Quarterly dividend expected to expand Apple's shareholder base - Page 2

@ Chronster,

I don't think some underscores prevent that from being a personal attack.

I mean, I'm just reading articles on it and going on what they said his position was. You're absolutely correct, he could have just been waiting. Or he could have not ever wanted to do this all as a result of not comprehending fully what was behind it. He wasn't an accountant or a banker, after all.

None of the articles I've read (I've read about 4 now) mention if Jobs had changed his opinion at all up to his death. It was a casual observation of what a Jobs-less Apple is now doing despite what the person who gave them the money in the first place told them not to do.

Well I could be calling him a curse word, or I could be calling him a silly willy popsicle.

I've also read nothing that stated Jobs was vehemently against any buybacks or dividends which would seem silly to me if he was. The balanced answer to me is that is was for Apple doing whatever it needs to do to survive any event and to continue to grow. At some point having all that cash wouldn't be helping it.

As I've previously stated I was against Apple doing these things when they had $20 billion, and $50 billion and then $80 billion as the discussions arose every quarter, but as they neared that $100 billion mark I thought that it was time to seriously consider it. Not because $100 billion is some magical number but because the known lump sum investments were small enough that even not weighted against their increase in profits to make this a viable option.

At this point I find it hard to imagine that anything at Apple today doesn't have Jobs fingerprints on it somewhere.

Haven't you heard? "Corporations are people too, my friend" -- Mitt Romney

Seriously, that sounds a bit abstract. I guess if you take all the profits and build a sports arena and buy a losing franchise then you obviously don't have any concerns about wasting the shareholder's value but fortunately Apple has not done that so for them shareholder value and company value are pretty much equal.

The societal degree of the pejorative is irrelevant if your comment is meant to me disparaging to the person. Id est, an ad hominem.

It's really simple to adhere to AI's rules. Attack the post, not the poster. You pretty much have have carte blanche in that regard.

For example, the post you are upset about isn't about you. He responded to you but then segued into an adjacent topic. I think your post was a catalytic to his tangent about the anti-Apple crowd, but I don't think he lumped you into that category because your posting history clearly shows you are not an Apple "hater". In fact, your comments in this thread, while I disagree with them, show you are actually defending Apple through what you perceive as Jobs wishes. If TS was talking about you specifically he masked it by generalizing his reply thus not making an ad hominem..

Wait, really? This is your reply to me? \




You know what I mean. Anyone who hates anything about something Apple has doneregardless of its meaningfulness or its impactwill pull that card out of their pocket like a bad magician and lay it on the table expecting everyone to be impressed. A smattering of awkward shifting and coughs is all they'll get. Steve himself said he didn't want people asking what he would do, and that's absolutely for the best.

Apple should continue to be like Steve, not as Steve. It's a break in simile form, but the distinction is clear.

And anyone outside his family or Apple's top executive rungs really doesn't have any way to know what Steve would or wouldn't have done, anyway, so the entire idea is moot.


I left it out because it's so obviously true there wasn't anything to say about it. I left it out because it so negated the rest of your post, there wasn't much purpose at all for you to have made the first two points. It's confusing why you'd bother presenting it like that when your real beliefs (contained in that last sentence) so thoroughly go against it.


Which, again, you can't know, but can only infer. We were reaching this point even before his death. For the past few years, people have been increasingly asking 'what will become of the money', and the $100 billion milestone made that all the more prominent.

You could look at Apple the day before the "Antennagate" conference and say, "Steve Jobs would never go all public with a problem; they'd just fix it silently behind the scenes." And then they did the opposite with Steve up on stage, even.


See, it's hilarious, I've been called both a fanboy and an anti-Apple troll multiple times before. The former because I support Apple and the latter because I request features and question some of Apple's decisions. It's really rather evident that one of them is wrong and that the people behind it are therefore also ill-informed.

If that's what your definition of an Apple hater is, then it doesn't apply to me, and therefor your comment was out of place and simply meant to start an argument for the sake of arguing

If the idea is moot, you wouldn't have responded to try and weigh in on why the idea is wrong. If nobody has any way to know what Steve would have done, who are you to presume what I said was wrong? That should have been your initial point from the start, but as made evident by even the first sentence of your comment, you're incapable of reasoned discussion.



No, you left it out because it would reveal your response was not warranted. You left it out because you knew people would read your response to the INSANE CHRONSTER and never know that I merely offering an idea for the discussion, and not a strict inarguable standpoint. It's not that my real beliefs go against what I'm saying, but rather I'm saying that my thought isn't set in stone and I am considering alternative lines of reasoning.

You just said people like us have no way of knowing what Steve was thinking, now you're lambasting me for weighing different ideas?


You say we can't know it, yet out of all the articles I've read, they made a point to mention Steve Jobs was initially against it. This isn't a discussion topic I came up with on my own.



WOW, HOW IRONIC. I've been called an anti-Apple troll more often than not around here FOR DOING THE EXACT SAME THING (request features, question some of Apple's decisions.)

I would think out of ALL THE PEOPLE on this forum, you would then understand the most how frustrating it is to have people want to argue with you over any kind of comment outside the mainstream thought process around here.

C'mon.

Apple first introduced a dividend in 1987, under Jobs. They paid dividends into the mid-1990s.

Then, when SJ came back, he got rid of the dividends. That was the prudent thing to do since the company's financial position was shaky, at best. There was no need to pay out money to shareholders when that money could have been used instead to plow back into the business to grow it for the future. Which is exactly what he did.

15 years later, they have $100B in the bank, with more gushing in steadily. The largest in any corporate kitty. It is only prudent to think about returning some of it to shareholders. The only debate would be - and it's one SJ would probably go along with - whether to do a buyback or a dividend or a special dividend. Apple chose to do with the first two.

Incidentally, it's not really the CEO's decision, as much as the Board's. It's essentially the same Board as before.

GAVE them the money? Just what do you think the other TENS OF THOUSANDS of employees do all day?

You must think SJ was a real idiot for hiring all those engineers and then paying them to do nothing

Some people just don't understand how business works!

I had to register on this forum just so I could reply...

I can't be more pleased with Apple's decision. Why should shareholders be forced to sell to enjoy the profits of a stock?!? This decision was long overdue, and should also add stability to the stock.

I know Jobs never wanted dividends... But that's easy to say when you're a multi-billionaire.

I agree. It was precisely that kind of attitude that stood Apple from the pack. Lose that mentality at your peril Apple.

I can't express how much I despise this sort of entitled view point.

People have to realize that at some psychological or tangible point (number), this cash can become a liability to Apple.

As Countries are on the brink of default, broke, etc., and misguided morons trying to paint corporations who hire workers in others Countries to build their products, with Apple at the forefront, as some kind of "evil", Apple raking in cash into the hundred billions can be a dangerous thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Governments and vultures started really sniffing around, and trying to find ways to get a poke at that money.

It's becoming a serious enough "issue", where they need to let go of certain great ideals that made them "think different" and be the unique powerhouses that all companies should envy that they are today. Really, the main "certain ideal" there is what they should do with their war-chest that they DO need in order to be viable, and a good investment, for a technology company, IMO.

I think they made a good move. I won't lie and say that it was surreal and shocking to me, however. I just hope that it was the honest to goodness choice of Tim Cook in his best judgement, as opposed to him caving into vultures who were jumping in the second that Steve unfortunately passed. I trust Tim, and I know that Apple wouldn't be where they are, and wouldn't have NEARLY the amounts of cash that they do if it weren't for Tim Cook. He is responsible for a vast amount of the riches that Apple will now be partially distributing to its owners.

I also do wonder whether this is something that Mr. Jobs knew was going to happen at some point in the near future.

It's bizarre, I wonder why people think Apple is forcing them to sell the shares?

Steve talked a lot about how he admired HP and wanted to build something like that. In the end he did, and surpassed HP by all reasonable measures.

Nah mate, it's not about executive compensation, specifically in the conference call it was stated that Tim Cook has declined something something... essentially, Tim's not getting dividends.

I love the mainstream media's headlines:
Apple dividend shows new CEO Tim Cook will push company in new directions in post-Jobs era


And among the other garbage spewed in mainstream media:
Apple didn’t even bother anointing the third-generation iPad with a distinctive name, prompting some Apple pundits to wonder whether the company might have tried to come up with something more creative if Jobs were still running things.

WTF? I suppose "MacBook Pro" was a lousy name that Steve Jobs kept changing? It's pure drivel, what's out there now. Luckily I can recognise it because I've been following Apple, can't imagine what they say about the stuff I ~don't~ know about. Also, no mention of Tim (AFAIK) not getting the dividends himself, because if he did, basically he would have announced a very chunky pay raise for himself.