of when I look at my iPad Air or iPhone 5S is Braun.

Honestly I think Phil Schiller needs to be given new duties and Apple should bring on someone else to run marketing. That's where they need fresh ideas. I'm hoping when Angela Ahrendts comes on board she'll have some influence there.

That answers part of the question. And Apple profits answer the other part of the question. Companies only make products to make profit (if you are a smart company) and Apple do the whole making profit thing better than almost anyone else.

If you or I or anyone else like the concepts from Apple, that is not really the point here. I don't like the look of every Apple product. But I can not arguer with their success.

I thought the 20th century mac looked not so good and I liked the look of the white C2D iMac. Just two examples of many.

And still you refuse to give any examples of what concepts you think are better than what Apple have put out. If you don't want to say what concepts you prefer, that is fine. You said you prefer other3 concepts and when asked "which ones do you prefer, you refused to answer. Your choice, but it is kind of strange. We're not here to judge you. i was generally interested to see what concepts / concept design you like. Out of curiosity. Was never going to judge you as opinion is not right or wrong, it's just an opinion.

You chose to be ultra defensive on this point. You do not want to give more details, fine. Just next time if you don't want to give more details on a subject, maybe it's just best not to start talking on that subject in the first place. Unless you enjoy refusing to answer people's questions. If you do enjoy that, it's cool, whatever makes you happy.

And we agree to disagree about if Jon Ive leaving Apple will be very bad or not. I think he is irreplaceable.
 
As a share-holder, I don't want to be forced to donate to charities that I may dislike. Or I may want to focus my charities on causes I find more worthy than others. Charity is not Apple's area of business.

I can donate to the charities I want to with my dividends, and so can the other shareholders. Nothing against employees donating to charity, but that is their personal business.

There is a reason Jobs didn't get Apple involved in this kind of stuff for the most part. I buy Apple products because they are the superior, not because Apple does cheap PR gimmicks like matching charity contributions.

Now I understand your POV, especially as a stockholder, so thanks. I do think it's going a bit too far to call it a cheap PR stunt, though. Matching is a fairly common practice that encourages employees to get involved in rewarding causes outside of work, and employees tend to like it. I remember reading at the time Cook did it that it was a very popular move at Apple, and that employees had wanted it for a long time. In a hyper-competitive job market, where talent retention is key, I find it hard to believe that this policy was anything but a well reasoned strategy to make Apple's benefit compensation commensurate with other top tech firms. Employees might have "dealt" with the lack of matching funds in the past as a small price to pay for working under Steve Job's. After his death, that rationale disappeared.

It also seems funny to me to think of it as if each individual stockholder is being forced to donate to charities they may or may not like. As stockholders, we also indirectly help to pay employees salaries, some of whom have very different political and religious beliefs than us, but I don't feel as though I'm supporting their beliefs against my will because I've given Apple money as a stockholder.

As you correctly pointed out, charity isn't Apple's area of business, but I'd add that employee retention is. And with that in mind, the matching funds policy seems like a relatively small, and wise, post-Steve investment.
 
It also seems funny to me to think of it as if each individual stockholder is being forced to donate to charities they may or may not like. As stockholders, we also indirectly help to pay employees salaries, some of whom have very different political and religious beliefs than us, but I don't feel as though I'm supporting their beliefs against my will because I've given Apple money as a stockholder.

Thats really not how Stocks traded on the public market work.

But I get your point. As an owner of portion of a company, you have to be accepting of a lot. Personal prejudices should be left at the door, and in fact are often Illegal in dealing with business proceedings.
 
Oh you see - there's something you should know. It's not your money. You gave it to Apple to manage and run their business how they want. If they put something up for a vote to its shareholders - you have your say. But like every other company - it needs a majority to pass.

This.

Shareholders do not own a company. They are investing in the company's ideas and work, just as they might invest in a person's future.

The brains of the corporate person are its board members. They control the corporation's actions, assets, and dividends.

The board members have a duty beyond shareholder value, and can make decisions that instead prioritize employees, customers, or the community.

--

Samsung, for example, often contributes to local educational charities in the US.

Google often provides free WiFi to neighborhoods around their campuses or office buildings.

Companies like Verizon have long matched employee contributions, among other charitable actions, along with collecting used phones and redistributing them to abused spouses who need private communication.

Apple, under Cook, is simply finally starting to act like a corporation that is a good citizen.
 
Oh you see - there's something you should know. It's not your money. You gave it to Apple to manage and run their business how they want. If they put something up for a vote to its shareholders - you have your say. But like every other company - it needs a majority to pass.

You weren't forced to donate. Just like you weren't forced to buy stock. Have a nice day.

Actually, I never gave any money to Apple to manage. I bought shares that were originally publicly offered by Apple. In other words, I capitalized Apple in exchange for a proportional share of ownership. Apple is not "managing my money". Apple should be fulfilling it's corporate mandate. The fact that it is a consumer electronics company is entirely relevant. If Apple can think of no worthwhile (profitable) investment to make with it's profits, they should be returned to shareholders and not diverted to out-of-scope schemes. This is corporate governance 101. Now you are right that as a shareholder, my remedy is to vote for better governance if I disagree with it.

Please note that the question I answered is why I dislike charity contribution matching. Your suggestion that it's not my money (correct), my business (actually it is), and that I should vote (duh) is as useless and irrelevant as it was unsolicited.

Matching contributions is done for goodwill with the employees, not as a cheap PR gimmick.

As far as AAPL not getting involved in charities in Jobs' days, that may have been a principled decision by SJ. Corporations, in their own behalf, really have no business getting involved in charitable contributions. Charitable contributions by corporations really are nothing but advertising/PR deductions, as you noted, the exact opposite of what "charity" is supposed to be. They are hypocritical. However, matching employees' directed contributions really are charitable. Win, win, and not cheap PR.

You are likely correct that Jobs did it in a principled manner, given how unwavering he was about it. And I found that to be the correct policy, likely coming from the same principles.

As for it being for "goodwill" to employees, I prefer they receive their goodwill in cash, though that doesn't get as many newspaper stories written about it as cheap PR stunts.

As for your mentioning deductions, this is the result of poor accounting knowledge among the general public. People think "deducting" something means free money - it doesn't. It means you don't pay tax on it. If I keep $100 and incur $40 in tax for doing so, I have $60 left. If on the other hand I give the $100 away to charity, I incur no tax, but now I have $0 left instead of $60. You don't make money or "cheat" by deducting something, especially a donation. Apple is not being hypocritical, it is being pathetic by engaging in these cheap stunts.

Now I understand your POV, especially as a stockholder, so thanks. I do think it's going a bit too far to call it a cheap PR stunt, though. Matching is a fairly common practice that encourages employees to get involved in rewarding causes outside of work, and employees tend to like it. I remember reading at the time Cook did it that it was a very popular move at Apple, and that employees had wanted it for a long time. In a hyper-competitive job market, where talent retention is key, I find it hard to believe that this policy was anything but a well reasoned strategy to make Apple's benefit compensation commensurate with other top tech firms. Employees might have "dealt" with the lack of matching funds in the past as a small price to pay for working under Steve Job's. After his death, that rationale disappeared.

It also seems funny to me to think of it as if each individual stockholder is being forced to donate to charities they may or may not like. As stockholders, we also indirectly help to pay employees salaries, some of whom have very different political and religious beliefs than us, but I don't feel as though I'm supporting their beliefs against my will because I've given Apple money as a stockholder.

As you correctly pointed out, charity isn't Apple's area of business, but I'd add that employee retention is. And with that in mind, the matching funds policy seems like a relatively small, and wise, post-Steve investment.

Cash is a better inducement for retention, but ultimately retention should be based on core-business, and not irrelevant things. Contribution matching vs cash is not going to be a clincher on anything.

As a stockholder, you have to think of Apple as your company - at least partly so. It's your business. Apple may well be employing people with different political and religious beliefs than us, but at least it is in exchange for their services. Apple is conducting mutually advantageous exchanges of this kind all of the time on our behalf. Many Apple customers fall in the same category. It's one thing to conduct trade. It is another though for Apple to effectively contribute to charities. At that point, I do care to know who my company is contributing to. And I definitely know who I don't want it to. This is totally unaccountable, out-of-scope, and unjustified.

It's the kind of action a company that can't say "buy our product because it is the best", but rather can only muster "buy our products because we donate to charity" to it's customers. Or to it's employees "work for us because we match you contributions to charity" instead of "work for us because you will do amazing things". To the press it is saying "don't listen to all the people bad mouthing us, we donate to charity and are therefore good", rather than "we are the best, and the whiners are just envious".

There is a reason Jobs didn't engage in this nonsense.
 
That answers part of the question. And Apple profits answer the other part of the question. Companies only make products to make profit (if you are a smart company) and Apple do the whole making profit thing better than almost anyone else.

If you or I or anyone else like the concepts from Apple, that is not really the point here. I don't like the look of every Apple product. But I can not arguer with their success.

I thought the 20th century mac looked not so good and I liked the look of the white C2D iMac. Just two examples of many.

And still you refuse to give any examples of what concepts you think are better than what Apple have put out. If you don't want to say what concepts you prefer, that is fine. You said you prefer other3 concepts and when asked "which ones do you prefer, you refused to answer. Your choice, but it is kind of strange. We're not here to judge you. i was generally interested to see what concepts / concept design you like. Out of curiosity. Was never going to judge you as opinion is not right or wrong, it's just an opinion.

You chose to be ultra defensive on this point. You do not want to give more details, fine. Just next time if you don't want to give more details on a subject, maybe it's just best not to start talking on that subject in the first place. Unless you enjoy refusing to answer people's questions. If you do enjoy that, it's cool, whatever makes you happy.

And we agree to disagree about if Jon Ive leaving Apple will be very bad or not. I think he is irreplaceable.

First you question whether or not the concepts I referred to "actually exist", effectively calling me a liar.

Then you say you're not here to judge me, but then turn around and point out I'm being "ultra-defensive".

Finally, when I say I just don't feel like searching for the concepts I prefer and going through the process of posting them here (regardless of the fact that doing so is irrelevant to the point I was making: Ive's not irreplaceable; I like other people's work too), you, in so many words, tell me to shut up.

So, for the sake of argument, I like these. Derivative yes, but interesting:

http://blog.iso50.com/27540/apple-iphone-5-plus-concept/
http://www.machinesthatgobing.com/images/mac-mini-slim-concept-1.jpg
 

So you finally gave some examples of what you like That's nice. They are some good concepts I will say.

My favourite Non Apple concept that never made it to the light of day is the MS courier.

PS. I quoted the only part of your post that was worth commenting on. The rest I will ignore as we are adults and don't need to keep arguing over petty ********. I moved on and time you did too.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.