... or that you got emotional and made this argument about Cook specifically.
My argument was that CEOs are responsible for stock price. If investors do not trust a CEO's abilities then the stock goes down. Stock price is the view down the tunnel.
My statements weren't about Cook specifically.
I think you are losing your rationality. Me? I'm waiting to see if they are correct. I couldn't care one way or the other. I no longer have a dog in this fight but that could change if Cook pulls a rabbit out of the hat... like Jobs in 2003 and 2007 and 2010.
1) It's not often I get accused of being too emotional. You may want to rethink why you think I'm emotional when you are the one overreacting to natural changes in the market.
2) I get what you're saying but you're wrong. The job of the CEO is not the stock, but the company. The stock is only partly an affected by the success of the company, but much of it are out of the control of the company. What you are suggesting is what is wrong with many companies and CEOs that come on board with huge paychecks, huge sign on bonuses and huge departure bonuses. They stay 6 months to a couple years with absolutely no intention of making the company better. They kill quality to increase profits, they lay off their workforce to cut costs. The numbers look good at first but it's a house of cards. You are saying Cook should be like Usain Bolt but don't realize this is a marathon, not a sprint.
Apple replaced a genius with a supply chain guy. Cook might have worked well with Steve as leader. But as a leader Cook is a pure failure.
It's not as if they had a choice when it came to the replacement and let's not forget, it wasn't Apple that replaced Steve with a supply chain guy - Steve stepped down and chose to give Tim control over the company.
"It was absolutely the saddest days of my life when he passed away. Maybe as much as you should see or predict that, I really didn’t. But at some point, late last year, somebody kind of shook me and said, it’s time to get on. So that sadness was replaced with intense determination to continue the journey.
Steve told me, when he called me to his home to talk about being the CEO and subsequently the discussions we had, he told me, ‘you know, I witnessed what happened at Disney when Walt passed away.’ He said that people would go to meetings… and all sit around and talk about, ‘what would Walt have done? How would he view this?’
And he looked at me with those intense eyes that only he had, and he told me to never do that, to never ask what he would do. Just do what’s right. And so I’m doing that.
[When I was recruited by Steve], it was a very interesting meeting. Steve had hired an executive-search firm to find somebody to run operations and I’d turned down meeting and they kept calling and I eventually said I’d talk. I had no time, so I flew out Friday on a red eye for a Saturday morning meeting with Steve. and the honest to god truth, five minutes into the conversation I wanted to join Apple. I was shocked at this. It wasn’t how I went into the conversation.
He painted a story, a strategy, that he was talking Apple deep into consumer at a time when I knew that other people were doing the exact opposite. And I never thought following the herd was a good strategy. You’re destined to be average at best. So I saw brilliance in that. And he told me about what would later be the iMac, and I saw brilliance in that. And I saw someone who was unaffected by money. That’s always impressed me. So those three things, I thought, I’m going to throw caution to the wind and do this. I went back and resigned immediately.
... when I looked at the balance sheet of the company, I thought I could add something and participate in turning around a great American company."
When people talk about Tim and associate him with failure, the judgement is being made based on numbers. Steve Jobs wasn't judged by numbers and the numbers under Cook are higher than they've ever been. If people want to weigh Steve against Tim then at least judge them by the same measures.
You can see above, it was Steve who wanted to go after consumers and yet Tim is blamed for how they treat their professional product line. People criticise Tim for not being focused on money and yet he turned the company around by optimising the supply chain.
Tim has demonstrated on every occasion he gets to speak that he has the same values that Steve had. He respects the importance of the creative staff and Apple is shipping more units than ever. What's the problem?
The problem is that Wall Street was trying to find a value for the stock and people who didn't play the game smartly enough lost money. That's the nature of the game. Of course Tim isn't as inspirational as Steve was and readily admits that but nobody suggests a better candidate. Who is there that's better than Tim to take that position? Mansfield doesn't have the commitment, Ive lacks confidence, Forstall was destructive, name every exec and they have major flaws. Tim is never hesitant, he holds the team together, he has the determination to sort things out and he's the most apologetic staff member I've ever seen at Apple when customers aren't happy and still people complain he's not good enough.
Nobody else would keep the company running so efficiently - if Apple did what people suggest and replaced him, they'd be in far worse shape and what would people say then? Everybody gets it, it isn't news any more that losing Steve Jobs was a massive loss but it was always going to happen, it happened and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
If you judge Tim by sales and profit numbers, the numbers are better than ever.
If you judge Tim by his values, they align with everything Apple stands for.
The mentality of 'Tim isn't as good as Steve because Wall Street told me so' is really tiresome. If at this point in time you can't see Tim as the right choice to run the company, you are judging him by a standard that neither Steve nor anyone else at Apple would judge him by.
Apple is one of the most profitable and stable companies in the long run. To replace the captain in the middle of the voyage would be insane. Sometimes there's rougher waters than other times! Who cares! That happens at every company. If you trusted Steve Jobs, you should trust Tim Cook, who he chose himself to take care of his beloved Apple. If history since the advent of the iPhone has taught us anything, it's that when Apple actually speaks, the rumors fade away. Give it a little while. I bet the next time they have announcement, they will surprise and delight you again.
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
It's only "fairly standard" when the company itself is struggling or tanking, taking the stock with it. It is hardly "standard" when a company adds record profits yet again each quarter AND the stock (ignoring all that) goes south. The CEO is somehow responsible? Really...
This is a situation where, although Apple didn't meet STREET expectations (as lofty and unrealistic as they were), they still consistently met or exceeded their own guidance and quarter on quarter, year on year, increased to new record highs. This INCLUDES the last two quarters in question (yes, Apple has continued to add double-digit BILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT to their cash pile each quarter), and although the curve isn't as steep -- did anyone believe that growth was sustainable in perpetuity? -- that doesn't REMOTELY imply the company is in any kind of trouble OR that its management is doing a poor job.
The stock price vs sales/company/management performance are at complete odds. Apple stock at the least should have sustained its price point. But it was CLEARLY manipulated downward, by a string of planned 'attacks', and I guarantee the 'whisper campaigns' about Cook and the company in general are in part paid PR by companies like Samsung, Microsoft, et al… this is how it's done now. Using paid 'journalistic' hacks, 'social media', etc.
You should try reading the comment threads on Yahoo FInance… any Apple related story. From the comments alone you'd believe the company is losing money, tanking, the management and product mix is in shambles, losing market share and the stock price is just a reflection of ALL THOSE WOES….
Who is writing all those comments? They fit a distinct pattern of "negative press". Most people I know don't watch the stock anyway, and 60%+ are still considering Apple for their next phone/tablet/computer…… that's reality. The stock market? Not so much.
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
No, and we didn't have idiotic "gnomes floating high over the Alps" whispering that a Steve Jobs replacement was being considered either.
That's because the sales hadn't dropped at all during those periods (they were probably breaking their own records yet again), and so no-one in their right mind would have kicked that executive team off the rails considering the company's (not the stock's!) overall performance.
Tim is in over his head. He's great at running the machine, but doesn't relate to tech users and is not a source of innovation.
And of course, you know all this first-hand, since you say it with such authoritative confidence...
Explain then, the continuous growth and record profits quarter after quarter since he's been CEO? Just 'coasting'? Psh! You don't get to do that while releasing new products and product upgrades...
iPad Mini, Retina MacBook Pros… then the New iMac, new iPhone 5, both so finely and precision designed they needed extra time to get the manufacturing processes worked out. But then look at them. Results worth waiting for, and outselling all the competition. Nothing else on the market holds a candle to their build quality and aesthetics...
How is he in 'over his head'? He has a great team in support. THere's nothing at all wrong with the actual job he's doing.
Just too many people like you making stuff up and presenting it like it's "factual"...
Bzzzt! Wrong. Tim Cook works for the board, which represents the owners of the company -- the shareholders.
Um… ok. So, a few shareholders go underwater and it's "off with his head"?
And your representation is a tad skewed…
Tim Cook is CEO. He works for Apple.
The Apple Board of Directors OVERSEES Apple Executive Management (Officers) and changes it on an as-needed basis.
Shareholders collectively own a PORTION of the company.
Shareholders have a say in certain (but not all) matters that might come before the Board, including voting on members of that Board. Shareholders don't appoint executives, however.
It isn't as cut and dried as "Tim works for the Board who represents the Shareholders". Although 'kinda-sorta' correct semantically… it isn't how things work.
I wish Apple would get back on top of the Prosumer Market.. Things had begun to slide even before Cook took the reign. We need new MacPro's... Even though the userbase is small compared to the consumer sector there is still a market and a lot of businesses are heavily invested in OSX. I feel that Apple has lost its mojo in this particular area.
Well, I for one am not switching my all-Mac "pro shop" (audio + video production, design, web and app development) to…. what, Windows? Bwaaa-hahahahaaaa….. ok ok or… Linux?
Nah. Apple still has plenty of "mojo" where I'm concerned. iMacs are doing most of the heavy lifting these days, together with a small server/processor farm of Mac Minis in support.
That said, I'm looking forward to a new Mac Pro.
As for software, maybe Logic Pro X… although version 9 is pretty great. Sometimes it's a matter of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"... right?
Well let's see: the stock has been in a relative free-fall since peaking around the release of the iPhone 5, multiple reports of sales, stock, and revenue not meeting expectations, and going on what, 8 months now without a single new product or announcement.
TIP: As Jobs said judge Apple on the results. The market insiders will always play market games for selfish reasons.
Many of the negative rumors on Apple are both funny and sad for those generating them.
IMO Apple is now a buy, I bought more Apple today.
Sell high and buy low!
...or month to month or year to year.... You are just wrong.
CEO is not directly "stock price" responsible. Now, if the performance of the company (losing market share, running in the red, etc.) affect the share price negatively then yes, they are taken to task for that, with the result (a lower price) being held as part of a package of evidence that they are not doing their job well (meaning, running the company itself in a profitable and effective manner).
Where in this scenario, aside from a 'stock price' that is at odds with reality, is Tim Cook mismanaging his responsibilities?
Installing Tim Cook as CEO of Apple is the equivalent of handing a newborn infant the keys to a 2000cc Harley and telling him to compete in a Motocross! He's a bean counter, not a leader. Apple's Fall 2012 product dump under Cook's auspices confused the public by eclipsing Apple products with other Apple products. All steak and no sizzle, it was the most boring, amateurish, and insipid Apple product intro in history! Apple was $705 at that moment in time and 6 months later it's now almost half. The numbers tell the story! How is Tim Cook not responsible for destroying Apple's value?
To equate Tim Cook with Steve Jobs is a sick joke. Steve's aura had more creativity than Cook's entire being. The least Cook could have done, if he were a businessman of any skill, was give Wall Street the special dividend "investor friendly" company's were issuing in droves last December. But Cook didn't have the smarts or antennae for that either. Tim Cook is a tool!
Lastly, this quote unquote "Dilger editorial" reads like a defense of Tim Cook written by his mommy.
Wow. Vitriolic AND pointless…
iPhone 5? iPad Mini? The new iMac design? All steak and no sizzle (whatever that means)…? Products like that (not to mention the upgrade roadmap and the rest we'll see over the next year or possibly even two) have been under development since well before Jobs passed.
Whatever is in Apple's RELEASE pipeline this year was 'in development' two to three years ago. Even more if it's anything groundbreaking like iPhone or iPad. Design, engineering, manufacturing prototyping, component development and sourcing… these things don't happen overnight.
Also seeming well forgotten is that Apple's team (top to bottom) has limits. Especially when it comes to making a product ready for release, and to meet Apple's standards. Remember that engineers were pulled off other product pipelines (slowing their release schedules) to get the iPhone (and iOS) ready for market… sometimes it's like that when you're constantly pushing limits.
This is not a "push a button hey-presto new products!!" environment. You clearly understand little about the guts of Apple and what keeps it humming along smoothly.
As far as YOUR opinions of what Tim Cook and Apple should or should not be doing, personally, I'm fine with them doing EXACTLY what they are doing.
And finally, why the vitriolic tone? It does seem a tad churlish to me...
Says you. His management of supply chain logistics seems pretty close to genius to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
But as a leader Cook is a pure failure.
Says you, and a bunch of false narratives being trotted around the web with the clear intent of disparaging his immense talent. You have no basis in FACT to be saying these things, as if you KNOW them to be true. It's purely speculative supposition and opinion.
While SJ was sick he handed the reins to TC as interim CEO, and the company thrived. After SJ passed the reins permanently to TC and then eventually passed away, the company continued to thrive. In fact, the ONLY thing not "thriving" at the moment is the stock price, and that's clearly being manipulated by large-cap investors who want more of the 'cash reserve' Apple is sitting on.
I see this potential future: Those same institutional investors will attempt to drive the stock price to under $300 (could happen if Apple misses its guidance tonight). Then will buy HUGE amounts of stock, taking enough of a share to start hostile action. They'll oust Cook, initiate "preferred shares" and drain the reserve into their own pockets.
That's one possible scenario I see playing out. If it does, and the SEC does nothing, then I'll be once and for all convinced it's a rigged game…
No. There was always a sliver of hope, a promise if you will that Steve would conjure up "one more thing". We could always depend on a next act with Steve Jobs at Apple's helm. Apple under Tim Cook feels like the last season of The Sopranos. I have a sinking feeling under Tim Cook's guidance there will be no next act -- no "one more thing" -- for Apple.
You sidestepped this completely: What about the stock crashing under Steve being OK and under Tim "a complete failure"? What makes the "genius" apparent that you can't see? Better showmanship?
The ONLY thing that can be pointed to today indicating any remote glimmer of "failure" on Tim Cook's part is the stock price. And since that price is at complete odds with the realities of the company (and the CEO's) performance, I'd say it doesn't count for much in fact.
They're still massively profitable. That isn't going to end anytime soon. The iPad Mini and new iMac, along with the iPhone 5 were pretty solid releases. SJ was the "one more thing" guy. We miss that, but no-one is presuming to try and replace or replicate that. They're going to move forward as a team and make Apple the best it can be.
Installing Tim Cook as CEO of Apple is the equivalent of handing a newborn infant the keys to a 2000cc Harley and telling him to compete in a Motocross! He's a bean counter, not a leader. Apple's Fall 2012 product dump under Cook's auspices confused the public by eclipsing Apple products with other Apple products. All steak and no sizzle, it was the most boring, amateurish, and insipid Apple product intro in history! Apple was $705 at that moment in time and 6 months later it's now almost half. The numbers tell the story! How is Tim Cook not responsible for destroying Apple's value?
To equate Tim Cook with Steve Jobs is a sick joke. Steve's aura had more creativity than Cook's entire being. The least Cook could have done, if he were a businessman of any skill, was give Wall Street the special dividend "investor friendly" company's were issuing in droves last December. But Cook didn't have the smarts or antennae for that either. Tim Cook is a tool!
Lastly, this quote unquote "Dilger editorial" reads like a defense of Tim Cook written by his mommy.
(I am cutting and pasting just a few relevant parts, since your post rambles on.....)
Whine, whine, whine.
1) "Big fan of Apple, however.....". Big giveaway.
2) Apple has had unambiguous policies regarding in-app subscriptions. If you didn't bother to check that before you wasted your resources developing the app -- or thought you'd go ahead anyway, and take your chances -- that's your foolishness. Perhaps you can explain why and how Apple continues to have the largest app ecosystem if developers are having so many problems?
Incidentally, your stock market app sounds like a pathetic me-too product. There's a sea of them out there (check out, e.g., Bloomberg; Schwab -- both brilliantly implemented).
3) Your movie app got accepted. So what are you whining about? (In any event, it sounds like another me-too product. Check out IMDB and how it's been implemented -- again, brilliant).
4) Buy the frackin' protection plan the next time. It's there for a reason. Otherwise you get what you get, which Apple tells you about up front, and it is a function of what local laws require. Live with it. (Perhaps you can explain why the iPhone has, by far, the highest customer satisfaction ratings?)
FYI - not only did we read up on Apple's policies before the fact, we have also gone through it with a very fine toothcomb after the fact. Even today, 6 months after the episode, Apple does not have anything on its policies regarding who is allowed and who is not allowed to use Recurring Subscriptions. This is one of those gray areas, where Apple thinks they have to protect their customers from signing up for a subscription plan, and probably forgetting about it, and running up a $1 charge every month. And this is the same company that allowed the "I am Rich" app to be sold for $1000 - with zero functionality! I guess Apple is OK with you conning a customer for $1000 in one shot, but not OK with you taking $1 a month for a legitimate solution. (Update: there is still an "I am Rich LE" App, for $10, which still does nothing! Apparently, this sort of scam is fine with Apple!)
And whether my product is a pathetic me-too product or not, is not the point. You don't know about my product. Contrary to what you are saying, my product actually offers functionality that is significantly beyond what Bloomberg and the others offer. Just as an example, Bloomberg requires you to use their product and actively search for information and news. My product allows you to specify companies, and sectors where you are interested in news, with fairly sophisticated filters - and then the news reaches you automatically within minutes of being updated on Reuters - even if you are not using the app, and even if your iPad is not even in use. For instance, you can create a filter like "News referring to Apple and Samsung, that mentions Judge Lucy Koh, in Japanese". Pray tell me how Bloomberg and Charles Schwab allow you to do this. And FYI - my app gets its news and data from Reuters, so there is no difference in the quality of news and data from my app, compared to even Bloomberg.
And just because I have some issues with Apple, you decide to call my app a "pathetic" me-too product, without ever seeing my app, or even knowing its name. Says more about you, than it does about my app.
Yes - the movie app got accepted. But still, when there are apps out there that do nothing but fart, why is Apple so picky about an app not using iPhone features enough?
Regarding Applecare - if Apple treats Applecare as compulsory, they are already violating various consumer protection laws. They have to offer a proper option for servicing, irrespective of whatever the cost of that option is. It is Apple's fault that they haven't invested in building a service infrastructure in India, their fault that the iPhone is built in a way that makes it very difficult to service for even basic repairs. They cannot force a customer to buy Applecare to overcome issues at their end. Just go online and see the number of issues with the iPhone power button. This is a company that makes a phone with 2 buttons, and messed one up!
You have exposed yourself quite plainly in the way you responded. Just because I have changed by opinion about Apple, the whole tone of your post is so aggressive. Looks like you are taking this as a personal insult! And I am not a blind fanboy - I recognize when Apple messes up, and I don't blindly support whatever they do. Take a look at my post history, you will get an idea of my thoughts about Apple.
Tim Cook has to go on. this kind of rumor only confirms that he is in the right path. it is a surprise to me, i didnt like him in the first years, but now i have no doubts, after his attitude with ios 6 maps, Forstall, and more recently China and general human issues*, that he is the best man. having Johnny Ive lead software and hardware design for me may be one of the best internal Apple moves of all time. "all is very very well"=)
Comments
1) It's not often I get accused of being too emotional. You may want to rethink why you think I'm emotional when you are the one overreacting to natural changes in the market.
2) I get what you're saying but you're wrong. The job of the CEO is not the stock, but the company. The stock is only partly an affected by the success of the company, but much of it are out of the control of the company. What you are suggesting is what is wrong with many companies and CEOs that come on board with huge paychecks, huge sign on bonuses and huge departure bonuses. They stay 6 months to a couple years with absolutely no intention of making the company better. They kill quality to increase profits, they lay off their workforce to cut costs. The numbers look good at first but it's a house of cards. You are saying Cook should be like Usain Bolt but don't realize this is a marathon, not a sprint.
It's not as if they had a choice when it came to the replacement and let's not forget, it wasn't Apple that replaced Steve with a supply chain guy - Steve stepped down and chose to give Tim control over the company.
"It was absolutely the saddest days of my life when he passed away. Maybe as much as you should see or predict that, I really didn’t. But at some point, late last year, somebody kind of shook me and said, it’s time to get on. So that sadness was replaced with intense determination to continue the journey.
Steve told me, when he called me to his home to talk about being the CEO and subsequently the discussions we had, he told me, ‘you know, I witnessed what happened at Disney when Walt passed away.’ He said that people would go to meetings… and all sit around and talk about, ‘what would Walt have done? How would he view this?’
And he looked at me with those intense eyes that only he had, and he told me to never do that, to never ask what he would do. Just do what’s right. And so I’m doing that.
[When I was recruited by Steve], it was a very interesting meeting. Steve had hired an executive-search firm to find somebody to run operations and I’d turned down meeting and they kept calling and I eventually said I’d talk. I had no time, so I flew out Friday on a red eye for a Saturday morning meeting with Steve. and the honest to god truth, five minutes into the conversation I wanted to join Apple. I was shocked at this. It wasn’t how I went into the conversation.
He painted a story, a strategy, that he was talking Apple deep into consumer at a time when I knew that other people were doing the exact opposite. And I never thought following the herd was a good strategy. You’re destined to be average at best. So I saw brilliance in that. And he told me about what would later be the iMac, and I saw brilliance in that. And I saw someone who was unaffected by money. That’s always impressed me. So those three things, I thought, I’m going to throw caution to the wind and do this. I went back and resigned immediately.
... when I looked at the balance sheet of the company, I thought I could add something and participate in turning around a great American company."
When people talk about Tim and associate him with failure, the judgement is being made based on numbers. Steve Jobs wasn't judged by numbers and the numbers under Cook are higher than they've ever been. If people want to weigh Steve against Tim then at least judge them by the same measures.
You can see above, it was Steve who wanted to go after consumers and yet Tim is blamed for how they treat their professional product line. People criticise Tim for not being focused on money and yet he turned the company around by optimising the supply chain.
Tim has demonstrated on every occasion he gets to speak that he has the same values that Steve had. He respects the importance of the creative staff and Apple is shipping more units than ever. What's the problem?
The problem is that Wall Street was trying to find a value for the stock and people who didn't play the game smartly enough lost money. That's the nature of the game. Of course Tim isn't as inspirational as Steve was and readily admits that but nobody suggests a better candidate. Who is there that's better than Tim to take that position? Mansfield doesn't have the commitment, Ive lacks confidence, Forstall was destructive, name every exec and they have major flaws. Tim is never hesitant, he holds the team together, he has the determination to sort things out and he's the most apologetic staff member I've ever seen at Apple when customers aren't happy and still people complain he's not good enough.
Nobody else would keep the company running so efficiently - if Apple did what people suggest and replaced him, they'd be in far worse shape and what would people say then? Everybody gets it, it isn't news any more that losing Steve Jobs was a massive loss but it was always going to happen, it happened and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
If you judge Tim by sales and profit numbers, the numbers are better than ever.
If you judge Tim by his values, they align with everything Apple stands for.
The mentality of 'Tim isn't as good as Steve because Wall Street told me so' is really tiresome. If at this point in time you can't see Tim as the right choice to run the company, you are judging him by a standard that neither Steve nor anyone else at Apple would judge him by.
Apple is one of the most profitable and stable companies in the long run. To replace the captain in the middle of the voyage would be insane. Sometimes there's rougher waters than other times! Who cares! That happens at every company. If you trusted Steve Jobs, you should trust Tim Cook, who he chose himself to take care of his beloved Apple. If history since the advent of the iPhone has taught us anything, it's that when Apple actually speaks, the rumors fade away. Give it a little while. I bet the next time they have announcement, they will surprise and delight you again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
It's only "fairly standard" when the company itself is struggling or tanking, taking the stock with it. It is hardly "standard" when a company adds record profits yet again each quarter AND the stock (ignoring all that) goes south. The CEO is somehow responsible? Really...
This is a situation where, although Apple didn't meet STREET expectations (as lofty and unrealistic as they were), they still consistently met or exceeded their own guidance and quarter on quarter, year on year, increased to new record highs. This INCLUDES the last two quarters in question (yes, Apple has continued to add double-digit BILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT to their cash pile each quarter), and although the curve isn't as steep -- did anyone believe that growth was sustainable in perpetuity? -- that doesn't REMOTELY imply the company is in any kind of trouble OR that its management is doing a poor job.
The stock price vs sales/company/management performance are at complete odds. Apple stock at the least should have sustained its price point. But it was CLEARLY manipulated downward, by a string of planned 'attacks', and I guarantee the 'whisper campaigns' about Cook and the company in general are in part paid PR by companies like Samsung, Microsoft, et al… this is how it's done now. Using paid 'journalistic' hacks, 'social media', etc.
You should try reading the comment threads on Yahoo FInance… any Apple related story. From the comments alone you'd believe the company is losing money, tanking, the management and product mix is in shambles, losing market share and the stock price is just a reflection of ALL THOSE WOES….
Who is writing all those comments? They fit a distinct pattern of "negative press". Most people I know don't watch the stock anyway, and 60%+ are still considering Apple for their next phone/tablet/computer…… that's reality. The stock market? Not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
No, and we didn't have idiotic "gnomes floating high over the Alps" whispering that a Steve Jobs replacement was being considered either.
That's because the sales hadn't dropped at all during those periods (they were probably breaking their own records yet again), and so no-one in their right mind would have kicked that executive team off the rails considering the company's (not the stock's!) overall performance.
Deja vu all over again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3
Tim is in over his head. He's great at running the machine, but doesn't relate to tech users and is not a source of innovation.
And of course, you know all this first-hand, since you say it with such authoritative confidence...
Explain then, the continuous growth and record profits quarter after quarter since he's been CEO? Just 'coasting'? Psh! You don't get to do that while releasing new products and product upgrades...
iPad Mini, Retina MacBook Pros… then the New iMac, new iPhone 5, both so finely and precision designed they needed extra time to get the manufacturing processes worked out. But then look at them. Results worth waiting for, and outselling all the competition. Nothing else on the market holds a candle to their build quality and aesthetics...
How is he in 'over his head'? He has a great team in support. THere's nothing at all wrong with the actual job he's doing.
Just too many people like you making stuff up and presenting it like it's "factual"...
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Bzzzt! Wrong. Tim Cook works for the board, which represents the owners of the company -- the shareholders.
Um… ok. So, a few shareholders go underwater and it's "off with his head"?
And your representation is a tad skewed…
Tim Cook is CEO. He works for Apple.
The Apple Board of Directors OVERSEES Apple Executive Management (Officers) and changes it on an as-needed basis.
Shareholders collectively own a PORTION of the company.
Shareholders have a say in certain (but not all) matters that might come before the Board, including voting on members of that Board. Shareholders don't appoint executives, however.
It isn't as cut and dried as "Tim works for the Board who represents the Shareholders". Although 'kinda-sorta' correct semantically… it isn't how things work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub
I wish Apple would get back on top of the Prosumer Market.. Things had begun to slide even before Cook took the reign. We need new MacPro's... Even though the userbase is small compared to the consumer sector there is still a market and a lot of businesses are heavily invested in OSX. I feel that Apple has lost its mojo in this particular area.
Well, I for one am not switching my all-Mac "pro shop" (audio + video production, design, web and app development) to…. what, Windows? Bwaaa-hahahahaaaa….. ok ok or… Linux?
Nah. Apple still has plenty of "mojo" where I'm concerned. iMacs are doing most of the heavy lifting these days, together with a small server/processor farm of Mac Minis in support.
That said, I'm looking forward to a new Mac Pro.
As for software, maybe Logic Pro X… although version 9 is pretty great. Sometimes it's a matter of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"... right?
TIP: As Jobs said judge Apple on the results. The market insiders will always play market games for selfish reasons.
Many of the negative rumors on Apple are both funny and sad for those generating them.
IMO Apple is now a buy, I bought more Apple today.
Sell high and buy low!
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
The fact that Apple has dropped that ball is another evidence of questionable management: obviously...
There you go again, declaring opinion as fact. There is 'in fact' a difference between those: obviously...
"The fact" that Apple has dropped the ball… um. Opinion?
Another evidence of "questionable management"… um. Opinion?
Fine opinions. Nothing remotely resembling "facts". Just saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
...or month to month or year to year.... You are just wrong.
CEO is not directly "stock price" responsible. Now, if the performance of the company (losing market share, running in the red, etc.) affect the share price negatively then yes, they are taken to task for that, with the result (a lower price) being held as part of a package of evidence that they are not doing their job well (meaning, running the company itself in a profitable and effective manner).
Where in this scenario, aside from a 'stock price' that is at odds with reality, is Tim Cook mismanaging his responsibilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
My argument was that CEOs are responsible for stock price.
I wonder what Cook did to make the stock rise today?
Maybe he farted and up 5%.
Idiot correction time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Installing Tim Cook as CEO of Apple is the equivalent of handing a newborn infant the keys to a 2000cc Harley and telling him to compete in a Motocross! He's a bean counter, not a leader. Apple's Fall 2012 product dump under Cook's auspices confused the public by eclipsing Apple products with other Apple products. All steak and no sizzle, it was the most boring, amateurish, and insipid Apple product intro in history! Apple was $705 at that moment in time and 6 months later it's now almost half. The numbers tell the story! How is Tim Cook not responsible for destroying Apple's value?
To equate Tim Cook with Steve Jobs is a sick joke. Steve's aura had more creativity than Cook's entire being. The least Cook could have done, if he were a businessman of any skill, was give Wall Street the special dividend "investor friendly" company's were issuing in droves last December. But Cook didn't have the smarts or antennae for that either. Tim Cook is a tool!
Lastly, this quote unquote "Dilger editorial" reads like a defense of Tim Cook written by his mommy.
Wow. Vitriolic AND pointless…
iPhone 5? iPad Mini? The new iMac design? All steak and no sizzle (whatever that means)…? Products like that (not to mention the upgrade roadmap and the rest we'll see over the next year or possibly even two) have been under development since well before Jobs passed.
Whatever is in Apple's RELEASE pipeline this year was 'in development' two to three years ago. Even more if it's anything groundbreaking like iPhone or iPad. Design, engineering, manufacturing prototyping, component development and sourcing… these things don't happen overnight.
Also seeming well forgotten is that Apple's team (top to bottom) has limits. Especially when it comes to making a product ready for release, and to meet Apple's standards. Remember that engineers were pulled off other product pipelines (slowing their release schedules) to get the iPhone (and iOS) ready for market… sometimes it's like that when you're constantly pushing limits.
This is not a "push a button hey-presto new products!!" environment. You clearly understand little about the guts of Apple and what keeps it humming along smoothly.
As far as YOUR opinions of what Tim Cook and Apple should or should not be doing, personally, I'm fine with them doing EXACTLY what they are doing.
And finally, why the vitriolic tone? It does seem a tad churlish to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
No one would ever claim Tim Cook is genius.
Says you. His management of supply chain logistics seems pretty close to genius to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
But as a leader Cook is a pure failure.
Says you, and a bunch of false narratives being trotted around the web with the clear intent of disparaging his immense talent. You have no basis in FACT to be saying these things, as if you KNOW them to be true. It's purely speculative supposition and opinion.
While SJ was sick he handed the reins to TC as interim CEO, and the company thrived. After SJ passed the reins permanently to TC and then eventually passed away, the company continued to thrive. In fact, the ONLY thing not "thriving" at the moment is the stock price, and that's clearly being manipulated by large-cap investors who want more of the 'cash reserve' Apple is sitting on.
I see this potential future: Those same institutional investors will attempt to drive the stock price to under $300 (could happen if Apple misses its guidance tonight). Then will buy HUGE amounts of stock, taking enough of a share to start hostile action. They'll oust Cook, initiate "preferred shares" and drain the reserve into their own pockets.
That's one possible scenario I see playing out. If it does, and the SEC does nothing, then I'll be once and for all convinced it's a rigged game…
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
No. There was always a sliver of hope, a promise if you will that Steve would conjure up "one more thing". We could always depend on a next act with Steve Jobs at Apple's helm. Apple under Tim Cook feels like the last season of The Sopranos. I have a sinking feeling under Tim Cook's guidance there will be no next act -- no "one more thing" -- for Apple.
You sidestepped this completely: What about the stock crashing under Steve being OK and under Tim "a complete failure"? What makes the "genius" apparent that you can't see? Better showmanship?
The ONLY thing that can be pointed to today indicating any remote glimmer of "failure" on Tim Cook's part is the stock price. And since that price is at complete odds with the realities of the company (and the CEO's) performance, I'd say it doesn't count for much in fact.
They're still massively profitable. That isn't going to end anytime soon. The iPad Mini and new iMac, along with the iPhone 5 were pretty solid releases. SJ was the "one more thing" guy. We miss that, but no-one is presuming to try and replace or replicate that. They're going to move forward as a team and make Apple the best it can be.
Of this I have NO doubt.
I can only assume it's a lack of intelligence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
(I am cutting and pasting just a few relevant parts, since your post rambles on.....)
Whine, whine, whine.
1) "Big fan of Apple, however.....". Big giveaway.
2) Apple has had unambiguous policies regarding in-app subscriptions. If you didn't bother to check that before you wasted your resources developing the app -- or thought you'd go ahead anyway, and take your chances -- that's your foolishness. Perhaps you can explain why and how Apple continues to have the largest app ecosystem if developers are having so many problems?
Incidentally, your stock market app sounds like a pathetic me-too product. There's a sea of them out there (check out, e.g., Bloomberg; Schwab -- both brilliantly implemented).
3) Your movie app got accepted. So what are you whining about? (In any event, it sounds like another me-too product. Check out IMDB and how it's been implemented -- again, brilliant).
4) Buy the frackin' protection plan the next time. It's there for a reason. Otherwise you get what you get, which Apple tells you about up front, and it is a function of what local laws require. Live with it. (Perhaps you can explain why the iPhone has, by far, the highest customer satisfaction ratings?)
FYI - not only did we read up on Apple's policies before the fact, we have also gone through it with a very fine toothcomb after the fact. Even today, 6 months after the episode, Apple does not have anything on its policies regarding who is allowed and who is not allowed to use Recurring Subscriptions. This is one of those gray areas, where Apple thinks they have to protect their customers from signing up for a subscription plan, and probably forgetting about it, and running up a $1 charge every month. And this is the same company that allowed the "I am Rich" app to be sold for $1000 - with zero functionality! I guess Apple is OK with you conning a customer for $1000 in one shot, but not OK with you taking $1 a month for a legitimate solution. (Update: there is still an "I am Rich LE" App, for $10, which still does nothing! Apparently, this sort of scam is fine with Apple!)
And whether my product is a pathetic me-too product or not, is not the point. You don't know about my product. Contrary to what you are saying, my product actually offers functionality that is significantly beyond what Bloomberg and the others offer. Just as an example, Bloomberg requires you to use their product and actively search for information and news. My product allows you to specify companies, and sectors where you are interested in news, with fairly sophisticated filters - and then the news reaches you automatically within minutes of being updated on Reuters - even if you are not using the app, and even if your iPad is not even in use. For instance, you can create a filter like "News referring to Apple and Samsung, that mentions Judge Lucy Koh, in Japanese". Pray tell me how Bloomberg and Charles Schwab allow you to do this. And FYI - my app gets its news and data from Reuters, so there is no difference in the quality of news and data from my app, compared to even Bloomberg.
And just because I have some issues with Apple, you decide to call my app a "pathetic" me-too product, without ever seeing my app, or even knowing its name. Says more about you, than it does about my app.
Yes - the movie app got accepted. But still, when there are apps out there that do nothing but fart, why is Apple so picky about an app not using iPhone features enough?
Regarding Applecare - if Apple treats Applecare as compulsory, they are already violating various consumer protection laws. They have to offer a proper option for servicing, irrespective of whatever the cost of that option is. It is Apple's fault that they haven't invested in building a service infrastructure in India, their fault that the iPhone is built in a way that makes it very difficult to service for even basic repairs. They cannot force a customer to buy Applecare to overcome issues at their end. Just go online and see the number of issues with the iPhone power button. This is a company that makes a phone with 2 buttons, and messed one up!
You have exposed yourself quite plainly in the way you responded. Just because I have changed by opinion about Apple, the whole tone of your post is so aggressive. Looks like you are taking this as a personal insult! And I am not a blind fanboy - I recognize when Apple messes up, and I don't blindly support whatever they do. Take a look at my post history, you will get an idea of my thoughts about Apple.