Yep, they're not. As you said, they're quitting voluntarily.
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.
Tim Cook Says Apple Still Not Considering 'Mass Layoffs'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, they're not. As you said, they're quitting voluntarily.
Big profits can lead to numerous large, speculative projects. When someone realizes "that is a large project with zero chance of good success", it gets easy to end them. A company like Facebook, who is more likely to have many speculative projects, can more easily kill off those projects and fire the staff.
Steve is dead, and apple has to move in the year 2023 not be stuck in 2010. Steve didn’t build a three billion company. A ceos fiduciary responsibility of a for profit publicly owned company is to generate revenue for its shareholders. Apple wouldn’t have survived if Steve didn’t maximize profits. People just overlook that.
No he didn’t. He okayed virtually everything some minority of posters in MR are criticizing apple for.
That was 2007 and times have changed and finances have changed and laws have changed. One good example is okaying Foxconn as a manufacturer - profits over people.
Inflation is really bad for people with a lot of cash sitting around. It destroys the value as interest on cash savings is lower than inflation (this time at least).
I think that would put Cook into jeopardy. Don’t forget - the board decides who is a CEO and the board gets richer with help of those dividends and buyouts.
It would be a very bad look doing mass layoffs when you announce you plan to buy back $90B in stock... *cough* Pichai ($70B) *cough*
Really? Is it one of those where when you type in a certain sequence of numbers...it turns into a secret photo app?
"Layoffs are a last resort. I will take an even bigger pay cut before I let that happen. We just need to raise the price on a few of our products to offset the difference." - Tim Cook
Keep the profits at max. Thats the only thing that matters. **** the employees or their lives, earn more money!!!!! Capitalism is beautiful, isn't it? Btw don't care for qaulity of your products. Profit, profit, profit. We understand. I enjoy paying a premium for garbage, because quality is just not doable anymore coz it would hurt profits
This would never be decided by the CEO — it would be a shareholder proposal that is voted on. Probably would never happen though.
That’s what every CEO says to keep their employees calm. Have you ever heard a CEO say yeah we plan to lay off a significant number of our employees over the next few months? They don’t just decide one week to do it and the following week make the announcement. This takes weeks and months to plan to avoid laying off personnel who could be critical for operations and future products.
By that logic, Steve Ballmer was an excellent CEO because under his leadership, Microsoft had record profits. And therefore, it’s OK to make mediocre products as long as millions of people buy them and it generates several billions in net revenue for the company.
By that logic, Snow Leopard was a great OS not because of its extremely excellent functionality, but because it generated a lot of revenue for Apple. Had Snow Leopard been a financial failure, it would have been a bad OS and Vista would have been a great OS (because financial success is more important than making high-quality products).
Yes. Some people like him, some don’t. Like Jobs, Ballmer made mistakes.
Sure if you want to say bad products sometimes make money and good products fail. But outside of some MR posters there seems to be more ofc consensus is Cook is doing an excellent job than not.
Yes, I have heard of a CEO (many CEOs) saying exactly that. That’s exactly what has been happening over the past few months among some of the largest companies in the world.
As a very notable example: Bob Iger at Disney announced in March that there would be three separate rounds of mass layoffs (that would take place over the course of many months). The first round of mass layoffs has already been completed. The second round is happening now. The third round will begin sometime at the beginning of summer.
Disney is a notable example, but is definitely not the only example. Large companies announcing mass layoffs well ahead of time isn’t all that unusual.
Last edited:
So what’s the benefit to the employees to know they’re possibly weeks away from being unemployed? Updating the resume, doing a preemptive job search to get a feel for what’s out there, letting their parents know that they might need their old room back, start collecting more coupons for the next trip to the supermarket, put ramen noodles on the shopping list, take a look at which streaming services and other subscriptions they can live without, trying to butter up their manager who just might end up on the chopping block as well?
Last edited:
Jobs colluded with other Tech companies to artificially suppress wages for engineering talent.
These people are not gods.
Maybe they are gods but not from the "side of the light". The visionary vs clerk analogy is still valid. This is why it all comes back to and starts with morals which have to be "very specific" considering the game.
Just like a suggestion that Mother Nature is much more important than humans probably has at least some subtle satanic undertone to it.
In addition to holding an MBA, Tim Cook is also a degreed engineer.
Seeing Cook is CEO of one of the most successful companies in the world and is responsible for more than 160,000 employees, you're selling Cook astonishingly short saying he's no more than a clerk. Clearly you have no idea what his job entails.
Last edited:
That’s not really the correct question to ask (because of course laying off employees isn’t for the benefit of those employees). The benefit is to management and to Wall Street. The announcement of Disney’s three-stage mass layoff was for Wall Street to hear.
Shares of Disney rallied about 4% immediately after the layoff announcement. And at the same time of the mass layoff announcement, Bob Iger and Disney also announced the restarting of the dividend payment (which had been paused at the beginning of the pandemic). So firing 7,000 people for cost savings... and immediately use those cost savings to pay shareholders. It’s fairly-transparent what happened there.
It was, of course, an option for Bob Iger and Disney to not fire 7,000 people and just simply make less money. That’s what I would do if I was in charge. I would just choose to keep those 7,000 people employed and make a good amount of money (rather than firing those 7,000 people to make an obscene amount of money). But it’s that kind of thinking that guarantees that someone like me — definitely not me, but someone like me — will never be in charge of a company like Disney.
Last edited:
Everything you mentioned makes sense. However, another question that should be asked and probably won’t be answered, at least not yet should be what happens if a company in some knee jerk reaction to slowing sales or whatever the reason comes to the realization that they overreacted…significantly? I guess that’s why Apple hasn’t joined the let’s fire thousands of our employees to give our shareholders a short rush of adrenaline bandwagon yet.
“I’m not going to pay you any longer” and “I’m going to continue to pay you, if you follow this rule” are two rather different things. I’m torn on whether Apple’s policy on WFH is right, but it’s nothing like layoffs.
Mass layoffs reminds me of sweeping corporate reorganizations; they too can be very challenging to people’s adaptability, even when the reorganization does not involve layoffs. But there’s nothing in the world to which change does not happen every moment. The whole of life ages continuously. Life is change. But change can be too slow and/or too small for the human mind to detect it, which deludes us into believing things or people stay the same. To me this means reorganization happens every moment to corporations, it just happens minimally and not evidently when they seem to stay unchanged.
Similarly, to everyone of us, companies hiring and firing people is “business as usual”. But when a company fires a number of people on the same day or when many layoffs are spread out over several months, we don’t react the same as we would if only one person per week or month is fired even though basically the same thing happens.
Similarly, to everyone of us, companies hiring and firing people is “business as usual”. But when a company fires a number of people on the same day or when many layoffs are spread out over several months, we don’t react the same as we would if only one person per week or month is fired even though basically the same thing happens.