What happens outside of that job is nobody's business but their own even if it impacts the job itself.
The law says otherwise. There are the obvious examples of cops, pilots, air traffic controllers, bus drivers, and railroad engineers. Then there are all the less obvious examples, like spokesmen, waitresses, cashiers, and CEOs. And let's not forget all the jobs you can't get if you have bad credit or a criminal record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
imagine what the world might have been like if Steve had been the one to stay. We could have had OSX a lot sooner, the ipod etc a lot sooner.
So you're saying the NextCube and Pixar were wastes of time? Steve Jobs can't accomplish anything on his own? The iPod was only possible if it was done at Apple?
I guess it's hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't know the difference between the FTC and SEC.
Mental hickup and corrected thanks for pointing it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Regardless, why do you think that endlessly repeating the same nonsense will suddenly make it come true?
Endlessly repeating WHAT?!?!?!?!
Looking back at the post you quoted you can only read my feelings on the subject (based on my clearly limited knowledge of the subject) and none if it ever attempts to make an absolute statement of FACT while discussing any possible wrongdoing on Apples part...
- If serious health conditions suffered by a CEO is considered a 'required disclosable item' then Apple clearly did wrong...
- If the area is 'gray' Apple may not have done anything wrong (legally).
I think that speaks for itself as to me making any condemnation on Apple based on this event... I don't have ANY way to formulate such a position and was simply presenting possible arguments in the most general sense.
I of course I bow to your clearly more intimate knowledge and understandings of all these issues but somehow I don't think you are in any position to make ANY broad sweeping statements of FACT on Apples guilt or innocence.
Unless that is YOU ARE ACTUALLY the Chairman of the SEC, then Ms. Schapiro my most deepest apologies... You certain do have the ability to make all the statements you want..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The facts are simple (SNIP)
Okay lets not be TOO pompous shall we? Has the SEC closed the book on this case? Last I heard it wasn't.... So if.... like you say, "The facts are simple" then why on earth would the SEC still have the case under review? Perhaps you should get Ms. Schapiro on the horn and set her straight with all this information you've compiled and the conclusion THEY need to come to.
She would be eternally in your debt for all the needless time and effort they would otherwise put into investigating the facts of this case on their own. Not to mention, wasted time debating and formulating a conclusion on their own instead of simply using the one you've already prepared for them. You are THE MAN!
Finally, to repete myself since I know you LOVE IT when I do that...
I've NEVER made any indication as to Apples GUILT or INNOCENCE on this issue since I'm certainly not an expert on the broad issues OR this individual case. My posts have always been about WHY disclosure is something the SEC does require and possible 'imaginary' cases where it might help - however my limited knowledge on the full legalese of disclosure I might be guilty of putting up 'examples' that were not pertinent or possibly in direct opposition of the basic tenants of disclosure. If I did I apologies, my only desire was to try and give people some reasons disclosure was a good thing and not AUTOMATICALLY EVIL just because Apple might have done something wrong directly related to it.
The company did just fine while he was away for the transplant. From a day to day running of the company perspective, they'd be just fine without him.
You're delusional if you don't think he makes a huge impact at Apple, even nowadays. He was only gone for 6 months. Trying taking him away for about 3 or 4 years and you'll notice it.
I believe the President releases news about health scares soon after the event.
Mr York was rightly upset by Mr Jobs' behavior IMO.
With Mr Jobs at the end of his career, diversification not concentration of authority would be the road to take.
As much as some people wish otherwise, Steve Jobs is not the President. The president can also declare war on other countries, it doesn't mean Apple should do that.
Just the fact that the man, himself is so instrumental (or appears to be instrumental, depending on your point of view) to the success of Apple, makes him "invaluable" and is enough of a risk that there should be a proper succession plan in place right now. Whether Jobs dies from a long illness or gets hits by a bus tomorrow, the result is the same.
You're delusional if you don't think he makes a huge impact at Apple, even nowadays. He was only gone for 6 months. Trying taking him away for about 3 or 4 years and you'll notice it.
He would be missed, but he isn't critical to Apple's success like he was 10 years ago. Most people at Apple think like Steve and quite a few of them are CEO material. Steve brings his ideals to Apple more then anything. He managed to build a company around them. His ideals will live on after he is gone. The company will always look to his past example as they chart the future. His power to control the board will also extend past his death for that reason.
Just the fact that the man, himself is so instrumental (or appears to be instrumental, depending on your point of view) to the success of Apple, makes him "invaluable" and is enough of a risk that there should be a proper succession plan in place right now. Whether Jobs dies from a long illness or gets hits by a bus tomorrow, the result is the same.
There is a succession plan. They have said that in their quarterly meetings. They just wont tell us what the plans are for obvious reasons, but it is pretty obvious who the first person in line is.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Yep. There is no SEC regulation or law that states otherwise. Some companies might have something written in their charter, but Apple has no law that requires Steve Jobs to report personal health issues.
Yep. There is no SEC regulation or law that states otherwise. Some companies might have something written in their charter, but Apple has no law that requires Steve Jobs to report personal health issues.
Rather than pointing out the errors in this statement, I'll suggest that you read up in the thread and find one of the many posts where the disclosure requirements were explained.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Well, did anyone? I mean, it's easy to say something could have happened, but if it didn't then no insider information was utilized. If it did occur I'm sure there will be an SEC investigation...And if you're worried about "insider" information, I'm quite sure executives from any corporation have access to oodles more important things - like new product information, trend analysis, commodities/future pricing, product shortfalls, failure rates, etc...There are blind trusts and window periods (not sure if Apple execs are compelled to comply with either of these) which, if utilized, can help preserve the appearance of propriety when selling stocks. But there's a lot more that could be abused if an individual wanted to.
Steve eventually revealed far more personal information than probably any other exec in recent history. Out of all the corporations in the world, with all the CEO's, over the past twenty years, how many public announcements of illness can one recall? Not many at all. Was Steve just that unlucky, or more truthful than others?
To argue the precise timing of the announcement is disingenuous, as we don't know the details of what transpired - quite likely, he didn't know the full ramifications of last diagnosis until some time later (was there more, less, something different wring with him?) To announce prematurely, and then have to modify the statement one or more times if there were changes, would bring negative impact to the company and seriously injured its value unnecessarily. I mean, that happened once, right, where the initial illness reported was not the cancer - that was released separately/later I believe. And of course, the issues of the family dealing with the diagnosis has to be respected as well.
Regarding the board - I would venture to say that you do NOT want an adversarial board - how would one run a company with such a structure? Jobs has done an astounding job growing Apple, and any board member who would argue otherwise just for the "responsibility" of being adversarial would be deemed a fool.
Now, the Board I'm sure contributes strong ideas and alternatives, raises points and issues overlooked, etc, And a good board will stand up and stop a wayward CEO from ruining the company. But has there been any need for Apple's board to exercise this responsibility? Not that we can see, given their growth. No one is in the boardroom, so the rags can speculate all they want - the proof is in the results.
The SEC is investigating, last any of us heard, so that's not a theory. Steve and Apple did end up explaining more, but mainly as a result of the murky initial disclosures which raised more questions then they provided answers. As many have pointed out over the last few years, he probably would have been better off making matters clearer in the beginning.
The point is if they are just puppets then there's no need for them. The point of having a board is to bring to the table different points of view and different types of expertise. Steve couldn't run Apple on his own, that's why you need lots of talent around you. You're comment makes you sound like assuming all these directors are a bunch of idiots because they are not Steve Jobs - I would hazard a guess they are not.
No, the WSJ writers here had a bug up their butts for years about Jobs. They tried to get him on the stock options thing, then they went after him on the illness. The truth is, this group of writers are just a bunch of scheming, idiotic business drones, whose real complaint about Apple is that they want some of that mountain of cash given out to the wealthy stockholders in dividends. They know better, they think.
Well, think about it. The only way a Wall Street vampire can make money on Apple is by buying and selling the stock: speculating. They've already made a bundle that way. But they want to tap the cash reserves that Apple keeps, leaving it vulnerable to mergers or takeovers. Why don't they just sell derivatives that bet on Apple winning, losing and standing still. Play your cards right and they win no matter what. And Apple loses.
The headline sums it up and contains enough irony to make the rest of the story superfluous. Jobs' lack of candor didn't kill him. York's rigidness didn't save him.
First, the guy's dead. If he had a problem, he should have said something then, not to a paper, but to the other board members. Second, Apple is doing just fine, quite better than expected. Why? Thanks to Steve Jobs and none other than Tim Cook. Whatever happens to Jobs, he surrounded himself with competent people that have made the company what is.
Steve Jobs keeps a tight control of the board members and they say nothing, it is because they are happy with the money they are making under Jobs direction. That wasn't the case when Jobs was booted before was it?
[QUOTE=jazzbo brown;1596989]Isn't this a little ironic? This guy just *died* and he never announced to the shareholders that he, an important board member, had failing health....
Comments
What happens outside of that job is nobody's business but their own even if it impacts the job itself.
The law says otherwise. There are the obvious examples of cops, pilots, air traffic controllers, bus drivers, and railroad engineers. Then there are all the less obvious examples, like spokesmen, waitresses, cashiers, and CEOs. And let's not forget all the jobs you can't get if you have bad credit or a criminal record.
imagine what the world might have been like if Steve had been the one to stay. We could have had OSX a lot sooner, the ipod etc a lot sooner.
So you're saying the NextCube and Pixar were wastes of time? Steve Jobs can't accomplish anything on his own? The iPod was only possible if it was done at Apple?
doesn't bother me in the very least, but if you want to keep it your choice not mine
The SEC is looking into this for you.
"In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year, Mr. York said he almost resigned when told of the seriousness of Mr. Jobs's illness,"
sorry. don't buy it. almost? if it was so damn important, why didn't you? very self-serving and very cya.
I guess it's hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't know the difference between the FTC and SEC.
Mental hickup and corrected thanks for pointing it out.
Regardless, why do you think that endlessly repeating the same nonsense will suddenly make it come true?
Endlessly repeating WHAT?!?!?!?!
Looking back at the post you quoted you can only read my feelings on the subject (based on my clearly limited knowledge of the subject) and none if it ever attempts to make an absolute statement of FACT while discussing any possible wrongdoing on Apples part...
- If serious health conditions suffered by a CEO is considered a 'required disclosable item' then Apple clearly did wrong...
- If the area is 'gray' Apple may not have done anything wrong (legally).
I think that speaks for itself as to me making any condemnation on Apple based on this event... I don't have ANY way to formulate such a position and was simply presenting possible arguments in the most general sense.
I of course I bow to your clearly more intimate knowledge and understandings of all these issues but somehow I don't think you are in any position to make ANY broad sweeping statements of FACT on Apples guilt or innocence.
Unless that is YOU ARE ACTUALLY the Chairman of the SEC, then Ms. Schapiro my most deepest apologies... You certain do have the ability to make all the statements you want..
The facts are simple (SNIP)
Okay lets not be TOO pompous shall we? Has the SEC closed the book on this case? Last I heard it wasn't.... So if.... like you say, "The facts are simple" then why on earth would the SEC still have the case under review? Perhaps you should get Ms. Schapiro on the horn and set her straight with all this information you've compiled and the conclusion THEY need to come to.
She would be eternally in your debt for all the needless time and effort they would otherwise put into investigating the facts of this case on their own. Not to mention, wasted time debating and formulating a conclusion on their own instead of simply using the one you've already prepared for them. You are THE MAN!
Finally, to repete myself since I know you LOVE IT when I do that...
I've NEVER made any indication as to Apples GUILT or INNOCENCE on this issue since I'm certainly not an expert on the broad issues OR this individual case. My posts have always been about WHY disclosure is something the SEC does require and possible 'imaginary' cases where it might help - however my limited knowledge on the full legalese of disclosure I might be guilty of putting up 'examples' that were not pertinent or possibly in direct opposition of the basic tenants of disclosure. If I did I apologies, my only desire was to try and give people some reasons disclosure was a good thing and not AUTOMATICALLY EVIL just because Apple might have done something wrong directly related to it.
The company did just fine while he was away for the transplant. From a day to day running of the company perspective, they'd be just fine without him.
You're delusional if you don't think he makes a huge impact at Apple, even nowadays. He was only gone for 6 months. Trying taking him away for about 3 or 4 years and you'll notice it.
Interesting article.
I believe the President releases news about health scares soon after the event.
Mr York was rightly upset by Mr Jobs' behavior IMO.
With Mr Jobs at the end of his career, diversification not concentration of authority would be the road to take.
As much as some people wish otherwise, Steve Jobs is not the President. The president can also declare war on other countries, it doesn't mean Apple should do that.
You're delusional if you don't think he makes a huge impact at Apple, even nowadays. He was only gone for 6 months. Trying taking him away for about 3 or 4 years and you'll notice it.
He would be missed, but he isn't critical to Apple's success like he was 10 years ago. Most people at Apple think like Steve and quite a few of them are CEO material. Steve brings his ideals to Apple more then anything. He managed to build a company around them. His ideals will live on after he is gone. The company will always look to his past example as they chart the future. His power to control the board will also extend past his death for that reason.
Just the fact that the man, himself is so instrumental (or appears to be instrumental, depending on your point of view) to the success of Apple, makes him "invaluable" and is enough of a risk that there should be a proper succession plan in place right now. Whether Jobs dies from a long illness or gets hits by a bus tomorrow, the result is the same.
There is a succession plan. They have said that in their quarterly meetings. They just wont tell us what the plans are for obvious reasons, but it is pretty obvious who the first person in line is.
normally, maybe a CEO needs to disclose health issues. then again, are you obligated to disclose every health issue you have to your company? not at all, in fact, you don't have to disclose anything.
a CEO...maybe that's different. most CEOs would surely disclose something so serious right away. but i think steve jobs is in the unique situation of being a tech icon, and more than any other tech CEO there's a perception by customers and shareholders that he is directly responsible for the company even surviving.
word of steve jobs being seriously and potentially terminally ill would have impacted apple negatively more than any other tech company's CEO.
and like i said, your health is a private matter. even if you're a CEO.
Yep. There is no SEC regulation or law that states otherwise. Some companies might have something written in their charter, but Apple has no law that requires Steve Jobs to report personal health issues.
Yep. There is no SEC regulation or law that states otherwise. Some companies might have something written in their charter, but Apple has no law that requires Steve Jobs to report personal health issues.
Rather than pointing out the errors in this statement, I'll suggest that you read up in the thread and find one of the many posts where the disclosure requirements were explained.
Considering Jobs' centrality to Apple's success, concealment of his true state of health kept Apple's stock from plummeting. Anyone who knew the truth might have sold their shares. Everyone else was denied that information.
Well, did anyone? I mean, it's easy to say something could have happened, but if it didn't then no insider information was utilized. If it did occur I'm sure there will be an SEC investigation...And if you're worried about "insider" information, I'm quite sure executives from any corporation have access to oodles more important things - like new product information, trend analysis, commodities/future pricing, product shortfalls, failure rates, etc...There are blind trusts and window periods (not sure if Apple execs are compelled to comply with either of these) which, if utilized, can help preserve the appearance of propriety when selling stocks. But there's a lot more that could be abused if an individual wanted to.
Steve eventually revealed far more personal information than probably any other exec in recent history. Out of all the corporations in the world, with all the CEO's, over the past twenty years, how many public announcements of illness can one recall? Not many at all. Was Steve just that unlucky, or more truthful than others?
To argue the precise timing of the announcement is disingenuous, as we don't know the details of what transpired - quite likely, he didn't know the full ramifications of last diagnosis until some time later (was there more, less, something different wring with him?) To announce prematurely, and then have to modify the statement one or more times if there were changes, would bring negative impact to the company and seriously injured its value unnecessarily. I mean, that happened once, right, where the initial illness reported was not the cancer - that was released separately/later I believe. And of course, the issues of the family dealing with the diagnosis has to be respected as well.
Regarding the board - I would venture to say that you do NOT want an adversarial board - how would one run a company with such a structure? Jobs has done an astounding job growing Apple, and any board member who would argue otherwise just for the "responsibility" of being adversarial would be deemed a fool.
Now, the Board I'm sure contributes strong ideas and alternatives, raises points and issues overlooked, etc, And a good board will stand up and stop a wayward CEO from ruining the company. But has there been any need for Apple's board to exercise this responsibility? Not that we can see, given their growth. No one is in the boardroom, so the rags can speculate all they want - the proof is in the results.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...e_of_the_apple
The SEC is looking into this for you.
?
The point is if they are just puppets then there's no need for them. The point of having a board is to bring to the table different points of view and different types of expertise. Steve couldn't run Apple on his own, that's why you need lots of talent around you. You're comment makes you sound like assuming all these directors are a bunch of idiots because they are not Steve Jobs - I would hazard a guess they are not.
No, the WSJ writers here had a bug up their butts for years about Jobs. They tried to get him on the stock options thing, then they went after him on the illness. The truth is, this group of writers are just a bunch of scheming, idiotic business drones, whose real complaint about Apple is that they want some of that mountain of cash given out to the wealthy stockholders in dividends. They know better, they think.
Well, think about it. The only way a Wall Street vampire can make money on Apple is by buying and selling the stock: speculating. They've already made a bundle that way. But they want to tap the cash reserves that Apple keeps, leaving it vulnerable to mergers or takeovers. Why don't they just sell derivatives that bet on Apple winning, losing and standing still. Play your cards right and they win no matter what. And Apple loses.
Steve Jobs keeps a tight control of the board members and they say nothing, it is because they are happy with the money they are making under Jobs direction. That wasn't the case when Jobs was booted before was it?
GREAT post