The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.
By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (?Company?) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company?s Corporate Governance Guidelines (?Guidelines?) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Company?s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.
What part of "The Board will develop criteria" and "The Board will identify...internal candidates" DOESN'T meddle with the board's existing process, whatever that might be?
And how is "The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders" NOT demanding the names and qualifications of those "candidates"?
Why are you screwing with the goose that's laying golden eggs? As a stockholder, I thoroughly resent it!
... And how is "The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders" NOT demanding the names and qualifications of those "candidates"? ...
Well, it doesn't say anything about the nature of the "report", so, an annual statement that they have fulfilled their succession planning duties would seem to satisfy that part of the resolution.
Has anyone actually READ the shareholder proposal? It doesn't require Apple to name any names - merely to tell people what their plan would be for finding one among internal candidates. What's the problem with that? Tons of companies do that.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
Except, if it's interpreted in the tongue-in-cheek manner that I did in my previous post it's meaningless.
If it's interpreted along the lines of,
Quote:
... adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features ... will develop criteria ... which will reflect the Company?s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates ... identify and develop internal candidates ... annually produce a report
it's basically saying, "we expect you to tell us annually your business strategy and what potential CEO candidates you are considering and why," which is naming names and is totally stupid. If you don't interpret it that way, then, again, it's essentially meaningless.
But, there you go again, saying you support this but not saying exactly what you think it would mean in terms of what exactly Apple would be reporting. So, do you even know what it is you are so wholeheartedly supporting? Do you even know what you think you are supporting?
Except, if it's interpreted in the tongue-in-cheek manner that I did in my previous post it's meaningless.
If it's interpreted along the lines of,
it's basically saying, "we expect you to tell us annually your business strategy and what potential CEO candidates you are considering and why," which is naming names and is totally stupid. If you don't interpret it that way, then, again, it's essentially meaningless.
But, there you go again, saying you support this but not saying exactly what you think it would mean in terms of what exactly Apple would be reporting. So, do you even know what it is you are so wholeheartedly supporting? Do you even know what you think you are supporting?
Many other companies disclose CEO succession plans - Verizon, HP, Comcast, Whole Foods... I could go on. NONE OF THEM are required to name specific candidates. If you read the text of the resolution, you can see if provides the company a ton of wiggle room, but also forces enough action that the company will be prepared in some way if there's a planned or emergency departure by the CEO. It's just making the company tell its shareholders, "Be cool, we got this" (and back up that assertion) the next time there's a scare.
All this talk about nefarious forces trying to "undermine" Apple reeks of paranoia.
Many other companies disclose CEO succession plans - Verizon, HP, Comcast, Whole Foods... I could go on. NONE OF THEM are required to name specific candidates. If you read the text of the resolution, you can see if provides the company a ton of wiggle room, but also forces enough action that the company will be prepared in some way if there's a planned or emergency departure by the CEO. It's just making the company tell its shareholders, "Be cool, we got this" (and back up that assertion) the next time there's a scare.
All this talk about nefarious forces trying to "undermine" Apple reeks of paranoia.
Who said anything about nefarious forces, besides you, that is? I'm pretty sure the people behind this are well intentioned idiots. In the end, though, does it matter? It's a stupid idea that's either meaningless or dangerous, as even you admit.
If anyone really believes that the board doesn't "got this", they should be moving to replace the board. I mean, seriously, who believes the board is that stupid? This is about people with an inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are entitled to detailed information on the "inner workings" of Apple.
Who said anything about nefarious forces, besides you, that is? I'm pretty sure the people behind this are well intentioned idiots. In the end, though, does it matter? It's a stupid idea that's either meaningless or dangerous, as even you admit.
If anyone really believes that the board doesn't "got this", they should be moving to replace the board. I mean, seriously, who believes the board is that stupid? This is about people with an inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are entitled to detailed information on the "inner workings" of Apple.
Several in this thread have raised the idea that this is actually part of some effort to deliberately undermine Apple. Perhaps they didn't use the word "nefarious" but that wasn't my point - I did put "undermine" in quote marks because that word was actually used upthread.
The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
How many people have to say that they don't agree that it's not asking for names before you admit that it's arguable at best whether or not it is? And beyond that, what about the other portions where they clearly stick their oar in and demand the Board do things their way?
BTW, do you own any appreciable (say 100+) shares of Apple? I do. If you don't, then kindly b--- out of this conversation.
... The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
See my post above. There are two ways to interpret this proposal: one meaningless, the other (which does require naming names, otherwise, we're back to meaningless) stupid. If it's stupid, then it's stupid. If it's meaningless, why waste the boards time with such nonsense.
Again, anyone who thinks the board is so stupid or so negligent that they aren't on top of this already, should be pushing to have the entire board removed, not wasting the current boards valuable time with creating paperwork for shareholders, or, in the stupid case, undermining their own stock value. But, I'm sure there will be plenty of dumb shareholders who will vote for this. Hopefully, there will be enough who recognize it for the utter nonsense that it is.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
... BTW, do you own any appreciable (say 100+) shares of Apple? I do. If you don't, then kindly b--- out of this conversation.
Well, I own exactly zero shares of Apple stock. However, as a customer, I'd rather not have the hands of the people running the company tied behind their backs, or bound up in ridiculous red tape. Selfish of me, but I'd prefer that the idiots leave them to the work of producing great products.
Well, plus, the whole idea that the board isn't already on top of this is just stupid, and there's no value in sharing those plans, in any form, with shareholders, and I just hate stupid.
Edit: Oh, yeah, the argument that other companies have done it is simply stupid too.
Apparently, he isn't answering questions. No doubt because once he commits himself, it'll take anyone about 2 seconds to tear his reasoning to shreds, although, he'll never admit they did.
Several in this thread have raised the idea that this is actually part of some effort to deliberately undermine Apple. Perhaps they didn't use the word "nefarious" but that wasn't my point - I did put "undermine" in quote marks because that word was actually used upthread.
The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
See my post above. There are two ways to interpret this proposal: one meaningless, the other (which does require naming names, otherwise, we're back to meaningless) stupid. If it's stupid, then it's stupid. If it's meaningless, why waste the boards time with such nonsense.
So the only two ways to interpret this just happen to be ones that prove your point? Apparently, "This proposal asks for a reasonable amount of disclosure on the part of the board in relation to a topic that is of importance to shareholders and relevant to the company's continued success," isn't a valid view to you. But that's my interpretation; I'll admit there could be others. Perhaps even more than two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
How many people have to say that they don't agree that it's not asking for names before you admit that it's arguable at best whether or not it is? And beyond that, what about the other portions where they clearly stick their oar in and demand the Board do things their way?
All shareholder proposals "demand the Board do things their way." Should they therefore all be rejected if the board doesn't like them?
Apparently, he isn't answering questions. No doubt because once he commits himself, it'll take anyone about 2 seconds to tear his reasoning to shreds, although, he'll never admit they did.
He's got a good mind. It's just that he can be so inflexible sometimes. BTW, your comments seem unusually level-headed for the most part.
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
Sigh.
Actually, this comes a lot closer to a real response to my contention than anything else you've said. Wish you'd said it to me.
I'll try to simplify: I am of the opinion that Steve Jobs is still controlling things at Apple on the level of issues like these, and doing so with an iron fist. And as I said in a separate post on this thread, not only do I think he's completely engaged in this issue, but I think it's of utmost importance to him.
Therefore, I think it's best to let him handle it.
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
Sigh.
Wow, talk about evading questions with a red herring. The argument is that this shareholder proposal is stupid because it, depending on how it's interpreted, is either a) entirely meaningless and has no value, or b) dangerous because it reveals publicly information of strategic importance to competitors. It has nothing to do with whether Apple is exceptional or not, other than that I'd like them to remain so, and you apparently just want to know their "inner workings" as some sort of ego trip.
Comments
The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.
They're wrong.
By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (?Company?) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company?s Corporate Governance Guidelines (?Guidelines?) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
What part of "The Board will develop criteria" and "The Board will identify...internal candidates" DOESN'T meddle with the board's existing process, whatever that might be?
And how is "The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders" NOT demanding the names and qualifications of those "candidates"?
Why are you screwing with the goose that's laying golden eggs? As a stockholder, I thoroughly resent it!
... And how is "The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders" NOT demanding the names and qualifications of those "candidates"? ...
Well, it doesn't say anything about the nature of the "report", so, an annual statement that they have fulfilled their succession planning duties would seem to satisfy that part of the resolution.
Has anyone actually READ the shareholder proposal? It doesn't require Apple to name any names - merely to tell people what their plan would be for finding one among internal candidates. What's the problem with that? Tons of companies do that.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
Except, if it's interpreted in the tongue-in-cheek manner that I did in my previous post it's meaningless.
If it's interpreted along the lines of,
... adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features ... will develop criteria ... which will reflect the Company?s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates ... identify and develop internal candidates ... annually produce a report
it's basically saying, "we expect you to tell us annually your business strategy and what potential CEO candidates you are considering and why," which is naming names and is totally stupid. If you don't interpret it that way, then, again, it's essentially meaningless.
But, there you go again, saying you support this but not saying exactly what you think it would mean in terms of what exactly Apple would be reporting. So, do you even know what it is you are so wholeheartedly supporting? Do you even know what you think you are supporting?
Except, if it's interpreted in the tongue-in-cheek manner that I did in my previous post it's meaningless.
If it's interpreted along the lines of,
it's basically saying, "we expect you to tell us annually your business strategy and what potential CEO candidates you are considering and why," which is naming names and is totally stupid. If you don't interpret it that way, then, again, it's essentially meaningless.
But, there you go again, saying you support this but not saying exactly what you think it would mean in terms of what exactly Apple would be reporting. So, do you even know what it is you are so wholeheartedly supporting? Do you even know what you think you are supporting?
Many other companies disclose CEO succession plans - Verizon, HP, Comcast, Whole Foods... I could go on. NONE OF THEM are required to name specific candidates. If you read the text of the resolution, you can see if provides the company a ton of wiggle room, but also forces enough action that the company will be prepared in some way if there's a planned or emergency departure by the CEO. It's just making the company tell its shareholders, "Be cool, we got this" (and back up that assertion) the next time there's a scare.
All this talk about nefarious forces trying to "undermine" Apple reeks of paranoia.
Many other companies disclose CEO succession plans - Verizon, HP, Comcast, Whole Foods... I could go on. NONE OF THEM are required to name specific candidates. If you read the text of the resolution, you can see if provides the company a ton of wiggle room, but also forces enough action that the company will be prepared in some way if there's a planned or emergency departure by the CEO. It's just making the company tell its shareholders, "Be cool, we got this" (and back up that assertion) the next time there's a scare.
All this talk about nefarious forces trying to "undermine" Apple reeks of paranoia.
Who said anything about nefarious forces, besides you, that is? I'm pretty sure the people behind this are well intentioned idiots. In the end, though, does it matter? It's a stupid idea that's either meaningless or dangerous, as even you admit.
If anyone really believes that the board doesn't "got this", they should be moving to replace the board. I mean, seriously, who believes the board is that stupid? This is about people with an inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are entitled to detailed information on the "inner workings" of Apple.
Who said anything about nefarious forces, besides you, that is? I'm pretty sure the people behind this are well intentioned idiots. In the end, though, does it matter? It's a stupid idea that's either meaningless or dangerous, as even you admit.
If anyone really believes that the board doesn't "got this", they should be moving to replace the board. I mean, seriously, who believes the board is that stupid? This is about people with an inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are entitled to detailed information on the "inner workings" of Apple.
Several in this thread have raised the idea that this is actually part of some effort to deliberately undermine Apple. Perhaps they didn't use the word "nefarious" but that wasn't my point - I did put "undermine" in quote marks because that word was actually used upthread.
The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
The proposal isn't asking for names.
How many people have to say that they don't agree that it's not asking for names before you admit that it's arguable at best whether or not it is? And beyond that, what about the other portions where they clearly stick their oar in and demand the Board do things their way?
BTW, do you own any appreciable (say 100+) shares of Apple? I do. If you don't, then kindly b--- out of this conversation.
... The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
See my post above. There are two ways to interpret this proposal: one meaningless, the other (which does require naming names, otherwise, we're back to meaningless) stupid. If it's stupid, then it's stupid. If it's meaningless, why waste the boards time with such nonsense.
Again, anyone who thinks the board is so stupid or so negligent that they aren't on top of this already, should be pushing to have the entire board removed, not wasting the current boards valuable time with creating paperwork for shareholders, or, in the stupid case, undermining their own stock value. But, I'm sure there will be plenty of dumb shareholders who will vote for this. Hopefully, there will be enough who recognize it for the utter nonsense that it is.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable request, not radical, not weird, not unusual, not destructive -- but we wouldn't want to confuse any of this debate with facts.
Still waiting for an answer to my question....
... BTW, do you own any appreciable (say 100+) shares of Apple? I do. If you don't, then kindly b--- out of this conversation.
Well, I own exactly zero shares of Apple stock. However, as a customer, I'd rather not have the hands of the people running the company tied behind their backs, or bound up in ridiculous red tape. Selfish of me, but I'd prefer that the idiots leave them to the work of producing great products.
Well, plus, the whole idea that the board isn't already on top of this is just stupid, and there's no value in sharing those plans, in any form, with shareholders, and I just hate stupid.
Edit: Oh, yeah, the argument that other companies have done it is simply stupid too.
Still waiting for an answer to my question....
Apparently, he isn't answering questions. No doubt because once he commits himself, it'll take anyone about 2 seconds to tear his reasoning to shreds, although, he'll never admit they did.
Several in this thread have raised the idea that this is actually part of some effort to deliberately undermine Apple. Perhaps they didn't use the word "nefarious" but that wasn't my point - I did put "undermine" in quote marks because that word was actually used upthread.
The proposal isn't asking for names. It's not asking for disclosures on Jobs' health. It just demands reasonable evidence that the company is prepared in the event Jobs steps down or is unable to continue his duties. Plenty of other companies do this. Hell, plenty of other companies have agreed to disclose this information, even without a shareholder vote. I don't see how it can hurt Apple. I do see how it can provide reassurance and confidence to investors. What's the downside?
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
Sigh.
See my post above. There are two ways to interpret this proposal: one meaningless, the other (which does require naming names, otherwise, we're back to meaningless) stupid. If it's stupid, then it's stupid. If it's meaningless, why waste the boards time with such nonsense.
So the only two ways to interpret this just happen to be ones that prove your point? Apparently, "This proposal asks for a reasonable amount of disclosure on the part of the board in relation to a topic that is of importance to shareholders and relevant to the company's continued success," isn't a valid view to you. But that's my interpretation; I'll admit there could be others. Perhaps even more than two.
How many people have to say that they don't agree that it's not asking for names before you admit that it's arguable at best whether or not it is? And beyond that, what about the other portions where they clearly stick their oar in and demand the Board do things their way?
All shareholder proposals "demand the Board do things their way." Should they therefore all be rejected if the board doesn't like them?
Still waiting for an answer to my question....
Your question was not relevant to the issue. I said that ages ago.
Apparently, he isn't answering questions. No doubt because once he commits himself, it'll take anyone about 2 seconds to tear his reasoning to shreds, although, he'll never admit they did.
He's got a good mind. It's just that he can be so inflexible sometimes. BTW, your comments seem unusually level-headed for the most part.
Your question was not relevant to the issue. I said that ages ago.
That's your opinion, not mine. I've explained why I think it is relevant and you haven't refuted my explanation other than by a perfunctory dismissal.
It may not be intentional, but it's sounding increasingly like you're evading the question.
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
Sigh.
Actually, this comes a lot closer to a real response to my contention than anything else you've said. Wish you'd said it to me.
I'll try to simplify: I am of the opinion that Steve Jobs is still controlling things at Apple on the level of issues like these, and doing so with an iron fist. And as I said in a separate post on this thread, not only do I think he's completely engaged in this issue, but I think it's of utmost importance to him.
Therefore, I think it's best to let him handle it.
In a nutshell.
As you can see, statements of logic and facts are not welcomed here. Implicit -- no, actually explicit in some cases -- is the argument that Apple is exceptional, and consequently exempted from standards of good corporate governance. So by this means, you can instantly cancel out the fact that other public companies do what is being requested of Apple, as a normal matter of course. The counterargument can't be backed up by anything but feelings, so that's what we get. And accusations, too.
Apple has a lot of strengths, but corporate governance has never been one of them. That's why they were caught up in a SEC investigation over the backdating of option grants. That's why they were criticized as having too many interlocking board members. But if you mention any of this, the entire exceptional and infallibility argument is what you'll get in response. That, and pretty much nothing else you can actually discuss rationally. You hear about how Apple is perfect, how they just couldn't possibly do anything better, and how you should just shut up about how they could.
Sigh.
Wow, talk about evading questions with a red herring. The argument is that this shareholder proposal is stupid because it, depending on how it's interpreted, is either a) entirely meaningless and has no value, or b) dangerous because it reveals publicly information of strategic importance to competitors. It has nothing to do with whether Apple is exceptional or not, other than that I'd like them to remain so, and you apparently just want to know their "inner workings" as some sort of ego trip.