or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Critics take issue with lack of diversity on Apple Board of Directors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Critics take issue with lack of diversity on Apple Board of Directors - Page 3

post #81 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Are you having trouble with English today? Stop this nonsense.

Not at all...I just find it unnecessarily dismissive and pejorative. And clumsy. :)

post #82 of 175
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
Not at all...I just find it unnecessarily dismissive and pejorative. And clumsy. :)

 

You think we shouldn’t immediately dismiss this kind of statement:

 

Originally Posted by RichL View Post
If you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job.

?

 

Really. This warrants further discussion, does it? :no:

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #83 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
 

 

Both statements are correct, aren't they?

 

1) "...if you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job". 

 

2) "...if you're mostly hiring black women, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job". 

 

With all due respect, you're using convoluted logic. And in an inartful way, making the opposite argument.

 

Best.

If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #84 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow, I missed this. Talk about ludicrous nonsense.

And yet I've linked to studies that prove my point.

Perhaps you should do some research into the subject and get back to me, rather than making your own uninformed guesses.
post #85 of 175
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
Not at all...I just find it unnecessarily dismissive and pejorative. And clumsy. :)

 

You think we shouldn’t immediately dismiss this kind of statement:

 

Originally Posted by RichL View Post
If you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job.

?

 

Really. This warrants further discussion, does it? :no:

 

 

I think it's one of the best, most succinct quotes said today.

post #86 of 175

If you want to stop racism, then stop pulling the race card. You are just pointing to color and criticizing it. You are perpetuating the stereotypes.

post #87 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position? Every job should be equally filled with every type of person, gender and race? That is convoluted logic. The most important question for you is should this be mandated? If 95% of white males enter computer programming and 5% of black females enter computer programming, should companies be splitting the workforce 95/5 or 50/50? To me, the split doesn't matter at all, the amount of any one group should not matter. There should only be qualified and unqualified people. Painting all companies with your mile wide broad brush does nothing to stop racism. All it does is promote reverse-racism where you promote race over qualifications. You are targeting companies and just assuming they don't diversify without even considering that maybe, just maybe, the directors were hired on merit.

Huh?

post #88 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

If mostly black women or white men or purple leprechauns are the most qualified for the job then you will have mostly that segment of society in that job. Are you saying there should not be any one demographic mostly filling one position

There's always going to be exceptions to every rule, which is why I said 'probably'.

Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?
post #89 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

...Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?

EDIT: OK. I think this is the best, most succinct quote said today! :)

 

How we got from this position to "purple leprechauns," is beyond me! 

 

Best.


Edited by christopher126 - 1/6/14 at 9:35am
post #90 of 175
Who gives a rat's a$$. If you're qualified should be the first criteria, minority, women, white, etc shouldn't be a criteria. We don't need affrimative action at the board level. Layoff backseat drivers and let management do it's job!

Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.
post #91 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Al Gore could very well be a major influence on Apple's environmental policies. Their renewable energy outlays for their data centers are evidence of some heavy commitment in this area. This may be one of his "qualifications" that you're asking for—making carbon reduction a tangible goal.
Yeah if environmentalism is your thing. It's not mine.
post #92 of 175

People who force the issue of diversity are the worst bigots.

post #93 of 175

Valid points if applied to tech boards as a whole.

But care to point to more diverse boards, or is this just more using Apple to gain attention?

post #94 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Yeah if environmentalism is your thing. It's not mine.

Yeah... screw the kids. 'I got mine.'

post #95 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

Since when are women a minority?

 

People tend to hire people who are similar to themselves, rather than the absolutely best person for the job. 'Blind' interview/audition experiments have proven this. Just look at the success of the Rooney Rule in the NFL.

 

If you're mostly hiring white men, you're probably not hiring the best person for the job.

They won't get it RichL. 

Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.

The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.

post #96 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMacMan View Post

Who gives a rat's a$$. If you're qualified should be the first criteria, minority, women, white, etc shouldn't be a criteria. We don't need affrimative action at the board level. Layoff backseat drivers and let management do it's job!

Man, enough already. BTW, I am a minority but I don't expect Apple to hire me because of that fact, but because of my skills. I have more self pride to be hired because of my race only.

I think it's more of a complex problem.

 

If the drinking fountain says, "Whites only," or the sign on the front door of the Augusta "National" Golf Course says, "Men Only," it's obvious (to most) of the inequity. And address it, accordingly. 

 

But there is an insidious element to the problem, where there are no "signs." I think women and minorities experience this often (purple leprechauns, not so much). That's all.

 

No one has suggested quotas, or directives. I just take issue with the insipid comments that presume there is no problem and who gives a rat's a$$.

 

Best.


Edited by christopher126 - 1/6/14 at 10:02am
post #97 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post
 

They won't get it RichL. 

Just as they don't get that the single most effective way, world-wide, to decrease poverty and birth rates is to educate women.

The fact that we're ignoring critical talent from 50% of the population, in the same way that paternalistic societies run by fundamentalist religions do the same, is beyond them.

Wow! GCB. We could've used your help an hour ago! :)

 

Well said...couldn't agree more.


Edited by christopher126 - 1/6/14 at 10:11am
post #98 of 175
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
And yet I've linked to studies that prove my point.

 

No “studies” can possibly prove that point.

 
Perhaps you should do some research into the subject and get back to me, rather than making your own uninformed guesses.

 

Wanted: Fathers.

 

Now shut up.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #99 of 175

Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back.

Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)

 

On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly male and largely out of touch with gender issues (and many other things.) This creates a huge blind spot. Diversity is about a diversity of thought and experience, not simply race, gender, etc. Apple should strive for diverse leadership and talent as a smart strategic way to make the company strong and nimble. It's not about checking boxes, it's about good business. I think this is largely what they have tried to do from the start anyway.

 

Moreover, board members are also the ceremonial face of the corporation, so some care must be taken in their selection.

Females are a huge portion, probably a majority of Apple's product purchaser/influencers (think for example, females/Moms.) It only makes sense that women should be among the influential people working at Apple. Sure, on the board is nice, but more importantly, in the actual corporate organization as team members and leaders. Of course this can only be according to their skill and experience. But having poor diversity at any level of the organization should be avoided just like any other corporate weakness. 

 

In any case, folks need to relax a bit and open their minds on the diversity issue.

post #100 of 175
As we see every day, morals and business don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Outsiders should keep their idea of corporate morals to themselves. Apple has its own guiding principles (more moral than most endeavors, it seems); they seem to be working just fine.
post #101 of 175
You shouldn't be forced to diversify but you have to explain why person A is more qualified than person B. I think there should be a wide net cast for candidates that include minorities. Someone mention the Rooney Rule. I believe that should apply to all SVP and BoD. Not saying it's not currently.
post #102 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 

Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back.

Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)

 

On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly male and largely out of touch with gender issues (and many other things.) This creates a huge blind spot. Diversity is about a diversity of thought and experience, not simply race, gender, etc. Apple should strive for diverse leadership and talent as a smart strategic way to make the company strong and nimble. It's not about checking boxes, it's about good business. I think this is largely what they have tried to do from the start anyway.

 

Moreover, board members are also the ceremonial face of the corporation, so some care must be taken in their selection.

Females are a huge portion, probably a majority of Apple's product purchaser/influencers (think for example, females/Moms.) It only makes sense that women should be among the influential people working at Apple. Sure, on the board is nice, but more importantly, in the actual corporate organization as team members and leaders. Of course this can only be according to their skill and experience. But having poor diversity at any level of the organization should be avoided just like any other corporate weakness. 

 

In any case, folks need to relax a bit and open their minds on the diversity issue.

You should have written the original article! :)

post #103 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Now shut up.

Now shut up?

post #104 of 175
I believe there is racism in this country, and every country. I think every person has some racism, no matter what they look like. But, this whole topic seems silly. You're dealing with a technology company - the percentage of techie women to men is notoriously one sided towards guys. Guys almost always love video games etc. Are there exceptions? Yes, plenty. But to say apple is biased towards white males is to say there shouldn't be so many Korean samsung execs. It is possible that apple is biased, it's also possible that the most talented people are on the board. It's also possible that these people asking for better treatment are targeting companies who have already succeeded with the "best" workers because the "diverse" companies haven't proved successful - if you want to succeed in the tech world today, you have to be the best and brightest period, not just the best at looking brightest, or you're a sinking ship. I personally think that if a specific cultural or gender group want to see a greater presence in any industry, they need to start more of their own kind excited to enter the field, with marketing or Facebook groups or something.
post #105 of 175
Ethnicity is irrelevant. Experience, regardless of gender or race, is all that matters in a board.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #106 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.

 

AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.

So what you're saying is there are no minorities or other women (aside from Jung) who can do the job.    I think that's the part that is nonsense.  

 

The reality is that "old white boy clubs" feel most comfortable with other "old white boys".    So in their heads, they feel those people are the most qualified.   This is what discrimination is really about in most circumstances today.   It's not that people "hate" other ethnicities, genders, etc. - most people, especially successful people, have gotten way beyond that.       It's that they simply feel more comfortable with someone just like them, perhaps without even realizing it.    But it's still racism/sexism/ageism/anti-Semitism, whatever.   

 

In general, diversity helps companies do a better job because it enables them to better address the needs of diverse marketplaces.    I don't think Apple should throw anyone off the Board to achieve diversity, but when their terms are up, there's nothing wrong with trying to establish a more diverse Board when they bring in new people.    That doesn't mean not bringing in the best, but it means being more open to considering different kinds of people.    

post #107 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I think it's more of a complex problem.

If the drinking fountain says, "Whites only," or the sign on the front door of the Augusta "National" Golf Course says, "Men Only," it's obvious (to most) of the inequity. And address it, accordingly. 

But there is an insidious element to the problem, where there are no "signs." I think women and minorities experience this often (purple leprechauns, not so much). That's all.

No one has suggested quotas, or directives. I just take issue with the insipid comments that presume there is no problem and who gives a rat's a$$.

Best.

I agree with you, I just don't think there is a deliberate policy that Apple practices of no minorities. Apple is a class A company and they want the best of the best regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The notion that they're only considering white men only is in conflict with their ethics. I know this because I've consulted with Apple in the past on some projects and I can tell you that if you're A calibar individual, they want you on the team. Having said that, I am not blind to the fact that not everyone or every company is color blind or gender nutural, far from it. But the fact is there is also reverse discrimination. How many women only clubs, associations, gatherings, etc are there? Plenty. The TV station BET (Black Entertainment Television) imagine if there was a WET, how do you think that would fly.

The point is, there is always good and bad. But we can't apply these rules in general. Apple is inclusive but you have to have the proper credentials. Which doesn't include race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
post #108 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

As we see every day, morals and business don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

It's been said that corporate personhood has the mentality of a psychopath: self-interested and oblivious to any deleterious effect on actual people.

Some of the folks posting here will be in for a rough ride when the fickle finger of corporate fate lifts from their scales of privilege.

Born on 3rd base and think you hit a triple? You may be a white hipster!
Ask me about.... The 80's!
Reply
Ask me about.... The 80's!
Reply
post #109 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Yeah if environmentalism is your thing. It's not mine.

Environmentalism is not my thing, but I do have a certain affection for the environment.

I think you also got a good answer from GQB up there too. I suggest you get your Hummer before they completely disappear. Starting to see fewer and fewer . . .
post #110 of 175
On a related note, it does seem to me that Apple's advertising has lately lost much of its everyone-ness (for lack of a better word). In particular, I point out the 'Pencil' ad for the iPad Air (right-handed white guy's hand reaches for the iPad at the end -- I guess lefties and minorities need not apply) and the extended-length commercial featuring an all-white, affluent family getting together for the holidays (very inconsiderate to many others, I thought). Note that, under Steve's watch, this semi-subtle change would *never* have happened.

Compared to, say, the old silhouette ads, this new direction in Apple's marketing is at least unsettling, and long-term it could alienate a large portion of its customer base (anyone who isn't affluent or white), and Apple needs to correct this NOW, before its reputation (and brand image) suffers even more...
post #111 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

No one has suggested quotas, or directives. I just take issue with the insipid comments that presume there is no problem and who gives a rat's a$$.

What is the suggestion to fix the problem? Making an assertion that a lack of diversity implies a problem of discrimination isn't a solution to it. All that does is make unsubstantiated accusatory statements.

Women, varied sexualities and ethnic minorities have been at an unfair disadvantage for a long time and some people think providing an unfair advantage will undo the damage more quickly but it's not the right way to go about it because it's just doing some of the same thing with the roles reversed.

Given sufficient equality, there might be an assumption that this will inevitably lead to a more even distribution of groups in all walks of life but there needs to be an acceptance that different groups have different traits and it's not a bad thing that they do. Here's an article from 2010 talking about women in tech jobs:

http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10?op=1

Just 5% of technology companies are founded by women - the number in all business is 30%+. The following page here links to some programs to counter this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-women-founders-matter-2013-3

To me, the following are the wrong way to go about it by making exclusive groups rather than trying to bring minority groups (women being a minority in the technology sector) into collaborative environments:

http://www.blackgirlscode.com
http://learninglabs.org/members/girls-learning-code/
http://www.girlswhocode.com

That last site has stats that say:

"In middle school, 74% of girls express interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), but when choosing a college major, just 0.3% of high school girls select computer science."

"Women today represent 12% of all computer science graduates. In 1984, they represented 37%."

"While 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, just 12% of computer science degrees are awarded to women."

It appears that women simply aren't all that interested in technology. I think most of us should be aware of this by now. Is that a problem? I would say no. If Apple's board reflects the lack of interest in technology that women have demonstrated then it's similarly not a problem. People should be free to have whatever interests they want and if it so happens that more women gravitate towards:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01/26/10-industries-where-women-rule/

Healthcare, education, child-care etc, so be it.

Just look at Laurene Powell. She could be on Apple's board but she's on a board for education:

http://excelined.org/team/laurene-powell-jobs/
post #112 of 175
"All that does is make unsubstantiated accusatory statements."

Who do you have to **** to become a moderator on this forum?

/s
Ask me about.... The 80's!
Reply
Ask me about.... The 80's!
Reply
post #113 of 175
Current board is Wall Street naive hence the poor stock action with such major profits and great china mobile news. Changes need to be made or back to 300a again
post #114 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post


There's always going to be exceptions to every rule, which is why I said 'probably'.

Do you really think that there's a dearth of women capable of being Fortune 500 board members?

Whether there is a lack of women or not. They should be hired on merit only, not because they are a woman.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #115 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Ownership of more than half a brain, I’d guess. Or the ability to read any of the many human languages to see that Apple has no history of this behavior.
No history? The make up of the board and the exec team suggests that they might. Do you have insider knowledge of Apple's hiring procedures and diversity policy? Of course you don't, you're making assumptions with no evidence either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“, therefore Apple is racist and sexist.” is your position, is it?
No, I don't have a position, except that the makeup of the board and exec team is troubling and worth criticising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Good luck with that.
No idea what that's supposed to mean since whatever position I might have I'm not personally going to act on it. But thanks for the positive message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, here’s their policy: Do the best work and you get promoted.
That's their entire HR policy? Pretty lacking.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #116 of 175

They also don't have any poor people on these boards.

 

The whole point of a Board of Directors is 20% "insight" and 80% networking to provide relationships and deals to profit the company.

Rich white guys are on the board because these are the people who have the access to other rich guys on other boards.

 

If you mandate "diversity" it will just end up being more like Congress where you have "puppets and tokens" hired and the real decisions are made by lobbyists and trade groups who hired the puppets. The Board will have a shadow board.

 

it's better if we solve this problem with; Higher progressive taxes to reduce disparity in wealth. Election reform to unhinge money from political representation. And some return to a "new deal" and some real effort to de-multinationalize companies. Anything other than those three things is a side show and going after a symptom.

 

It will not surprise me if Apple does do a diversity hire, and the press acts like they are the only electronics manufacturer using Chinese labor being run by a board of RWM. Of course, I'm a PWM so this will not help me any more than the current system.

post #117 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

Whether there is a lack of women or not. They should be hired on merit only, not because they are a woman.

 

I'd say that MOST boards have no way of concluding "merit." People who are connected and helping other people are making their decisions on; "how much did this board member or will this board member help ME." If it helps the company -- that's icing on the cake.

 

If I had a company, I'd put some prince of England on it -- if I could. I don't care if I was selling aerospace products or diapers -- the "merit" in question is that successful people have successful people who have lots of success.

post #118 of 175
Quote:
 What is the suggestion to fix the problem? Making an assertion that a lack of diversity implies a problem of discrimination isn't a solution to it. All that does is make unsubstantiated accusatory statements.

Women, varied sexualities and ethnic minorities have been at an unfair disadvantage for a long time and some people think providing an unfair advantage will undo the damage more quickly but it's not the right way to go about it because it's just doing some of the same thing with the roles reversed.

Given sufficient equality, there might be an assumption that this will inevitably lead to a more even distribution of groups in all walks of life but there needs to be an acceptance that different groups have different traits and it's not a bad thing that they do. Here's an article from 2010 talking about women in tech jobs:

http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10?op=1

Just 5% of technology companies are founded by women - the number in all business is 30%+. The following page here links to some programs to counter this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-women-founders-matter-2013-3

To me, the following are the wrong way to go about it by making exclusive groups rather than trying to bring minority groups (women being a minority in the technology sector) into collaborative environments:

http://www.blackgirlscode.com
http://learninglabs.org/members/girls-learning-code/
http://www.girlswhocode.com

That last site has stats that say:

"In middle school, 74% of girls express interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), but when choosing a college major, just 0.3% of high school girls select computer science."

"Women today represent 12% of all computer science graduates. In 1984, they represented 37%."

"While 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, just 12% of computer science degrees are awarded to women."

It appears that women simply aren't all that interested in technology. I think most of us should be aware of this by now. Is that a problem? I would say no. If Apple's board reflects the lack of interest in technology that women have demonstrated then it's similarly not a problem. People should be free to have whatever interests they want and if it so happens that more women gravitate towards:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01/26/10-industries-where-women-rule/

Healthcare, education, child-care etc, so be it.

Just look at Laurene Powell. She could be on Apple's board but she's on a board for education:

http://excelined.org/team/laurene-powell-jobs/

 

Someone just made a comment that isn't politically correct and is backed by facts and makes logical sense.  Some people will say it's impossible.  I especially love the comments by people who apparently hate racism and gender bigotry, find people that don't agree with them hateful, and then accuse Apple of racism and bigotry because they have too many people of a one specific race and gender.  Sound ironic?  If not, try reading through the stats from OP (the one I'm replying to).  It's always good to do some reading before accusing a company and denigrating their reputation.

post #119 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragyn427 View Post

On a related note, it does seem to me that Apple's advertising has lately lost much of its everyone-ness (for lack of a better word). In particular, I point out the 'Pencil' ad for the iPad Air (right-handed white guy's hand reaches for the iPad at the end -- I guess lefties and minorities need not apply) and the extended-length commercial featuring an all-white, affluent family getting together for the holidays (very inconsiderate to many others, I thought). Note that, under Steve's watch, this semi-subtle change would *never* have happened.

Compared to, say, the old silhouette ads, this new direction in Apple's marketing is at least unsettling, and long-term it could alienate a large portion of its customer base (anyone who isn't affluent or white), and Apple needs to correct this NOW, before its reputation (and brand image) suffers even more...

You left the sarcasm tag off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by castcore View Post

Current board is Wall Street naive hence the poor stock action with such major profits and great china mobile news. Changes need to be made or back to 300a again

Did Apple elect noobs or experienced officers from other Fortune 500 companies?

Do us a favor and sell. Take your whining to another company
post #120 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnkolar View Post

And short people, and people with speech impediments, and lactose intolerant people, and people with peculiar surnames, and left handed people and people who use Wintel computers, and children, oh the children....

Good God, people, grow up.

You forgot ATHEIST and you just discriminated against ATHEIST not one but twice, once by excluding them from your list and second by by saying GOOD GOD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Critics take issue with lack of diversity on Apple Board of Directors