Should the stock actually go up, in theory? The book value of a company should be priced into the stock, right? If Apple were to give the $80B to charity their stock should fall, if they spend the $80B on a buy back, the fall in the stock price caused by the money on hand falling is balanced, in theory, by the buy back.
I see buy backs as huge wastes of money from the corporations point of view.
When a company buys back its stock, it's a sign of confidence in the future. Market sentiment alone puts upward price pressure on the stock in the near term. Also, you have to look at what it means -- the company feels its own stock is a better bet with its capital than any other investment. Unless it's a company on its last legs, making a desperate move to push its stock higher, you can almost always bet on good things in the future for the company.
I have to agree this is not good, I am going to keep a close eye on these changes since I may need to dump my investments if this kind of activities continue. This is exactly what happen when steve left the last time, Sculley and other senior management put levels in to separate themselves from the people with the ideas and doing the work since they could not understand what they were doing.
Cooks is obviously doing this because he probably read it in a book. The big different between Steve and others is Steve knew what was going on in the company, he would go to the sources and told the sources what needed to be done, no chain of command structure. Cook is putting in a classic chain of command since people who do not have a vision need it in place to understand what is going on.
I have to agree this is not good, I am going to keep a close eye on these changes since I may need to dump my investments if this kind of activities continue. This is exactly what happen when steve left the last time, Sculley and other senior management put levels in to separate themselves from the people with the ideas and doing the work since they could not understand what they were doing.
Cooks is obviously doing this because he probably read it in a book. The big different between Steve and others is Steve knew what was going on in the company, he would go to the sources and told the sources what needed to be done, no chain of command structure. Cook is putting in a classic chain of command since people who do not have a vision need it in place to understand what is going on.
I don't see where the article says Cook is separating himself from the workers. If anything, he is empowering people, which is a total 180 from the way Jobs ran the ship. Under Cook's watch, Apple is almost certainly a much better place to work, and happy employees make good products.
I suspect that the first 5 years with Cook as CEO will be better than those 5 years would have been with Jobs, just because Cook can go after the low hanging fruit of correcting Jobs' mistakes. As an outsider, I don't know for sure what exactly Jobs' recent mistakes have been, but from reading his biography I can certainly see that he has made plenty in his career.
One area where I could imagine Cook charting a different path is with enterprise customers. Jobs clearly hated corporate IT types (can't say that I blame him), but I think Jobs allowed his disdain for the IT dweebs to get in the way of figuring out a way to get Macs to the poor souls stuck using PCs at work. Ten years ago neglecting enterprise customers probably made sense due to a lack of end-user demand for Macs within corporations (i.e., not too many people wanted Macs in the first place). But today I think end-user demand for Macs is strong, including at the highest levels of organizations. Apple now has allies inside corporations that they can work with to beat the IT managers.
The biggest thing holding the Mac back in the enterprise right now is Apple's total lack of effort. If Apple would just start providing better sales, support, and IT-oriented management tools, I think the Mac could enjoy years of strong growth in the enterprise. Macs/PCs may be "trucks", but there are an awful lot of trucks being sold, and there always will be. Even though it's not a growing market, a growing share of a large market is still a good way to make money. I'm guessing Cook can see that more clearly than Jobs did.
Your post makes sense only if you decide that enterprise is going to keep buying boatloads of PCs. My Fortune 50 company has been rapidly replacing PCs with VDI boxes for several years now, and the new mobile tablet devices make that even easier. If you look at some of the corporate analyses, even Gartner is predicting that there is a new enterprise paradigm in the offing and it has Apple stamped clearly on it. With Apple products currently in study phase or being deployed in all of the Fortune 50 and most of the Fortune 500 companies, you have de facto support for enterprise already in place for Apple without all of the nonsense that traditional vendor relationships require. My own company has a large number of developer teams already building out corporate App Store controls, utilities and apps for our operations, without requiring massive ammounts of effort to support by Apple. Since all of these items are owned by the company, support stays internalized and controlled without requiring Apple to provide the kind of hand-holding required from Microsoft, for example. It's a whole different approach and it works extremely well here.
I think you are being very myopic in thinking that enterprise requires "trucks" for all of its needs. Most workers need email access, intra/internet access, systems access, and processing capacity for documents, spreadsheets and the odd database operations. That is all fully provisioned via VDI and can be delivered on a dumb box or mobile device. The only addition to a tablet approach we see is a keyboard, and I just walk in to a conference and jack into the projector using HDMI and deliver. Time to get out of your 20th century mindset and wake up to the 21st century you're living in.
...Bye the way, if "AAPL" did a 'buy back', then your stock would go up. ...Depending on how much stock they re-purchased.
Typically, this effect is short-lived. It is a short-term gimmick for companies needing to placate shareholders (often one or two institutions, in order to ensure their support at SHAs). In the long term, investing in the company rather than financial gimmicks is always the better way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Should the stock actually go up, in theory? The book value of a company should be priced into the stock, right? If Apple were to give the $80B to charity their stock should fall, if they spend the $80B on a buy back, the fall in the stock price caused by the money on hand falling is balanced, in theory, by the buy back.
I see buy backs as huge wastes of money from the corporations point of view.
The price per share will go up because there are fewer shares to go around. This has been proven over time. But many factors, including the drop in cash holdings, will bring it down eventually if the company is not performing.
The fact is that it is unnecessary to do a stock buyback. Apple has proven that the stock takes care of itself if you execute on making and marketing great products. If Tim Cook forgets this lesson, shame on him.
Another corporate-level change is recently-announced charitable matching program that calls for Apple to match employee donations up to $10,000 per year, a change from the Jobs who was reportedly against giving money away.
That is a nice change. It is always good to give back to the community.
I just want to know why someone would take a company so successful, that has used this formula to pull out of such a trench in the marketplace to rise to the biggest company in the world in market capitalization, and change it? Why change what isn't broken?
Change was thrust upon Apple with the departure of Steve Jobs. When you lose a central person like that, is it any wonder that the company would HAVE to restructure a bit as a result? Apple knows they can't just "tap" an individual to be the new Steve Jobs. Failing that, the duties and reporting structures that were attached to Steve are forced to change.
In my opinion, the changes that Tim Cook is instituting are motivated by that. I suspect that he is trying to do it in a minimally invasive way.
Much bemused by the delayed reaction to Steve's death. So, the reality is sinking in now , huh?
Aw, just give the 'new' guy a chance. He's only been running things since 2006 or so.
People aren't going to stop buying Apple products anytime soon. There's a long line of exciting products finalizing development. Cook can execute. Apple is a sticky ecosystem. .
Seriously are you guys trying to talk Apple into a funk? find something else to do. It's a big amazing world out there.
Apple as we knew it gone just as Mr. Job's is gone, period.
I worry about the future of Apple like the next guy, but there is nothing that can be done.
This is a new Apple and the changes he is making are striking.
Mr. Ive's will be the odd man out, the lone voice so to speak.
My gut tells me the day's of corp executives getting a huge payday are about to begin.
For years they have had to bow to the seat of Mr. Job's and wait for his approval, thats was his Type A personality.
They loved there leader but I would be willing to bet there was some quiet animosity there.
Look at it as a mob mentality, with out Mr. Jobs to lay and enforce the law they will start re-writing laws as they see fit and how it benefits them.
I have lived thru multiple corporations that have there founder no longer a part of the company and it takes very little time for what I stated above to happen.
Even with the most loyal follower with in the company.
My hope is that the foundation Mr. Job's built can with stand this 3 to 5 year onslaught.
If so then new blood can take over with new vision and creativity.
Fist off, the 'tell me how this sells more iphones' quote is so without context that it's impossible to say what's really going on there. As someone who's spent a decade at Apple, on teams reporting up to Tim, I can tell you first-hand that he know's what the heck is going on and probably has less patience with underperformance and time-wasting endeavors than Steve did so I'm guessing he was making someone explain the reasons for wanting to spend time on a particular project. One of the things I'm sure he's dealing with is how Apple's (unparalleled) growth has affected it's organization and no doubt he is doing what he needs to do to make it work. Apple will be fine with Cook at the helm (as long as Ive stays, of course)
Also, don't let Tim Cook's soft spoken nature fool you. There will be zero f-ing around at Apple.
Another corporate-level change is recently-announced charitable matching program that calls for Apple to match employee donations up to $10,000 per year, a change from the Jobs who was reportedly against giving money away.
That is a nice change. It is always good to give back to the community.
Watch out, given the attitudes of some people here, that statement might be considered controversial, even political!
Fist off, the 'tell me how this sells more iphones' quote is so without context that it's impossible to say what's really going on there. As someone who's spent a decade at Apple, on teams reporting up to Tim, I can tell you first-hand that he know's what the heck is going on and probably has less patience with underperformance and time-wasting endeavors than Steve did so I'm guessing he was making someone explain the reasons for wanting to spend time on a particular project. One of the things I'm sure he's dealing with is how Apple's (unparalleled) growth has affected it's organization and no doubt he is doing what he needs to do to make it work. Apple will be fine with Cook at the helm (as long as Ive stays, of course)
Also, don't let Tim Cook's soft spoken nature fool you. There will be zero f-ing around at Apple.
Welcome!
Are Apple employees actually allowed to participate in forums like this?
My gut tells me the day's of corp executives getting a huge payday are about to begin.
Tim Cook received 12.3M in stock for the good work he did taking over for Steve in 2009. He made 59M last year between salary, stock and bonuses and when they made him CEO, they gave him 1M shares of stock. I don't think he's worried too much about what his specific salary will be as CEO.
Comments
Should the stock actually go up, in theory? The book value of a company should be priced into the stock, right? If Apple were to give the $80B to charity their stock should fall, if they spend the $80B on a buy back, the fall in the stock price caused by the money on hand falling is balanced, in theory, by the buy back.
I see buy backs as huge wastes of money from the corporations point of view.
When a company buys back its stock, it's a sign of confidence in the future. Market sentiment alone puts upward price pressure on the stock in the near term. Also, you have to look at what it means -- the company feels its own stock is a better bet with its capital than any other investment. Unless it's a company on its last legs, making a desperate move to push its stock higher, you can almost always bet on good things in the future for the company.
Cooks is obviously doing this because he probably read it in a book. The big different between Steve and others is Steve knew what was going on in the company, he would go to the sources and told the sources what needed to be done, no chain of command structure. Cook is putting in a classic chain of command since people who do not have a vision need it in place to understand what is going on.
I have to agree this is not good, I am going to keep a close eye on these changes since I may need to dump my investments if this kind of activities continue. This is exactly what happen when steve left the last time, Sculley and other senior management put levels in to separate themselves from the people with the ideas and doing the work since they could not understand what they were doing.
Cooks is obviously doing this because he probably read it in a book. The big different between Steve and others is Steve knew what was going on in the company, he would go to the sources and told the sources what needed to be done, no chain of command structure. Cook is putting in a classic chain of command since people who do not have a vision need it in place to understand what is going on.
I don't see where the article says Cook is separating himself from the workers. If anything, he is empowering people, which is a total 180 from the way Jobs ran the ship. Under Cook's watch, Apple is almost certainly a much better place to work, and happy employees make good products.
I suspect that the first 5 years with Cook as CEO will be better than those 5 years would have been with Jobs, just because Cook can go after the low hanging fruit of correcting Jobs' mistakes. As an outsider, I don't know for sure what exactly Jobs' recent mistakes have been, but from reading his biography I can certainly see that he has made plenty in his career.
One area where I could imagine Cook charting a different path is with enterprise customers. Jobs clearly hated corporate IT types (can't say that I blame him), but I think Jobs allowed his disdain for the IT dweebs to get in the way of figuring out a way to get Macs to the poor souls stuck using PCs at work. Ten years ago neglecting enterprise customers probably made sense due to a lack of end-user demand for Macs within corporations (i.e., not too many people wanted Macs in the first place). But today I think end-user demand for Macs is strong, including at the highest levels of organizations. Apple now has allies inside corporations that they can work with to beat the IT managers.
The biggest thing holding the Mac back in the enterprise right now is Apple's total lack of effort. If Apple would just start providing better sales, support, and IT-oriented management tools, I think the Mac could enjoy years of strong growth in the enterprise. Macs/PCs may be "trucks", but there are an awful lot of trucks being sold, and there always will be. Even though it's not a growing market, a growing share of a large market is still a good way to make money. I'm guessing Cook can see that more clearly than Jobs did.
Your post makes sense only if you decide that enterprise is going to keep buying boatloads of PCs. My Fortune 50 company has been rapidly replacing PCs with VDI boxes for several years now, and the new mobile tablet devices make that even easier. If you look at some of the corporate analyses, even Gartner is predicting that there is a new enterprise paradigm in the offing and it has Apple stamped clearly on it. With Apple products currently in study phase or being deployed in all of the Fortune 50 and most of the Fortune 500 companies, you have de facto support for enterprise already in place for Apple without all of the nonsense that traditional vendor relationships require. My own company has a large number of developer teams already building out corporate App Store controls, utilities and apps for our operations, without requiring massive ammounts of effort to support by Apple. Since all of these items are owned by the company, support stays internalized and controlled without requiring Apple to provide the kind of hand-holding required from Microsoft, for example. It's a whole different approach and it works extremely well here.
I think you are being very myopic in thinking that enterprise requires "trucks" for all of its needs. Most workers need email access, intra/internet access, systems access, and processing capacity for documents, spreadsheets and the odd database operations. That is all fully provisioned via VDI and can be delivered on a dumb box or mobile device. The only addition to a tablet approach we see is a keyboard, and I just walk in to a conference and jack into the projector using HDMI and deliver. Time to get out of your 20th century mindset and wake up to the 21st century you're living in.
...Bye the way, if "AAPL" did a 'buy back', then your stock would go up. ...Depending on how much stock they re-purchased.
Typically, this effect is short-lived. It is a short-term gimmick for companies needing to placate shareholders (often one or two institutions, in order to ensure their support at SHAs). In the long term, investing in the company rather than financial gimmicks is always the better way to go.
Should the stock actually go up, in theory? The book value of a company should be priced into the stock, right? If Apple were to give the $80B to charity their stock should fall, if they spend the $80B on a buy back, the fall in the stock price caused by the money on hand falling is balanced, in theory, by the buy back.
I see buy backs as huge wastes of money from the corporations point of view.
The price per share will go up because there are fewer shares to go around. This has been proven over time. But many factors, including the drop in cash holdings, will bring it down eventually if the company is not performing.
The fact is that it is unnecessary to do a stock buyback. Apple has proven that the stock takes care of itself if you execute on making and marketing great products. If Tim Cook forgets this lesson, shame on him.
This quote really bothers me: "tell me again how this helps me sell more phones?".
Yep, that's the only thing that bothers me, too.
It screams Scully.
That is a nice change. It is always good to give back to the community.
I just want to know why someone would take a company so successful, that has used this formula to pull out of such a trench in the marketplace to rise to the biggest company in the world in market capitalization, and change it? Why change what isn't broken?
Change was thrust upon Apple with the departure of Steve Jobs. When you lose a central person like that, is it any wonder that the company would HAVE to restructure a bit as a result? Apple knows they can't just "tap" an individual to be the new Steve Jobs. Failing that, the duties and reporting structures that were attached to Steve are forced to change.
In my opinion, the changes that Tim Cook is instituting are motivated by that. I suspect that he is trying to do it in a minimally invasive way.
Thompson
Yep, that's the only thing that bothers me, too.
It screams Scully.
Much bemused by the delayed reaction to Steve's death. So, the reality is sinking in now , huh?
Aw, just give the 'new' guy a chance. He's only been running things since 2006 or so.
People aren't going to stop buying Apple products anytime soon. There's a long line of exciting products finalizing development. Cook can execute. Apple is a sticky ecosystem. .
Seriously are you guys trying to talk Apple into a funk? find something else to do. It's a big amazing world out there.
Apple as we knew it gone just as Mr. Job's is gone, period.
I worry about the future of Apple like the next guy, but there is nothing that can be done.
This is a new Apple and the changes he is making are striking.
Mr. Ive's will be the odd man out, the lone voice so to speak.
My gut tells me the day's of corp executives getting a huge payday are about to begin.
For years they have had to bow to the seat of Mr. Job's and wait for his approval, thats was his Type A personality.
They loved there leader but I would be willing to bet there was some quiet animosity there.
Look at it as a mob mentality, with out Mr. Jobs to lay and enforce the law they will start re-writing laws as they see fit and how it benefits them.
I have lived thru multiple corporations that have there founder no longer a part of the company and it takes very little time for what I stated above to happen.
Even with the most loyal follower with in the company.
My hope is that the foundation Mr. Job's built can with stand this 3 to 5 year onslaught.
If so then new blood can take over with new vision and creativity.
Heres to hoping I am wrong...
Also, don't let Tim Cook's soft spoken nature fool you. There will be zero f-ing around at Apple.
Profile > userlists > add to ignore.
Doubt you can see it since I'm allegedly a troll and thus either ignored or about to be.
Is there a way to find out who is ignoring ME?
Another corporate-level change is recently-announced charitable matching program that calls for Apple to match employee donations up to $10,000 per year, a change from the Jobs who was reportedly against giving money away.
That is a nice change. It is always good to give back to the community.
Watch out, given the attitudes of some people here, that statement might be considered controversial, even political!
Fist off, the 'tell me how this sells more iphones' quote is so without context that it's impossible to say what's really going on there. As someone who's spent a decade at Apple, on teams reporting up to Tim, I can tell you first-hand that he know's what the heck is going on and probably has less patience with underperformance and time-wasting endeavors than Steve did so I'm guessing he was making someone explain the reasons for wanting to spend time on a particular project. One of the things I'm sure he's dealing with is how Apple's (unparalleled) growth has affected it's organization and no doubt he is doing what he needs to do to make it work. Apple will be fine with Cook at the helm (as long as Ive stays, of course)
Also, don't let Tim Cook's soft spoken nature fool you. There will be zero f-ing around at Apple.
Welcome!
Are Apple employees actually allowed to participate in forums like this?
My gut tells me the day's of corp executives getting a huge payday are about to begin.
Tim Cook received 12.3M in stock for the good work he did taking over for Steve in 2009. He made 59M last year between salary, stock and bonuses and when they made him CEO, they gave him 1M shares of stock. I don't think he's worried too much about what his specific salary will be as CEO.
Much bemused by the delayed reaction to Steve's death. So, the reality is sinking in now , huh?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Are Apple employees actually allowed to participate in forums like this?
Once they find out who he is, he'll be fired, particularly since he's a higher-up. They're allowed to read, not post.
Welcome!
Are Apple employees actually allowed to participate in forums like this?
He was speaking in the past tense. Likely he no longer is an Apple employee.
He was speaking in the past tense. Likely he no longer is an Apple employee.
He used "who's". He used it incorrectly, but he used it. That implies 'who has', 'not who had', meaning ongoing.
Once they find out who he is, he'll be fired, particularly since he's a higher-up. They're allowed to read, not post.
you an insider now?