And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.
Before you call other people names you should read the NY Times article. You are just plain wrong.
Lots of companies have to "accidentally" leak future product information to generate a buzz and hope it's high enough to generate sales which will usually fall flat after the initial introduction. Apple - like it or not - does not have to do that. Apple has the general public trained very well.
That being said, this kind of news is getting somewhat old. Even as an AAPL owner, I think the media really needs to move on about Jobs' health. It's a private matter. Be done with it. Apple has continued without his direct involvement and done well. The media sad state today just goes to show that they will go after a dead man if need be to generate news to justify their sorry careers.
And those testing the most sensitive projects are instructed "to cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful."
Thats just too far out. I don't believe that at all.
Don't look at what they say, look at what they do. I ignore the rumors and make up my own!
Apple lie constantly, just don't listen to them. Case-in-point: Snow Leopard. I don't believe the speed increases, I will have to actually test it to see it for myself. I will need to posses the OS, to judge properly. In iPhone OS 3.0 Settings takes about 3X longer to open for example. If you ask Apple they would probably lie or give a vague, potentially misleading response. C'est la vie!
If you're in the habit of assuming people post opinions on subjects they know nothing about, then you might want to apply your measure a bit more selectively.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment.
That's just tough, IMHO.
It's an assumed risk investors take. That kind of risk is the price of admission.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
So then why has the stock risen since he has been gone? Of course it fluctuates, but it has risen overall. And if there are laws, why has no one stepped in?
No big story here- Apple lies and Steve Jobs will eventually die.
That is true, eventually every one dies including you. But the difference is what they have achieved before they die. What have you done that is good for the world?
Also there is difference between lies and not giving the information you do not have to give. If one is lying to extract money from you, that is different from telling something to protect yourself. I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!
An investor is supposed to have the facts. They are not suppose to be put at risk by a company putting out false information.
"Facts" about a company's growth, finances, results, and other infrmation that requires disclosure is different form "Facts" about an executive's personal health or what colour his most recent stool sample was.
So then why has the stock risen since he has been gone? Of course it fluctuates, but it has risen overall. And if there are laws, why has no one stepped in?
Why did they not step in on Madoff? The SEC does not get around to stepping in adequatlly most of the time. If this is not important why play with the truth, let the market decide if it is important or not. Respected analyst believe that Jobs passing could cause the stock to drop by 20 percent or more. I am in that camp would like to be able to get out of the stock if he was gravely ill.
"Facts" about a company's growth, finances, results, and other infrmation that requires disclosure is different form "Facts" about an executive's personal health or what colour his most recent stool sample was.
I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
Just because you hold stock doesn't mean sh!t. Anytime you own stock, you are taking your chances. You are basically gambling. You don't get to see the cards the blackjack dealer is holding so why do you think you get to know some corporations executive's blood-test results.
Your entitlement as it relates to a buck is kind of gross.
It's an assumed risk investors take. That kind of risk is the price of admission.
No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.
I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.
Ok, but you can' t go around applying the law selectively (not that it really applies to health issue disclosures, anyway) just because Apple users, fans, and the media have accorded Steve Jobs an inordinate amount of star-power.
No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.
How "material" is this event? That's what's being decided.
I do agree with you, with respect to your concerns being legitiamte, if nothing else.
The law currently addresses this only partially. And you're either on one side of the fence, or on the other.
I think we can still get along, just as long as we're on the Apple fence.
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users. Not even teckstud.
Comments
And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.
Before you call other people names you should read the NY Times article. You are just plain wrong.
That being said, this kind of news is getting somewhat old. Even as an AAPL owner, I think the media really needs to move on about Jobs' health. It's a private matter. Be done with it. Apple has continued without his direct involvement and done well. The media sad state today just goes to show that they will go after a dead man if need be to generate news to justify their sorry careers.
And those testing the most sensitive projects are instructed "to cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful."
Thats just too far out. I don't believe that at all.
That would be incredibly cool!
Apple lie constantly, just don't listen to them. Case-in-point: Snow Leopard. I don't believe the speed increases, I will have to actually test it to see it for myself. I will need to posses the OS, to judge properly. In iPhone OS 3.0 Settings takes about 3X longer to open for example. If you ask Apple they would probably lie or give a vague, potentially misleading response. C'est la vie!
Before you call other people names you should read the NY Times article. You are just plain wrong.
I did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/te...pple.html?_r=1
And you're entitled to your opinion.
If you're in the habit of assuming people post opinions on subjects they know nothing about, then you might want to apply your measure a bit more selectively.
Yeah, but when he does there will be those that say "Shit, I didn't see this coming. Why didn't someone tell us - we have been misled again"
There will also be those that say "AT&T, dropped calls, firewire, glossy". 3,500 times.
I did.
Apparently either selectively or without full comprehension.
And you're entitled to your opinion.
On what? That the company (to use your words) "is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone"? This is plainly incorrect.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment.
That's just tough, IMHO.
It's an assumed risk investors take. That kind of risk is the price of admission.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
So then why has the stock risen since he has been gone? Of course it fluctuates, but it has risen overall. And if there are laws, why has no one stepped in?
That's just tough, IMHO.
It's an assumed risk investors take. That kind of risk is the price of admission.
An investor is supposed to have the facts. They are not suppose to be put at risk by a company putting out false information.
No big story here- Apple lies and Steve Jobs will eventually die.
That is true, eventually every one dies including you. But the difference is what they have achieved before they die. What have you done that is good for the world?
Also there is difference between lies and not giving the information you do not have to give. If one is lying to extract money from you, that is different from telling something to protect yourself. I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!
An investor is supposed to have the facts. They are not suppose to be put at risk by a company putting out false information.
"Facts" about a company's growth, finances, results, and other infrmation that requires disclosure is different form "Facts" about an executive's personal health or what colour his most recent stool sample was.
So then why has the stock risen since he has been gone? Of course it fluctuates, but it has risen overall. And if there are laws, why has no one stepped in?
Why did they not step in on Madoff? The SEC does not get around to stepping in adequatlly most of the time. If this is not important why play with the truth, let the market decide if it is important or not. Respected analyst believe that Jobs passing could cause the stock to drop by 20 percent or more. I am in that camp would like to be able to get out of the stock if he was gravely ill.
"Facts" about a company's growth, finances, results, and other infrmation that requires disclosure is different form "Facts" about an executive's personal health or what colour his most recent stool sample was.
I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.
I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.
Just because you hold stock doesn't mean sh!t. Anytime you own stock, you are taking your chances. You are basically gambling. You don't get to see the cards the blackjack dealer is holding so why do you think you get to know some corporations executive's blood-test results.
Your entitlement as it relates to a buck is kind of gross.
That's just tough, IMHO.
It's an assumed risk investors take. That kind of risk is the price of admission.
No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.
I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.
Ok, but you can' t go around applying the law selectively (not that it really applies to health issue disclosures, anyway) just because Apple users, fans, and the media have accorded Steve Jobs an inordinate amount of star-power.
No, it is not. The company must follow SEC rules on the disclosure of material events. This is not optional. Apple is clearly attempting to skirt these rules where the ability of Steve Jobs to remain in his position is concerned. As the article says, we don't know how by how much they are attempting to skirt the rules because of the wall of secrecy. So it's a deliberately created Catch-22 situation for investors, which sadly, is an invitation to a lawsuit.
How "material" is this event? That's what's being decided.
I do agree with you, with respect to your concerns being legitiamte, if nothing else.
The law currently addresses this only partially. And you're either on one side of the fence, or on the other.
I think we can still get along, just as long as we're on the Apple fence.
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users. Not even teckstud.