Charging for use of a gym when you spend 60+ hours at the office is silly. Coffee and snacks may be different as long as they are charged at cost or nicely subsidized.
I never understood the rationale behind this. If the issue is the number of hours spent at the office, why isn't bonus pay, 401K contributions, or time off, not the appropriate compensation? Why a free gym? Why subsidized snacks? Even people who don't work out, drink coffee, or eat pretzels, are working in the office, so why subsidize only those habits?
If you want to take a look at another company with a leak track-record that's as good, if not better than Apple's, you need look no further than Nintendo. And I've heard of no complaints regarding their work culture.
No idea what this has to do with anything but Nintendo is not churning out a bunch of product to have leaks about.
And I havene't heard anything at all about their work culture, good or bad.
linked to over on Daring Fireball. Interesting stuff about the failure of the KIN, but the really interesting thing is reading through the comments, from current and former Microsoft employees, about how f'd up their company is, and how they hate(d) working there.
As a bonus, you can read that at least some of them expect WP7 to be as big a failure as the KIN.
California is an "at-will" employment state. If you're not happy working for Apple, you don't have to stay. You don't even need to give an answer why you're leaving. Non-competes are essentially unenforceable under California employment law. You can quit today and go work for the competition tomorrow (Google, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe, whatever).
As an AAPL shareholder, I believe that Steve and his senior management team basically knows what they're doing. They're not perfect, but if you want to complain about how a company is being run, you should start by asking the current CEO of every other Fortune 500 company why they don't perform like Apple. You can also ask them why they are getting paid so much.
Jobs has done a masterful job at increasing shareholder value. The fact that he does it for $1 per year is astounding (he's not even a major AAPL shareholder). That's why other CEOs voted Jobs the world's most valuable CEO. Steve gets it done.
I'd work there for nothing just for the experience.
Agreed. Personally, I think even just working at an AppleStore would be exciting.
I was supposed to be hired to work in Apple retail, but had to turn down the position because I had applied in February and was planning on coming back up to work in the oilsands for the summer (I seriously doubt Apple could compete with the wages here). However, I was told to come back for another interview in the fall, so I'm pretty excited for it. Apple seems to be a company that can inspire devotion and commitment at all levels, and I'm pretty excited to be a part of it. Store discount doesn't hurt either.
OK, cool, now let's survey Foxconn employees. Or the kids getting shot in the Congo to build our motherboards.
But it's not fair to put that on Apple alone, when it's our (read: consumers, shareholders) responsibility to make sure atrocities like those aren't committed, too.
As an AAPL shareholder, I believe that Steve and his senior management team basically knows what they're doing. They're not perfect, but if you want to complain about how a company is being run, you should start by asking the current CEO of every other Fortune 500 company why they don't perform like Apple. You can also ask them why they are getting paid so much.
Hear, hear -- especially that last part. In a world where CEOs are so often rewarded handsomely for failure, it's usual to find one who takes no salary for success.
Quote:
Jobs has done a masterful job at increasing shareholder value. The fact that he does it for $1 per year is astounding (he's not even a major AAPL shareholder). That's why other CEOs voted Jobs the world's most valuable CEO. Steve gets it done.
You might want to check on Steve's AAPL holdings before you say he's not a major stockholder. He's been awarded some pretty hefty options and outright grants of stock over the years.
I think you forget that Awful is AAPL trading under $20/share. Awful is Michael Spindler or Gil Amelio being unable to generate relevant or exciting products, or even release a proper successor to Mac OS Classic. Awful was Apple slipping into irrelevance instead of leading the pack.
Steve Jobs is right. When it comes to what is important, it's not free snacks that matter: it's competent leadership focused on making Apple successful.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
Who is to say such accomplishments could not be done in a better environment? It is, of course, a personal choice to operate in a firm like that. So I can't fault Apple. But it certainly does not sound appealing.
I would say that the Apple's consistent ability to lead the marketplace in terms of quality, innovation, and client-loyalty are highly suggestive of the fact that Apple's way of doing things is superior to the approach taken by their competitors.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
No, I recall lots of hopes for the survival of Apple, but I sure don't remember anyone praising Spindler or Amelio for their enlightened leadership. In fact many old-time Apple fans were really frustrated by the direction of the company (or lack thereof) during those years. As for preemptive multitasking, you have remember that the Windows95/98 implementation was totally awful, so yes, while comparisons were made, the fact that Windows at that time was more buzzword compliant was not necessarily a real-world advantage. The MacOS was still more stable than the competition, which is why some of us stuck out the bad times despite Apple's poor management.
You might want to check on Steve's AAPL holdings before you say he's not a major stockholder. He's been awarded some pretty hefty options and outright grants of stock over the years.
Options are worthless until exercised. While Steve's paper value is not inconsequential, however he has traded in a bunch of underwater options in the past. Technically, since he hasn't exercised much, he is not a major shareholder. If he were a major stockholder, it would be divulged in various SEC filings (Form 3 & Form 4).
Frankly, I don't think Steve really cares about the money. He doesn't need any more. He's Disney's largest single individual shareholder and he would make $30 million just in Disney dividends every year just sitting on the beach. Heck, the guy wouldn't even take the non-executive Disney board member stipend.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
Me personally.. I knew they were starting to lose their way, then I hear talk of Apple buying Be, I listened, I liked, then I hear of NEXT.. at that point I ordered the comfy seat.
Options are worthless until exercised. While Steve's paper value is not inconsequential, however he has traded in a bunch of underwater options in the past. Technically, since he hasn't exercised, he is not a major shareholder. If he were a major stockholder, it would be divulged in various SEC filings.
Frankly, I don't think Steve really cares about the money. He doesn't need any more. He's Disney's largest single individual shareholder and he would make $30 million just in Disney dividends every year just sitting on the beach. Heck, the guy wouldn't even take the non-executive Disney board member stipend.
Options are hardly worthless, unless they are under water, and even then they have value if they cost you nothing and can only turn into value if the stock trades above the strike price. We know that if Jobs had held onto his original options they'd have been worth far more today than the stock he got in exchange. As for being a "major stockholder," as nearly as I can tell, he now owns over 5.4 million shares. Whether that meets the SEC definition of "major" is kind of besides the point, it's still plenty big.
It's hard to know what his attitude is towards money. He doesn't appear to be in a huge hurry either to make it, or to give it away.
I never understood the rationale behind this. If the issue is the number of hours spent at the office, why isn't bonus pay, 401K contributions, or time off, not the appropriate compensation? Why a free gym? Why subsidized snacks? Even people who don't work out, drink coffee, or eat pretzels, are working in the office, so why subsidize only those habits?
Because, as is shown in the video I posted a link to in my last post, monetary reward does not increase productivity, loyalty, happiness or creativity, on the contrary. Time Off may be nice but may not be very effective as a bonus. I am not sure that free coffee or snacks, or a free gym have that effect either but it strikes me that to charge employees is just cheap. You put those things in place not really as rewards but in order to create a nice place to work. Apple needs to charge its employees to use a gym? Really? My rational would be to make it free, encourage its use and hopefully create healthier employees.
But watch that video - research shows that monetary reward does not better or happier employees make. I remember seeing research on this years ago. Kids were asked to solve a problem. Half were given 20 bucks before the task, while the rest were given nada. Guess which group performed best? By a LONG shot.
Comments
The position of CEO pays $1.00/year.
Includes a $90 Million Gulfstream Jet, lots of stock options for proof of performance and more.
Who is to say such accomplishments could not be done in a better environment?
Not saying it CAN'T be done in a better environment, but it's apparent "it" can't be done in any other current environment.
Charging for use of a gym when you spend 60+ hours at the office is silly. Coffee and snacks may be different as long as they are charged at cost or nicely subsidized.
I never understood the rationale behind this. If the issue is the number of hours spent at the office, why isn't bonus pay, 401K contributions, or time off, not the appropriate compensation? Why a free gym? Why subsidized snacks? Even people who don't work out, drink coffee, or eat pretzels, are working in the office, so why subsidize only those habits?
I'd work there for nothing just for the experience.
-> Apple Internships
That's not what he said and you know it.
You did see I posted a question, right?
If you want to take a look at another company with a leak track-record that's as good, if not better than Apple's, you need look no further than Nintendo. And I've heard of no complaints regarding their work culture.
No idea what this has to do with anything but Nintendo is not churning out a bunch of product to have leaks about.
And I havene't heard anything at all about their work culture, good or bad.
You did see I posted a question, right?
Yeah, a loaded one.
No idea what this has to do with anything but Nintendo is not churning out a bunch of product to have leaks about.
Really? The Wii? Wii MotionPlus? The Nintendo DSi? DSi LL? The 3DS? And myriad games?
Yeah, they don't have anything to hide.
And my point was that more positive work/less paranoid work environements can exist while maintaining complete secrecy,
Includes a $90 Million Gulfstream Jet, lots of stock options for proof of performance and more.
As long as AAPL is trading over $200, I'm fine with that.
As a bonus, you can read that at least some of them expect WP7 to be as big a failure as the KIN.
Sounds awful.
California is an "at-will" employment state. If you're not happy working for Apple, you don't have to stay. You don't even need to give an answer why you're leaving. Non-competes are essentially unenforceable under California employment law. You can quit today and go work for the competition tomorrow (Google, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe, whatever).
As an AAPL shareholder, I believe that Steve and his senior management team basically knows what they're doing. They're not perfect, but if you want to complain about how a company is being run, you should start by asking the current CEO of every other Fortune 500 company why they don't perform like Apple. You can also ask them why they are getting paid so much.
Jobs has done a masterful job at increasing shareholder value. The fact that he does it for $1 per year is astounding (he's not even a major AAPL shareholder). That's why other CEOs voted Jobs the world's most valuable CEO. Steve gets it done.
I'd work there for nothing just for the experience.
Agreed. Personally, I think even just working at an AppleStore would be exciting.
I was supposed to be hired to work in Apple retail, but had to turn down the position because I had applied in February and was planning on coming back up to work in the oilsands for the summer (I seriously doubt Apple could compete with the wages here). However, I was told to come back for another interview in the fall, so I'm pretty excited for it. Apple seems to be a company that can inspire devotion and commitment at all levels, and I'm pretty excited to be a part of it. Store discount doesn't hurt either.
But it's not fair to put that on Apple alone, when it's our (read: consumers, shareholders) responsibility to make sure atrocities like those aren't committed, too.
As an AAPL shareholder, I believe that Steve and his senior management team basically knows what they're doing. They're not perfect, but if you want to complain about how a company is being run, you should start by asking the current CEO of every other Fortune 500 company why they don't perform like Apple. You can also ask them why they are getting paid so much.
Hear, hear -- especially that last part. In a world where CEOs are so often rewarded handsomely for failure, it's usual to find one who takes no salary for success.
Jobs has done a masterful job at increasing shareholder value. The fact that he does it for $1 per year is astounding (he's not even a major AAPL shareholder). That's why other CEOs voted Jobs the world's most valuable CEO. Steve gets it done.
You might want to check on Steve's AAPL holdings before you say he's not a major stockholder. He's been awarded some pretty hefty options and outright grants of stock over the years.
I think you forget that Awful is AAPL trading under $20/share. Awful is Michael Spindler or Gil Amelio being unable to generate relevant or exciting products, or even release a proper successor to Mac OS Classic. Awful was Apple slipping into irrelevance instead of leading the pack.
Steve Jobs is right. When it comes to what is important, it's not free snacks that matter: it's competent leadership focused on making Apple successful.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
Who is to say such accomplishments could not be done in a better environment? It is, of course, a personal choice to operate in a firm like that. So I can't fault Apple. But it certainly does not sound appealing.
I would say that the Apple's consistent ability to lead the marketplace in terms of quality, innovation, and client-loyalty are highly suggestive of the fact that Apple's way of doing things is superior to the approach taken by their competitors.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
No, I recall lots of hopes for the survival of Apple, but I sure don't remember anyone praising Spindler or Amelio for their enlightened leadership. In fact many old-time Apple fans were really frustrated by the direction of the company (or lack thereof) during those years. As for preemptive multitasking, you have remember that the Windows95/98 implementation was totally awful, so yes, while comparisons were made, the fact that Windows at that time was more buzzword compliant was not necessarily a real-world advantage. The MacOS was still more stable than the competition, which is why some of us stuck out the bad times despite Apple's poor management.
Sounds awful.
I would work there. I do the same sort of crap for fun.
You might want to check on Steve's AAPL holdings before you say he's not a major stockholder. He's been awarded some pretty hefty options and outright grants of stock over the years.
Options are worthless until exercised. While Steve's paper value is not inconsequential, however he has traded in a bunch of underwater options in the past. Technically, since he hasn't exercised much, he is not a major shareholder. If he were a major stockholder, it would be divulged in various SEC filings (Form 3 & Form 4).
Frankly, I don't think Steve really cares about the money. He doesn't need any more. He's Disney's largest single individual shareholder and he would make $30 million just in Disney dividends every year just sitting on the beach. Heck, the guy wouldn't even take the non-executive Disney board member stipend.
That's what Apple fans say now. But what were they saying during those times? Were they acknowledging Apple's problems in those times or just defending Apple like they always do? Is it only after Jobs came back that Apple fans dare to call the previous CEOs awful? And when Mac OS Classic was still around, weren't all those modern operating system features like preemptive multitasking, etc. simply dismissed by Apple fans as "buzzwords"?
Me personally.. I knew they were starting to lose their way, then I hear talk of Apple buying Be, I listened, I liked, then I hear of NEXT.. at that point I ordered the comfy seat.
Options are worthless until exercised. While Steve's paper value is not inconsequential, however he has traded in a bunch of underwater options in the past. Technically, since he hasn't exercised, he is not a major shareholder. If he were a major stockholder, it would be divulged in various SEC filings.
Frankly, I don't think Steve really cares about the money. He doesn't need any more. He's Disney's largest single individual shareholder and he would make $30 million just in Disney dividends every year just sitting on the beach. Heck, the guy wouldn't even take the non-executive Disney board member stipend.
Options are hardly worthless, unless they are under water, and even then they have value if they cost you nothing and can only turn into value if the stock trades above the strike price. We know that if Jobs had held onto his original options they'd have been worth far more today than the stock he got in exchange. As for being a "major stockholder," as nearly as I can tell, he now owns over 5.4 million shares. Whether that meets the SEC definition of "major" is kind of besides the point, it's still plenty big.
It's hard to know what his attitude is towards money. He doesn't appear to be in a huge hurry either to make it, or to give it away.
I never understood the rationale behind this. If the issue is the number of hours spent at the office, why isn't bonus pay, 401K contributions, or time off, not the appropriate compensation? Why a free gym? Why subsidized snacks? Even people who don't work out, drink coffee, or eat pretzels, are working in the office, so why subsidize only those habits?
Because, as is shown in the video I posted a link to in my last post, monetary reward does not increase productivity, loyalty, happiness or creativity, on the contrary. Time Off may be nice but may not be very effective as a bonus. I am not sure that free coffee or snacks, or a free gym have that effect either but it strikes me that to charge employees is just cheap. You put those things in place not really as rewards but in order to create a nice place to work. Apple needs to charge its employees to use a gym? Really? My rational would be to make it free, encourage its use and hopefully create healthier employees.
But watch that video - research shows that monetary reward does not better or happier employees make. I remember seeing research on this years ago. Kids were asked to solve a problem. Half were given 20 bucks before the task, while the rest were given nada. Guess which group performed best? By a LONG shot.