or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Sculley: It was a "big mistake" I was ever hired as Apple's CEO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sculley: It was a "big mistake" I was ever hired as Apple's CEO - Page 3

post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

I guess he's looking for a pat on the back or something for saying that.

He took the company from $800 million to $8 billion, then still has the humility to say he wasn't the best man for the job. Hell yes he deserves that pat on the back. We need to see this kind of accountability everywhere.
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

That is a surprisingly open and frank assessment of oneself from Sculley. Kudos to him. I'd be extremely curious to see someone interview Steve and ask him about this article

Agreed.
post #83 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

i don't know. what if they had won the lawsuit? then they would have had their asses handed to them by xerox.

Not really.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.
post #84 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post

Yeah he was a moron then and still is one. Even Pepsi did badly under him.

You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.
post #85 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

The article is correct.

So Jobs did recruit him.

and regarding Scully:
"As a child, he had created a color screen only weeks after Sony patented the Trinitron display."
Wha . . . ?!

What does that mean?
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Funny. Good point.

But that brings up an interesting conundrum. If you have a great idea ahead of its time, is it really such a good idea business-wise? I wonder too, what if Sculley had brought out a decently designed tablet computer based on the technology available at the time? Would it have been the kind of success the iPad is? One could ponder the Newton (I had one) the same way. Was it a good idea that was ahead of the development of some of the key technologies that made the iPhone such a hit?

What I am suggesting is that being a visionary involves more than just ideas, it also involves timing.

Well I don't know about you, but if we ever have flying cars, I'm giving credit to Robert Zemeckis for coming up with the idea in BTTF2
post #87 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Wow. I had forgotten that Scully was already CEO by the time the "1984" ad was aired.

No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.
post #88 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

So Jobs did recruit him.

Did I say differently?
post #89 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.

Do you still have it?
post #90 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Did I say differently?

Did I say you did say differently? (did I say you did say I said . . . )

It appeared to me you were rebutting the poster's claim that Jobs recruited Scully.
Did I misunderstand you?

But more importantly, whats with that thing about Sculley and color TV? !
post #91 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Not really.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.

From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #92 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.

I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...C_and_the_Lisa
post #93 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Steve was WRONG. Pepsi is made with high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.

Back then it was real sugar...
post #94 of 136
Don't be so hard on yourself John. If things had worked out differently, NeXT and the foundations of Apple's current product line never would've happened.

Anyway, if you want to see what BIG mistakes are about, study Microsoft.
post #95 of 136
Deleted unnecessarily pedantic "corn syrup" remarks that others have stated better than I did.
post #96 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

Chemically they are the same, just manufactured from different stock: corn, cane, beets, if it ends in -ose (fructose, glucoase, sucrose, maltose, lactose etc), then it's sugar. Even now the HFCS lobby is undergoing a transformation in names: It's soon going to be "corn sugar."

No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Try not to post nonfactual disinformation.
post #97 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

Hindsight is 20/20. I worked at Apple from '87 to '92. John Scully was generally well liked for his marketing skills and calm temperament. He lacked technical vision, and relied on John Luis Gasse' who turned out to be quite an ego-maniac.

OMG, can you imagine if Apple had bought Be and Gassee instead of NeXT and Jobs? Apple would be dead by now and the few Apple fanatics left would be like the nearly extinct Amiga fanatics mumbling about what might have been...
post #98 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on

Peace. But even had it not been the case, I'm debating the guy with his OWN argument... he was being insanely pedantic. ( Like the "Annoying Orange" from YouTube or something.) High fructose corn syrup IS a form of sugar, and he is using a very specific narrow view to bash a profound statement.

Thompson
post #99 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Try not to post nonfactual disinformation.

You are right; I was posting based on my recollection of discussions of over 50 years ago. I have since deleted the substance of my post.

Others, including "Cpsro" said it better than I did.

Incidentally, this ad was inserted in my AI feed:

post #100 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...C_and_the_Lisa

I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #101 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.

Do you think Apple just gave them an option on 100,000 shares of Apple stock options for nothing?
In any case, as I have said, Apple created their own IP that really went beyond what Xerox did anyway. For instance the desktop metaphor and the notion of "drag and drop" are Apple innovations, not to mention the whole visual language of the Lisa UI. The Mac looked and worked differently and for more elegantly then did the projects at PARC. Two years later when the Alto saw daylight, it still didn't match up to the original Mac's interface.
post #102 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

You are right; I was posting based on my recollection of discussions of over 50 years ago. I have since deleted the substance of my post.

Others, including "Cpsro" said it better than I did.

Understandable. They are all very similar and the more complex sugars are basically combinations of simpler ones. But they can break down a bit differently, depending on the situation.
post #103 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Do you think Apple just gave them an option on 100,000 shares of Apple stock options for nothing?

Since I don't actually know one way or another (and the people who do know aren't talking), I don't have reason think either way. All I know is, insiders get pre-IPO options all the time, for being nothing more than insiders. Maybe they are connected, maybe not.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #104 of 136
Waiting for Steve Ballmer to say it was a "Big Mistake" he was ever named CEO of Microsoft. perhaps in another decade, we will hear that admission.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #105 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Since I don't actually know one way or another (and the people who do know aren't talking), I don't have reason think either way. All I know is, insiders get pre-IPO options all the time, for being nothing more than insiders. Maybe they are connected, maybe not.

Nope. Pre IPO stock options are never given away for free, not for a going concern that's clearly on it's way up. They have to be earned somehow. Insiders get them for loyalty and success. They are vested over a period of years in exchange for loyal and successful work.
post #106 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Do you still have it?

I had mine on an upper shelf in my study's closet until last year. I finally took it down, fired it up, and sold it at a garage sale to a curious buyer for $10. The batteries had leaked rendering the battery holder useless. But it worked fine plugged in to an outlet. Even had a couple of games. At about the time I bought it originally there actually was a Newton Store in Westwood, CA near the campus of UCLA. That's where I bought some accessories and the game as I recall. It was not owned by Apple, but there was some kind of connection (franchise?), because their sign was the official Newton logo--the light bulb line drawing thing. The signage was very corporate looking and nicely done, plastic/glass with internal lighting. This may have been the precursor to the current Apple Store. Would be interested in knowing more about it. I seem to remember that it was run/owned by a couple of middle-eastern/american guys who were not much older than college students.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #107 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Nope. Pre IPO stock options are never given away for free, not for a going concern that's clearly on it's way up. They have to be earned somehow. Insiders get them for loyalty and success. They are vested over a period of years in exchange for loyal and successful work.

You can't generalize so easily. While it's true that some pre-IPO options go to employees and investment banks and the like, beyond this circle, they are made available to people and companies with lots of cash. None are made available to the general public. No, they are not "free" -- they cost the strike price to exercise, as their entire purpose is to raise capital for the issuing company. They can be profitable, especially for insiders who get in early, but there's no guarantee.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #108 of 136
First, among lexicographers the accepted meanings of a word evolves the way society use them. As a result, the term "gay" for example used to mean mainly to an emotional state related to joy, happiness, etc. Now, "gay" has been the preferred term to refer to group of people in our society. In fact, today most people may associate the term "gay" with their orientation, in spite of the misplaced desire of misguided "purists" that the meaning of the term "gay" was hijacked. I surmise (but not too sure) women's liberation led to further distinction of "gays" with the term "lesbian" (to refer to female members of the "collective term"), then came "transgendered", and may some more in the future.

Second, just like the example of the word "gay", from a layman's point of view, the term "sugar" is associated with "anything sweet", including the artificial sweeteners, such as saccharins (which is chemically different from the natural "simple sugars").

Finally, "sugar" is also a "correct technical term" used in science and technology. I never heard a biochemist criticize another biochemist, or a technical book in chemistry, health & nutrition, or food technology for using the term "sugar" to refer generically to all simple sugars (more technically known as monosaccharides, saccharides, disaccharides, etc.) to lump these simple sugars together found naturally in many commercial plants (cane, honey, sugar beets, the sweet in the milk of young corn kernels are also simple sugars etc.).

Simple sugars (saccharides), are chemically different, e.g., pentose, hexose, etc., not simply because they come from different plant sources. The milk in young grain of corn kernels for example include both fructose and glucose. And, even those that are the same groups of saccharides are structurally different (both glucose and fructose are hexose but their components are arranged differently). Even glucose can exist in different stereostructural forms which is lost among us, but is critical in the structure of the body. And, the condition also catalyze the natural breakdown of simple saccharides, for example sucrose (found in cane sugar) naturally breaks down (in equilibrium with its monosaccharides -- glucose and fructose -- in the presence of acids, such as the one introduced by the carbonate in colas, and when sour fruits (orange, lime, etc.) are used in cooking to partially hydrolyze cane sugar, and others found in honey, etc.

The term "simple sugars" or "saccharides" to differentiate them from chemically-bonded strings of these simple sugars to form what are referred to as polysaccharides (like those stored as human edible form of complex "sugars" found in "cereal" grains -- corn, rice, wheat, barley, etc.). All plants by the way are made mainly of "simple sugars" but some are more complex natural polymers when in combination with other biochemical backbones (see below).

Here's a link in Wikipedia for

Corn Sugar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

and

for Carbohydrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates

that includes more links about more complex natural substances that include "simple sugars". The term polysaccharides is used to differentiate them from more complex natural polymers that contain not only the simple sugars but other simple biochemicals, like the backbone you have in Leggo to form all sorts of products -- all part of what constitute living organism.

It is lazy reporters (including a number in papers, like New York Times), who think that they are so technically proficient -- after doing a simple "Google search" and reading a few of the "top search" articles -- that spread incorrect information, that are not picked up as Gospel truth by many laymen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Steve was WRONG. Pepsi is made with high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Back then it was real sugar...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post
Chemically they are the same, just manufactured from different stock: corn, cane, beets, if it ends in -ose (fructose, glucoase, sucrose, maltose, lactose etc), then it's sugar. Even now the HFCS lobby is undergoing a transformation in names: It's soon going to be "corn sugar."


Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post
It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

Deleted unnecessarily pedantic "corn syrup" remarks that others have stated better than I did.

The posters below got the idea:


Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
Steve was RIGHT. Fructose is one of the simple sugars. Whether it comes from processed corn syrup or sugar cane, it IS sugar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Try not to post nonfactual disinformation.



An example of this more complex (polymeric) carbohydrate is "cellulose" which is more common and the main component of all green plants. Cellulose, while still includes the basic forms of "saccharides" cannot be metabolized naturally by most animals (that includes us) but digested by certain species of fungi and microorganisms. Thus, while animals technically cannot digest cellulose, certain animals harbor specific fungi and miscroorganisms in their special stomachs (referred to as "compound stomach") that actually that actually digests cellulosic materials and other more complex containing polymers to simple sugars.

In turn the simple simple sugars, and then used for energy or further metabolyzed as component of a polysaccharide (glycogen), and if you eat more sugars and carbohydrates, they may be metabolized by the body further to be stored to become fat, including cholesterol. Thus, your cholesterol can become very high even if you do not eat food with high cholesterol or fat. Eat more protein that you need (as some diet food health gurus suggest) can also end up in your fat layers and cholesterol plaques in your arteries, except you also store "uric acid" in your body, which is even worse as you get older.

CGC
post #109 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

It appeared to me you were rebutting the poster's claim that Jobs recruited Scully.

Did I misunderstand you?

I was rebutting the claim that the article was misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Do you still have it?

No. It was either the Mac or my Playboy collection. Unfortunately I eventually ended up losing both.

But after more than a hundred Macs since then, I am now hoping that Playboy one day releases an iPad app and makes digital collector's editions available.
post #110 of 136
Apple, during the Sculley's tenure, wasn't doing to well. anyways, the article did have a few interesting points.
post #111 of 136
Enough with the sugar/fructose debate/comments.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #112 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You can't generalize so easily. While it's true that some pre-IPO options go to employees and investment banks and the like, beyond this circle, they are made available to people and companies with lots of cash. None are made available to the general public. No, they are not "free" -- they cost the strike price to exercise, as their entire purpose is to raise capital for the issuing company. They can be profitable, especially for insiders who get in early, but there's no guarantee.

Given to investment banks and people with lots of cash?
I don't think so, not unless they pay a premium or provide a service to the company.
Options are not awarded "to raise money," as you seem to think (sounds like you are confusing "awarding options" with "issuing stock.") Options are awarded in lieu of cash because the company is cash poor, but stock rich. The options have potential value and represent a potential expense for the company, not a revenue stream.
Xerox, like Apple employees, did not have to pay a premium for the options when they were awarded to them. Their adherence to a contract was the premium they paid. So they don't "raise capital" (they buy hard work and loyalty from employees and services of some kind from othersthe visit to PARC and the permission to see their research, or whatever else, at Xerox PARC.)
Also options are a sure thing for the people they are awarded to. Although they may expire worthless and not pay off, the bearer has the option not the obligation to exercise them. They don't have to pay the strike price unless they exercise the option. And they don't have to exercise the option unless it has a positive net value for them. Also once they have the options, they can sell them for cash at any time without having to exercise them.
post #113 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Peace. But even had it not been the case, I'm debating the guy with his OWN argument... he was being insanely pedantic. ( Like the "Annoying Orange" from YouTube or something.) High fructose corn syrup IS a form of sugar, and he is using a very specific narrow view to bash a profound statement.

Thompson

bloggerblog was right tho and isn't being pedantic. It also is an imaginary interruption of that Sculley/Jobs scene b/c Pepsi was still using Sugar at the time If you were to put something for sale that was sweeted with HFCS and tried to list it as sugar, that would not fly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

It is lazy reporters (including a number in papers, like New York Times), who think that they are so technically proficient -- after doing a simple "Google search" and reading a few of the "top search" articles -- that spread incorrect information, that are not picked up as Gospel truth by many laymen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on


Are you equating myself and others with the lazy reporters? I posted a simple fact. At the time, the ingredient label on the side of Pepsi read "Sugar", not "High fructose corn syrup". You can say blah blah HFCS is a sugar and you are technically correct, but being A sugar is not the same as being THE sugar, especially when it comes to an ingredient list.

One thing I find very interesting is how the Pepsi Throwback editions are simplified. Hit the pepsi website and compare the ingredient list of Mt Dew, Pepsi and Dr Pepper between normal and throwback versions. 8 ingredients become 5, 13 ingredients become 8, less carbs, etc.
post #114 of 136
I gotta tell ya, this sugar/corn syrup digression is the digression to end all digressions. On MacBreak Weekly podcasts Leo LaPorte refers to this phenomenon as "going down a rat hole." I propose that a link to this thread be placed on Wikipedia as the prime example.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #115 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Enough with the sugar/fructose debate/comments.

LOL. You guys should see the Google Ad that pops up at the bottom of page 3 of this thread. It reads "High Fructose Corn Syrup". Now you've done it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #116 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

Yes, he may still be mad at you (he wouldn't be human if he wasn't, for crying out loud), but it seems that you are the one who doesn't like how you are going down on history: as Apple's greatest management blunder.

Actually, I don't think Sculley was Apple's greatest management blunder. The CEOs who came after Sculley, Michael Spindler and especially Gil Amelio, were even worse, IMO. The only smart thing Amelio did was to bring Jobs back to the company by purchasing NeXT because Apple could not get the next gen OS built on their own.

Also, there's an argument to be made that if Jobs did not have his experiences at NeXT and Pixar, he would not be the same person he is today and would not have achieved the successes of recent years, with NeXT showing him that he could fail and Pixar demonstrating great success. I think Steve should actually thank Sculley for pushing him out because it gave him some great experiences that he needed to mature.

Besides, even though Apple was not financially successful during the 12 years that Steve was gone from the company, a lot of great products and some great marketing campaigns were still produced during that era.

One of the biggest flaws during that era was the development of a ridiculous number of model lines and variants (Performa, Mac LC, Centris, Quadra) that were redundant and confused the marketplace. In the desktop line, there were approx 26 models released in 1993, 22 in 1994, 38 in 1995, 40 in 1996, 45 in 1997 (with Jobs returning on July 9th) and then streamlined down to 14 desktops in 1998, 20 in 1999 and 13 in 2000. (There have always been rumors that a very large inventory of machines issued before Jobs' return wound up in landfills.)

One other failure, of course, was the Newton. The question that has to be asked is was the Newton simply ahead of its time or was it doomed to fail because of the poor handwriting recognition? And if Jobs had been with Apple at the time, would he have released it? Who knows? Apple has certainly released underpowered computers even when Jobs was there.

And frankly, I'd like to see Apple have another failure (even though I own the stock). Occasional failures make one more humble and less arrogant. Apple could use a bit of that right now. Meanwhile, with Apple probably the most watched company in the world, with their products hitting sales records every quarter through the worst recession in 80 years, and the stock at an all-time high, Jobs has got to be considered to be the finest CEO in modern corporate history. The question going forward is "what is the succession plan?"
post #117 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Given to investment banks and people with lots of cash?
I don't think so, not unless they pay a premium or provide a service to the company.
Options are not awarded "to raise money," as you seem to think (sounds like you are confusing "awarding options" with "issuing stock.") Options are awarded in lieu of cash because the company is cash poor, but stock rich. The options have potential value and represent a potential expense for the company, not a revenue stream.
Xerox, like Apple employees, did not have to pay a premium for the options when they were awarded to them. Their adherence to a contract was the premium they paid. So they don't "raise capital" (they buy hard work and loyalty from employees and services of some kind from others—the visit to PARC and the permission to see their research, or whatever else, at Xerox PARC.)
Also options are a sure thing for the people they are awarded to. Although they may expire worthless and not pay off, the bearer has the option not the obligation to exercise them. They don't have to pay the strike price unless they exercise the option. And they don't have to exercise the option unless it has a positive net value for them. Also once they have the options, they can sell them for cash at any time without having to exercise them.

You are wrong, or at least misrepresenting what I said, with your very first word. I never said "given" I said "made available." Big difference. To exercise any option, the holder must pay the strike price. Those dollars go to the company issuing the IPO, which is why they are issuing an IPO in the first place, to raise capital. In fact, even when a company grants options to employees as a form of bonus or incentive, the recipient still has to pay the strike price to exercise them, and those dollars still go to the company issuing the stock.

As for the Xerox situation, we've heard various stories but none are corroborated, which is really all I'm saying about that. Even if the story is true that Apple gave Xerox the opportunity to buy $1 million in pre-IPO options, it's still small change to them, and of no immediate value. More importantly, many others were given the same opportunity in exchange for nothing but having the cash to invest. Incidentally, the minimum investment in a pre-IPO is still $1 million, which is why they are still only offered to people and companies with that kind of dough to throw around. Some think it's wrong that only high rollers get shots a pre-IPO shares, but that's how the system has operated for a long time.

You really ought to read up on IPOs. I'm pretty sure you don't know how they work.

Anyway, at least this is more relevant to discuss than the various types of sweeteners.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #118 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I gotta tell ya, this sugar/corn syrup digression is the digression to end all digressions. On MacBreak Weekly podcasts Leo LaPorte refers to this phenomenon as "going down a rat hole." I propose that a link to this thread be placed on Wikipedia as the prime example.

I agree. What is this need to take Jobs' quote so literally? This borders on an anal-retentive disorder. It doesn't matter what was in those drinks. They could have been diet drinks with no sugar or corn syrup at all. Steve was just trying to make the point that Sculley was part of a company that was selling a trivial product, largely to children. He could have been talking about toys or comic books or cheap clothes or potato chips or school supplies or just about anything you can name. Remember, Jobs' mantra was that Apple was going to change the world. So the argument to join Apple was "change the world" vs. "be trivial".

But as long as everyone is obsessing over sugar and corn syrup in soft drinks, if you want drinks made with cane sugar and not corn syrup, simply buy them around April when the labels read "Kosher for Passover" (as opposed to just the K for Kosher). For reasons I don't quite understand, corn syrup is not considered Kosher for Passover. I'll let others debate whether the body metabolizes cane sugar differently than HFCS.
post #119 of 136
Quote:
Also options are a sure thing for the people they are awarded to. Although they may expire worthless and not pay off, the bearer has the option not the obligation to exercise them. They don't have to pay the strike price unless they exercise the option. And they don't have to exercise the option unless it has a positive net value for them. Also once they have the options, they can sell them for cash at any time without having to exercise them.

That's not always true. I worked for a large company as an executive and had Options and left and I had to sell within a certain time frame (I think within six months of leaving with the date chosen three months in advance.) The stock happened to be down substantially on the sale date and while I still achieved a gain, it wasn't all that much. I could not hold the Options and I certainly could not sell them to anyone else. And Options are usually a separate class of non-voting stock.
post #120 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I agree. What is this need to take Jobs' quote so literally? This borders on an anal-retentive disorder. It doesn't matter what was in those drinks.

It seems that if you want to get people cranked up, just bring up diet and food. These seem to be the hot button issues for Americans these days. I'll stop now before I go down the same rat hole I decried earlier.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Sculley: It was a "big mistake" I was ever hired as Apple's CEO