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.
Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature
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.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature
Absolutely. In fact the last week or so before the 3GS announcement completely sucked the air of the Pre's balloon. Totally overtook its publicity.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Nope. They may have to abide by laws regarding finances and other things related to the business but not Jobs personal health info. I know you think you deserve that info. but you don't. Now the options backdating thing that would be something to be worried about.
Face it, you just want insider information so you don't take a loss. I understand that. No one likes to lose money. But to say you have the right to know a man's medical conditions/treatments for said medical conditions and such is ridiculous.
I need not go into any detail to propose that the secrecy at Apple is a learned behavior.
If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.
There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.
I need not go into any detail to propose that the secrecy at Apple is a learned behavior.
If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.
There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.
I agree wholeheartedy.
One of the issues, or questions, rather, is whether Steve Jobs' case deserves special or wider application of disclosure laws, because apparently, we've accorded a bit too much power to him, which in turn, seems to have an effect on the stock price, which is really the fault of otherwise shortsighted or impulsive investors.
In other words, some investors seem to want laws to protect them from themselves.
"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.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
Quote:
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users.
Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.
An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.
No big story here- Apple lies and Steve Jobs will eventually die.
This is true and something that a lot of people don't seem to get. Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)
The whole concept of "saving someone's life" is false. All you can do is postpone the inevitable and do as much good for as many people as you can while you're here.
Like, everyone is all shocked lately that Farah Fawcett Majors having cancer and her life "can't be saved," but she is 62 years old and kept it at bay for ten years at least. You can't ask for much more than that.
Edit: I don't agree with the "Apple lies" part above. They ... dissemble and mislead?
The NYT doing an article about "secrecy"... and the Times is one to talk!
I'm sure I can waltz right up to the NYT and demand of the 'Grey Lady' to be in on the morning editorial meeting regarding the today's theme of how to bash President Bush or make President Obama "The One" and to downplay a distressed economy and make very little mention of the deaths of US troops still in Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...
As our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, once said to General Petraeus, can be applied to any story coming out of todays media and especially the Times, and that is that it requires "a willing suspension of disbelief."
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 think the loophole they will bring up is the fact that *technically* he was not CEO at the time of the transplant. I know it's kind of dumb and self-serving on a practical level for them to say that but in a court of law it's enough for them not to be sued or fined or whatever.
An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.
All we can really do is see how far this goes.
A big mess, it very likely does make. Do you remember the long, tortuous period when Apple was being investigated for stock option violations? Every time it was suggested that Steve might be forced out over this, AAPL took another tumble. It also caused a major distraction. The options scandal too often overshadowed products in the media. That's just plain bad business.
Apple's famous secrecy serves the company very well where product development is concerned, but very poorly where company events are concerned. They are practically daring investors to sue over this. Investor relations has always been a weak point for Apple. Some of us wish they'd fix this.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.
And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.
Apple employees working on secret projects must "pass through a maze of security doors, swiping their badges again and again and finally entering a numeric code to reach their offices," a former employee who recently worked in one of these areas told the Times.
Once inside these top-secret areas, employees are often monitored by surveillance cameras as they work. 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."
So it IS like the iPhone ads! I thought that was all staged
This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.
I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?
For those of you who are mad that Apple didn't disclose the liver transplant issue: it is none of your f(*&^king business. That is his personal life, and if you are so tied to your stupid stocks that you have to read this everyday and count your pennies, it obviously shows how selfish, single-minded, and greedy you are. Apple and Jobs are super shrewd and ethical, and they just play the game of business very well. There is nothing illegal here about what they did nor unethical as medicine and health constantly reveal things that may be unknown at the time of diagnosis; nevertheless, there are no rules that state you must disclose if you have surgery. That's his private life and you should be more concerned with yours than his. I pray to God you get a life and let Steve do his thing, and more importantly, you do your thing. Apple's success and stock price is just icing on the cake to this wonderful life. Shame on people like you who make it their entire world.
This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.
I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?
Thanks for recognizing the articles value.
However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.
As Thomas Full once said, ?Birth is the beginning of death.?
Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)
Counting the Christians and the Hindus, I?d say that at least 2.2 Billion people would disagree with you, though if coming back to life simply means any sort of after life then that number jumps considerably.
Comments
I think your thoughts are far fetched and IDIOTIC!!
Welcome to the teckstud fan club!
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.
Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature
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.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Apple does it as well, we've had almost daily iPhone "leaks" for the last 6 months. some of these have been pretty blatant like the "unboxing" that was shown a week or so before WWDC where we just saw the device and not much about it. if it was a real "unboxing" by someone that got a hold of an early copy then it would a whole series of videos about every feature
Absolutely. In fact the last week or so before the 3GS announcement completely sucked the air of the Pre's balloon. Totally overtook its publicity.
My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.
Nope. They may have to abide by laws regarding finances and other things related to the business but not Jobs personal health info. I know you think you deserve that info. but you don't. Now the options backdating thing that would be something to be worried about.
Face it, you just want insider information so you don't take a loss. I understand that. No one likes to lose money. But to say you have the right to know a man's medical conditions/treatments for said medical conditions and such is ridiculous.
If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.
There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.
I need not go into any detail to propose that the secrecy at Apple is a learned behavior.
If Apple let the world know of all the projects they had in the works, the are those who would beat Apple to market with their own inferior knock-offs, and in so doing, dilute or otherwise ruin the demand.
There is no doubt that Apple's secrecy is tantamount to their success.
I agree wholeheartedy.
One of the issues, or questions, rather, is whether Steve Jobs' case deserves special or wider application of disclosure laws, because apparently, we've accorded a bit too much power to him, which in turn, seems to have an effect on the stock price, which is really the fault of otherwise shortsighted or impulsive investors.
In other words, some investors seem to want laws to protect them from themselves.
"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.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
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.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users.
Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.
Idiotic article, quoting exaggerating 'experts' who don't seem to know much about Apple or SJ.
The reporters are obviously ticked-off that Apple doesn't spoon-feed them.
Agreed.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
Okay, but it's kind of too late for you to say so.
An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.
All we can really do is see how far this goes.
No big story here- Apple lies and Steve Jobs will eventually die.
This is true and something that a lot of people don't seem to get. Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)
The whole concept of "saving someone's life" is false. All you can do is postpone the inevitable and do as much good for as many people as you can while you're here.
Like, everyone is all shocked lately that Farah Fawcett Majors having cancer and her life "can't be saved," but she is 62 years old and kept it at bay for ten years at least. You can't ask for much more than that.
Edit: I don't agree with the "Apple lies" part above. They ... dissemble and mislead?
The NYT doing an article about "secrecy"... and the Times is one to talk!
I'm sure I can waltz right up to the NYT and demand of the 'Grey Lady' to be in on the morning editorial meeting regarding the today's theme of how to bash President Bush or make President Obama "The One" and to downplay a distressed economy and make very little mention of the deaths of US troops still in Iraq, yadda, yadda, yadda...
As our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, once said to General Petraeus, can be applied to any story coming out of todays media and especially the Times, and that is that it requires "a willing suspension of disbelief."
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 think the loophole they will bring up is the fact that *technically* he was not CEO at the time of the transplant. I know it's kind of dumb and self-serving on a practical level for them to say that but in a court of law it's enough for them not to be sued or fined or whatever.
An actionable offense does not a successful lawsuit make.
All we can really do is see how far this goes.
A big mess, it very likely does make. Do you remember the long, tortuous period when Apple was being investigated for stock option violations? Every time it was suggested that Steve might be forced out over this, AAPL took another tumble. It also caused a major distraction. The options scandal too often overshadowed products in the media. That's just plain bad business.
Apple's famous secrecy serves the company very well where product development is concerned, but very poorly where company events are concerned. They are practically daring investors to sue over this. Investor relations has always been a weak point for Apple. Some of us wish they'd fix this.
Gross misrepresentations of this kind certainly don't make your position look any better.
If Steve became unable to serve as CEO because his health condition turned out to be worse than Apple disclosed, and it turns out the board knew about it, or Steve knew and did not inform the board, then the company will get sued by investors. You can count on that. The rules on the disclosure of CEO health are not totally clear, but Steve being unable to run Apple would arguably be a material event with a fairly obvious impact on share values -- an event, in the terms of the SEC rules, a reasonably prudent investor would like to know.
So no, you don't have to be on one side of the fence or the other. We have a pretty good idea what the SEC rules require, we just don't know if Apple has complied with them BECAUSE they are so secretive.
The damnable irony is that if Apple had only been slightly more up-front about this, then nobody would be talking about it. It's their effort to slam the lid down tight that has caused all the chatter.
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html
By the way, the quotations are referenced to Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. I would suspect that his knowledge and expertise in this matter far exceeds yours. If not, we would all be please to view your credentials. Otherwise, your silence would be appreciated.
And, not that you are entitled to your opinion, unless verified, some of your comments are tantamount to libel, IMO. Certainly, malicious intent.
Apple employees working on secret projects must "pass through a maze of security doors, swiping their badges again and again and finally entering a numeric code to reach their offices," a former employee who recently worked in one of these areas told the Times.
Once inside these top-secret areas, employees are often monitored by surveillance cameras as they work. 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."
So it IS like the iPhone ads! I thought that was all staged
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
Perhaps a light review is in order. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shealth23.html
This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.
I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?
This article nailed it. Would it make sense for Apple to make some disclosures? Maybe. Do they have to? Not at all.
I don't understand why anyone who is potentially worried about the health of Steve Jobs would invest in Apple. For f**ks sake, he's a cancer survivor. Pancreatic cancer at that. From what I understand he has beaten the survival rate odds for such an illness. It seems like he is already living on borrowed time. If a person isn't comfortable with that why would they invest in the company he is leading?
Thanks for recognizing the articles value.
However, I have to take exception to the second last line. It may be an opinion, but one of questionable taste. Unless, that is, you understand that we are all living on borrowed time.
As Thomas Full once said, ?Birth is the beginning of death.?
Everyone dies (and no one has ever come back so far.)
Counting the Christians and the Hindus, I?d say that at least 2.2 Billion people would disagree with you, though if coming back to life simply means any sort of after life then that number jumps considerably.