or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy - Page 3

post #81 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.

Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.

British English doesnt have the same rules about lie v. lay as US English?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.

Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.

Thank you. I thought I was correct. A physical object only lays.
Solipism likes to confuse me- and once again it works. He almost convinced me I was wrong. I'm running on low batteries today.
post #83 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

British English doesn’t have the same rules about lie v. lay as US English?

Only a physical object lays.
A lie is a concept or thought, therefore- it lies.
post #84 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Thank you.

I think I might just impose myself a ban for a couple of weeks.
post #85 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post

I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.

Then don't buy the stock.

I seriously wish more companies were like the CEO of Costco and tell Wall Street to pretty much take it or leave it. All this pandering to stockholders is a serious limiter of innovation. I think the stock market is a serious parasite on corporate innovation.

You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
post #86 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

I think I might just impose myself a ban for a couple of weeks.

That really had me on the floor.....
post #87 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That really had me on the floor.....

Believe it or not, it was precisely the intention. I enjoy your posts very much.
post #88 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Only a physical object lays.
A lie is a concept or thought, therefore- it lies.

The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #89 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.

Yes, I agree that the CEO has to let the board know. I was implicitly referring to a 'law' that requires that the board or the officer or the CEO or PR (or whoever) to tell shareholders (or any other stakeholder) about the health of anyone in the company. That is basically what bizwarrior was claiming.

I am not sure there is any such requirement.

In any event, I notice that bizwarrior hasn't answered the question........ not much knowledge about biz nor much of a warrior.....
post #90 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by T'hain Esh Kelch View Post

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."

Thats just too far out. I don't believe that at all.

One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.
post #91 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonTate View Post

One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.

This would suggest that there is nothing particularly "unusual" about "Apple's veil of secrecy".
post #92 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users.

Yup. I won't name call any other Apple fans, but all the rest of you *&#%@$#! had better watch out!
post #93 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.

That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.

There are many, many great companies where there is simply no distinction between the two.
post #94 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.

You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.
post #95 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

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.

Oh, good grief. Good freaking grief. Right here in a quote from the article you cited:

Quote:
"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

Which in this case of course it could. And then,

Quote:
She said the SEC rules lack specific guidelines regarding health disclosures about executives, which means corporate directors have discretion over what kind of information they decide to tell the public.

"It's a fuzzy, gray area of what is required," Perryman said. "There is certainly interest among investors, but that doesn't mean they have a right to know."

And it goes on to discuss the grey areas in the SEC regulations as related to executive health issues, just as I represented them, and that some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views on what the SEC regulations require. Views among experts differ because the rules aren't clear. Apple takes the most corporate/executive friendly view of the regulations. Other companies do not.

Read also the references to insider trading. Whether this has occurred is impossible to prove until well beyond the fact.

Did you read the article you cited? Did you understand what I wrote earlier?

Apparently not in either case.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #96 of 162
I'm sure the people who bought AAPL in January after being assured it was only a hormone imbalance are furious. The stock's only gone up 50%. Jobs' leadership is and has been great for Apple, but he is not the only brilliant, capable man in the whole damn corporation. Shareholders might be concerned, but every well-read tech trader knows about Apple's secrecy and business model. Jobs' health is his own business - not the shareholders', and not the NY Times'.

Food for thought: If Ballmer left MS six months ago under the guise of a kidney stone, and came back having had a brain transplant, MSFT would split. Twice.
post #97 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.


My rules are not only clearer, they are absolute.

lie
1.To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff. (And this is where I meant it- not to physically lay down (a lie?)
2.To consist or have as a basis. Often used with in: The strength of his performance lies in his training.

I await your apology to not only me but to the entire board for such a diversion.
post #98 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

then the company will get sued by investors.

Just because they can be sued doesn't mean it has merit or will go anywhere.

Unfortunately we don't' have tort reform like looser pays so frivolous crap like this happens far more often then it should
post #99 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

..... some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it.

No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views....

The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....

There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
post #100 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.

Don't be afraid to agree with me- you know you want to.
What don't you agree with? Why do you feel the need to insult my post in the process- "once again, been an incoherent rant"?
post #101 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Just because they can be sued doesn't mean it has merit or will go anywhere.

The merits of lawsuits get decided by judges in courtrooms and on the basis of the law and the facts, by nobody else, in no place else, and for no other reasons.

The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind when protecting themselves from them better would be so easy. A lot of other companies recognize this. Secrecy may have great utility where new products are concerned, but has a real downside when applied to investor relations.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #102 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.

Exactly. Focus on the really important facet of your business (the customers) and the rest (i.e. shareholder value) will take care of itself.
post #103 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

1.To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff. (And this is where I meant it- not to physically lay down (a lie?)

In that sense you are correct. Touché.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #104 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind

Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.

I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...
post #105 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

My rules are not only clearer, they are absolute.

And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!
post #106 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post

I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment. I do not applaud the manipulation by Apple on this issue. There are laws against this because of the importance of this type of information in regards to a companies value that is so dependent on the presence of one person. Whether there are other people that will adequately run the company or they have great products the passing of Jobs if it happened would negatively affect the stock for a time. I hope for once someone puts Apples feet to the fire on this.

Have you read the SEC rules? I didn't think so. Everything you wrote is wrong.

Apple is required by law to report known information that is material to the company performance. There are many defenses to your argument. Just a few:

1. By law, Apple is precluded from releasing that information (HIPAA). That would make it a criminal offense to report on Jobs' health.

2. Apple claims that at the time of their report, all they knew was that there was a hormone imbalance. When they learned that it was more complex, they reported THAT. Do you have evidence that they knew back in January that he was going to have a liver transplant? How do you know that Jobs told the board ANYTHING beyond what the board reported? What makes you think he's required to?

3. Apple has incredible depth in their management ranks. They seem to be doing just fine without Jobs - so it's not hard to argue that his health was not material.

4. By the time the liver transplant became an issue, Jobs was on leave - so it was clearly not material.

5. By your logic, Dell should report that Michael Dell eats cheeseburgers at McDonalds. Or Steve Ballmer doesn't exercise regularly. Or Scott Nealy has high cholesterol. Or Bill Gates visits hookers. (I don't know - or care - if any of those are true. I made them up as examples). Any one of those things can lead to incapacity or death, as well. The fact is that none of them need to be reported.

In spite of all the ranting of conspiracy loonies, there's absolutely no evidence that Apple had an obligation to report more than they did.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #107 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.
post #108 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."

This seems like a distinction without a difference. Where rules create grey areas, some chose to play away from the hazy line, and others choose to play close to the line. That's a choice. The former is less likely to be exposed to litigation than the latter.

Quote:
The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....

There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.

I took that as being in terms of potentially running afoul of the SEC regulations. I don't think it's an over-generalization to suggest that erring on the side of disclosure is less likely to get a company in trouble than minimizing disclosure.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #109 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotherBrain View Post

Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.

It tends to be difficult to indulge in speculation when the facts are known.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #110 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

And that's exactly where the problem lies. Other than that, he owes you an apology but only if you apologise to him first for all the times you were wrong!

Man- he must have done something good to you, the way you're defending him all over the place.
Besides he already admitted that I was correct ( which is the same as admitting that he was wrong).
And finally I have no idea what you are talking about-"all the times you were wrong"?
post #111 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Our legal system is so fractured right now that they could cough at an inopportune moment and get sued for sending an inappropriate signal.

I don't place that as a problem with Apple but the system in general. You obviously don't agree - and that's fine. As you point out, the only way this will ever be "resolved" is for something to play out in court. Until then, it's just speculation (something this place lives for). Have fun speculating and pontificating...

Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #112 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotherBrain View Post

Bull. The media has shown that regardless of disclosure they will always be all up in Jobs' junk, or any one else's for that matter. Only a fool would think that nobody would be talking about Jobs' health if there were some kind of full disclosure. The media are ruthless jackals that feed off "The next big story", regardless of truth or disclosure.

Jobs besides being the COO of Apple is also a celebrity - what do you expect from the media and the public?
post #113 of 162
OK. There's way too much speculation and misinformation going on here on the topic of what is required disclosure by the SEC for listed US companies.
------
Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"
• Changes in control of a company;
• A company’s acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets;
• A company’s bankruptcy or receivership;
• Changes in a company’s certifying accountant;
• Resignations of a company’s directors, circumstances for the departure of a director, the appointment or departure of a principal officer, and the election of new directors other than pursuant to a vote of security holders at an annual meeting;
• Change in a company’s fiscal year and amendments to a company’s articles of incorporation or bylaws that were not previously disclosed in a proxy statement or other such disclosure document;
• Entry into a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination of a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business;
• Termination or reduction of a business relationship with a customer that constitutes a specified amount of the company’s revenues;
• Creation of a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company;
• Events triggering a direct or contingent financial obligation that is material to the company, including any default or acceleration of an obligation;
• Exit activities including material write-offs and restructuring charges;
• Any material impairment;
• A change in a rating agency decision, issuance of a credit watch or change in a company outlook;
• Movement of the company’s securities from one exchange or quotation system to another, delisting of the company’s securities from an exchange or quotation system, or a notice that a company does not comply with a listing standard;
• Conclusion or notice that security holders no longer should rely on the company’s previously issued financial statements or a related audit report;
• Any material limitation, restriction or prohibition, including the beginning and end of lock-out periods, regarding the company’s employee benefits, retirement and stock ownership plan;
• Unregistered sales of equity securities by the company;
• Material modifications to rights of holders of the company’s securities;
• Earnings releases;
• Changes in earnings guidance; and
• Other materially different information regarding key financial or operations trends from that set forth in periodic reports.
------

Here's the link: http://idea.sec.gov/about/offices/oi...incdisclos.pdf (see pp. 9-10).

There is absolutely nothing there about the health of a CEO. Period.
post #114 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Fine, but I'm not the one doing the speculating, or trying to judge the worthiness of the regulations or the legal system. I don't know why anyone would in this context. I'm also not the one pretending to know precisely what the regulations require. Nobody really does. Even the experts don't agree. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. If you want to stay out of court, steer clear of the fuzzy legal lines. Seems like noncontroversial, straight-forward common sense to me.

And when you have surgery, do you always want the whole world to know about it?

Steve Jobs is not just Apple's CEO. He's a real person, with a real family, real friends, and a life outside of work. This is a personal, medical matter which doesn't seem to have had a materially adverse effect on AAPL's performance.

We should all have enough decency to respect the privacy of others. This becomes even more important when someone is going through something painful, like a liver transplant.
post #115 of 162
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.

I, too, own a ton of AAPL, & legally as long as the Board truthfully (the operative word) keeps the public informed of the status of Steve Jobs as related to his capacity at Apple, that is sufficient. NOBODY has a right to know the details of his health issues nor what is going on in the design labs. Please quit whining folks.
post #116 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta View Post

And when you have surgery, do you always want the whole world to know about it?

I don't run a public corporation.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #117 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Here's what the SEC says is ..."The comprehensive list of prescribed corporate events that are presumptively material and that must be disclosed, or will likely be required to be disclosed, with the U.S. SEC on Form 8-K:"............

I should have added above that the '8-K' is the report that companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about.
post #118 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I don't run a public corporation.

And if you did, you would not be required to let the world know about it. Move along....
post #119 of 162
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.

You might have some credibility if you actually had some harm done to you, but you haven't. If you bought AAPL on January 14, when the hormone imbalance and leave of absence were announced and sold it today, you'd be up 57% in a little over five months.

Is that somehow not a good enough return for you?
post #120 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There is absolutely nothing there about the health of a CEO. Period.

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Report details Apple's unusual veil of secrecy