First, there's nothing illegal about a noncompete agreement - even in CA. They're often not enforceable, but that doesn't make them illegal.
Second, even in CA, SOME noncompete agreements are perfectly legal. For example, if three partners create a company and each sign a noncompete saying that they won't start a competing company, that is generally going to be enforceable.
Whether that exception applies to a senior VP at a public company is not entirely clear. It is likely that a very narrowly crafted noncompete might still work in that situation. But even if it didn't your statement that noncompetes are illegal in CA is just plain wrong.
To be fair, he said it wasn't legal, not that it was illegal, which can have a different connotation.
And in most cases, you cannot legally enforce a non-compete agreement in CA.
Saying it's illegal to attempt to enforce a non-compete implies that the enforcer is breaking the law. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you can try to enforce it, but you won't have the law on your side to do the actual enforcing? Any contract would be considered void.
Of course, it may be illegal (as in you could get sued for damages) in some instances. Just noting there can be a difference in connotation, and that (excluding exceptions) it is generally correct to say what he said.
The problem with your scenario is that I haven't criticized Cook... yet.
Nor should you. Lets face it, it is always easy to criticizes the guy making the decisions. However the people complaining often have zero knowledge of what the CEO used to make his decisions. It takes a lot of time, research and some history before it is even possible to criticize someone's decision making activities.
I'm not totally sold. I want to see what he is going to do with "new" product/ideas. We know what he can do with old product. That he does quite well.
New products are interesting but even then you can't judge somebody in one product. Apple has had some rather significant failures under Steve. I won't list them all out here but you won't find many companies that haven't had major failures. Sometimes you just have to pick up the pieces and see what went wrong.
New ideas is what Jobs used to grow the company. If Steve relied on old products (ie. - computers) he would have done better than anyone in the field today (still is, actually)... but the company would still be just a small computer company.
Contrary to popular opinion it wasn't Steve that made those new ideas work. That was a function of the designers and developers building the product. Steve may have signed off on the final product and did the marketing jive but that is just about it. Often Steve was more of an obstruction to getting key parts of a system in place. Read some of the histories that discuss the original Mac development, if the engineers had done exactly what Steve wanted the machine would have been a mess.
Where jobs excelled, and had done so since Apple's birth, is at taken an idea and perfecting it. Was the mp3 player new when Jobs took hold of it, how about smartphones, how about tablets... okay, now let's see what Cook comes up with on his watch. Can he take an old idea and make it new again. So far there is nothing new to compare his abilities.
Again this conflicts a bit with reality. Steve got it wrong more times than he got it right.
If we're talking about what Apple already does, computers, mp3 players, smartphones and tablets... then, sure, Cook knows how to sell those... but I don't see the company growing much, if at all, if that is where Apple is going to stay.
This is true a company needs new products. However a company also needs products that sell to a vast number of customers. This is where I have problems with iWatch, I just don't see a market for the device right now. So how do we judge it as a success or a failure?
The military probably also has a saying for people who have no ambition...
Ambition? Are you serious, nobody gets to the position of controlling a multinational company without ambition. Honestly the last line turns what may have been a somewhat rational post into something vicious and lacking of logic. Do you really think people climb the management tree devoid of motivation and free of ambition?
Ambition? Are you serious, nobody gets to the position of controlling a multinational company without ambition. Honestly the last line turns what may have been a somewhat rational post into something vicious and lacking of logic. Do you really think people climb the management tree devoid of motivation and free of ambition?
You're not following the conversation.
__________________
Oh... and, by the way, your attempt at discrediting Steve won't work.
I also thought I knew the story behind the original Mac. Someone on here made me have a second look. Delve into the history of the original Mac and you'll know Steve J's product philosophy and work ethic in a nutshell. The iMac is no different.
To say that Steve got it wrong more than he got it right does a disservice to the man. He was a visionary. No matter who helped him put it together, it was always Steve's vision. He at least had one. That much we know. And it made Apple huge.
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
And that corporate culture is baked in. It will be there long after the CEO is gone. Successive CEOs will either need to curate that culture or attempt to un-bake the cake, tear the whole structure apart, and start all over again. And that rarely works.
Also, don't you think that Steve wrote out a 20 year master plan for Apple?
Wouldn't you if you were in his place in 2010 or so?
I think he did, and Tim (and subsequent CEOs) will be executing that master plan.
To your questions:
As you can see, I think that Steve had a 'master plan'. However, being familiar with Steve's history, I would imagine that he would cringe at the idea that it would take 20 years to achieve it, with or without him.
Yes would if I were him. Not necessarily, if I were just in his place.
However, I doubt that Tim will be executing Steve's master plan. Although he is brilliant in his own right, Tim doesn't have Steve's creative wisdom, his foresight to change or the demanding respect that it would take to the grasp and adjust to advancing technologies with which he would be faced over time. Or for that matter, need to.
A lot has been said that Steve would be doing things differently if he were here. I agree. But no one knows what or how.
But the bottom line is, I have confidence that Tim, or his likes, will be able to continue to make Apple successful. Just as the leaders of GE, Ford, AT&T have done after the passing of their founders. However, without Steve, even with his master plan, there isn't anyone of his caliber in Apple that will be able to create a succession of new product categories at the level we have seen in the past couple of decades.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Absolutely false.
First, there's nothing illegal about a noncompete agreement - even in CA. They're often not enforceable, but that doesn't make them illegal.
Second, even in CA, SOME noncompete agreements are perfectly legal. For example, if three partners create a company and each sign a noncompete saying that they won't start a competing company, that is generally going to be enforceable.
Whether that exception applies to a senior VP at a public company is not entirely clear. It is likely that a very narrowly crafted noncompete might still work in that situation. But even if it didn't your statement that noncompetes are illegal in CA is just plain wrong.
To be fair, he said it wasn't legal, not that it was illegal, which can have a different connotation.
And in most cases, you cannot legally enforce a non-compete agreement in CA.
Saying it's illegal to attempt to enforce a non-compete implies that the enforcer is breaking the law. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you can try to enforce it, but you won't have the law on your side to do the actual enforcing? Any contract would be considered void.
Of course, it may be illegal (as in you could get sued for damages) in some instances. Just noting there can be a difference in connotation, and that (excluding exceptions) it is generally correct to say what he said.
Ambition? Are you serious, nobody gets to the position of controlling a multinational company without ambition. Honestly the last line turns what may have been a somewhat rational post into something vicious and lacking of logic. Do you really think people climb the management tree devoid of motivation and free of ambition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Ambition? Are you serious, nobody gets to the position of controlling a multinational company without ambition. Honestly the last line turns what may have been a somewhat rational post into something vicious and lacking of logic. Do you really think people climb the management tree devoid of motivation and free of ambition?
You're not following the conversation.
__________________
Oh... and, by the way, your attempt at discrediting Steve won't work.
I also thought I knew the story behind the original Mac. Someone on here made me have a second look. Delve into the history of the original Mac and you'll know Steve J's product philosophy and work ethic in a nutshell. The iMac is no different.
To say that Steve got it wrong more than he got it right does a disservice to the man. He was a visionary. No matter who helped him put it together, it was always Steve's vision. He at least had one. That much we know. And it made Apple huge.
I can't say the same for Cook... yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoast8
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
And that corporate culture is baked in. It will be there long after the CEO is gone. Successive CEOs will either need to curate that culture or attempt to un-bake the cake, tear the whole structure apart, and start all over again. And that rarely works.
Also, don't you think that Steve wrote out a 20 year master plan for Apple?
Wouldn't you if you were in his place in 2010 or so?
I think he did, and Tim (and subsequent CEOs) will be executing that master plan.
To your questions:
As you can see, I think that Steve had a 'master plan'. However, being familiar with Steve's history, I would imagine that he would cringe at the idea that it would take 20 years to achieve it, with or without him.
Yes would if I were him. Not necessarily, if I were just in his place.
However, I doubt that Tim will be executing Steve's master plan. Although he is brilliant in his own right, Tim doesn't have Steve's creative wisdom, his foresight to change or the demanding respect that it would take to the grasp and adjust to advancing technologies with which he would be faced over time. Or for that matter, need to.
A lot has been said that Steve would be doing things differently if he were here. I agree. But no one knows what or how.
But the bottom line is, I have confidence that Tim, or his likes, will be able to continue to make Apple successful. Just as the leaders of GE, Ford, AT&T have done after the passing of their founders. However, without Steve, even with his master plan, there isn't anyone of his caliber in Apple that will be able to create a succession of new product categories at the level we have seen in the past couple of decades.