Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy

1234579

Comments

  • irelandireland Posts: 15,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fritzler View Post


    Loose Lips Sink Ships. Remember this, always



    Go jump.
  • brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    This "veil of secrecy" at Apple has proven to be remarkably effective, particularly with respect to product development and marketing.



    The advantages far outweigh the costs.



    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.



    +1



    agreed
  • brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadisawesome View Post


    while I see the financial reasons for maintaining this site, I'm shocked that after being treated so rudely by apple's legal department, this site still refuses to report negatively toward anything about apple.



    I GET the fascination with the company, posts like this that show the dark underbelly of what goes on at Apple are really interesting. I'm just shocked that if I ran a site, say, for I dunno, a band I liked, and then the band tried to sue me. I would probably continue the blog, especially if it brought in cash, but I would have a hard time being so blindly postive and, I dunno a better word for it, but I wouldn't be quite as ball-sucking as Apple Insider is at times with it's articles, particularly with reviews and any news having to do with microsoft...



    while I expect a favortism toward mac products here, sometimes the apple blinders are up in full force, and it's hard to find an objective point of view.



    And your point is ???
  • brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    edited
  • brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    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.



    What law. PLEASE show us .
  • tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.



    Again, if you can show us where Apple was required, under the law, to disclose SJ's (still alleged) liver transplant, (allegedly) undertaken during a period in which he was not serving as a corporate officer, under any law, then please do it.
  • dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    We have a dr. here who thinks its the law for a man heath to be of public record.



    Not sure what you mean here exactly, but nobody said this, least of all me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    Again, if you can show us where Apple was required, under the law, to disclose SJ's (still alleged) liver transplant, (allegedly) undertaken during a period in which he was not serving as a corporate officer, under any law, then please do it.



    I never said this either. What I did say I said several times already.
  • lightstrikerlightstriker Posts: 458member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post






    1) Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller is said to be among the members of Apple's top brass who play an integral role in helping to track down employees who disclose advance product information to members of the press. At times, it's reported, he has held internal product briefings in which he's disseminated inaccurate details of an upcoming product's prices or features, then attempts to track down the source of news reports that print the incorrect information.



    2) The Times even recalls a widely publicized case five years ago in which Apple attempted to subpoenaed AppleInsider's Kasper Jade and the PowerPage's Jason O'Grady to force them to identify sources who provided accurate details of an unreleased hardware product code-named Asteroid. The journalists refused to cooperate and instead enlisted the services of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as their counsel.



    Eventually, the case went to court with Apple arguing that online journalists shouldn't be afforded the same protections as print journalists. A three-judge panel in the California Court of Appeals ultimately sided unanimously in favor Jade and O'Grady, ruling that they were indeed entitled to the same protections as conventional reporters and would not have to identify their sources. During the proceedings, the court made it clear to Apple that it had no grounds to railroad online reporters into doing their dirty work of uncovering leakers.











    3) But Apple's veil of secrecy covers more than just products.



    that Mr. Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance ? seem like a deliberate mistruth, unless Mr. Jobs?s health condition suddenly deteriorated."





    1) This is what national iintelligence agencies do. Apple is the CIA of the corporate world.





    2) GO AI! protecting Freedom Of Speech and the Constitution.





    3) hormonal imbalance can describe hitting puberty. Is this really Jobs' "second cumming"? hormonal imbalance is so vague. Alot of the brain controls a wide variaty of hormones.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,915member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.



    I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you obviously know little about Sarbanes-Oxley.



    I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time. I am sure opportunities will present themselves in the future, given your predilections to make sweeping statements.........
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,563member
    Really, what’s the argument for how Apple has suffered for its secrecy? Questions from the SEC? A few grumbling investors?



    Peanuts.



    Yes, Apple is far more secretive than most companies, but they’re also far more successful. Measured by profit and revenue and growth, the big picture tells us that their "secrecy" policy is right on the money. It's a winning formula that carries with it some costs. Small price to pay for the long-term benefits that occurred from Seve Jobs' return to the present day. Apple's policies, practices and philosophy have paid off magnificently - for the company, for users, and even investors.



    This should all be quite obvious, anyway. It really doesn't require a NYT "report."
  • dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you obviously know little about Sarbanes-Oxley.



    Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.



    Quote:

    I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time. I am sure opportunities will present themselves in the future, given your predilections to make sweeping statements.........



    I'm not surprised, especially since I've made no "sweeping statements" that you've made any effort to actually identify. I have only pointed out the conflicting explanations the experts have offered about the need for event reporting.
  • wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I'm not surprised, especially since I've made no "sweeping statements" that you've made any effort to actually identify. I have only pointed out the conflicting explanations the experts have offered about the need for event reporting.



    Why do you keep arguing with them?



    You've been here two months, and you haven't figured out yet that these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?



    Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.
  • a_hnaua_hnau Posts: 26member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.



    I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but that's the most succinct and laugh-out-loud characterisation of Apple addicts I've ever heard
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?



    Gimme a reason to.



    Your habit of chiming in on a topic with nary more than a single post containing profanity about Apple users and then waiting for the next topic to rinse/repeat, really isn't doing it for some reason.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    There is another, just as important article, not mentioned today by AppleInsider, on whether or not Steve Jobs jumped the line for his new liver.

    Here it is:



    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...er-transplant/
  • pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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.



    ^ This. This whole situation really aggravates me, and other's unbelievable obsession with other's lives...purely sickens me.



    I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.



    That's how an adult deals with such a situation, fwiw.
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    There is another, just as important article, not mentioned today by AppleInsider, on whether or not Steve Jobs jumped the line for his new liver.

    Here it is:



    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...er-transplant/



    In Mr. Jobs’s case, doctors say there was no need, and little opportunity, to cheat the system. Under current procedures, any transplant center ranks potential liver recipients on its waiting list, with the highest rankings based on how sick the patients are and how long they have been that sick. Jumping ahead of a sicker patient is not allowed.



    Ok.



    I don't see how the article is "just as important."



    He got a liver transplant. It was successful (relatively speaking.) His doctors say everything was done above-board.



    Nothing to really see here.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Man, I took a 3 day break and still see that the fanboys are still mesmerized to attack anybody who says anything about Apple not in a favorable way. And I was beginning to think that it was just me.
  • teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    In Mr. Jobs’s case, doctors say there was no need, and little opportunity, to cheat the system. Under current procedures, any transplant center ranks potential liver recipients on its waiting list, with the highest rankings based on how sick the patients are and how long they have been that sick. Jumping ahead of a sicker patient is not allowed.



    Ok.



    So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.



    I don't know how sick he was or how advanced his cancer was. Only his doctors really know all the facts.



    I assume that someone has to be pretty sick in order to get a liver transplant, regardless of the exact disease, and that appearing higher on the list means you're worse off relative to others on the list.
Sign In or Register to comment.