You're absolutely right that I have a personal dislike of Al Gore.
As for the others, I admit to being ignorant as to how company boards work and what their purpose is supposed to be. I don't even know how many times a year Apple's board meets. You'd figure that with all of the money that they're getting paid, they'd at least have to make some sort of effort, but I honestly don't know, and I also don't know if everybody on Apple's board deserves to be there. An Avon lady?
It sure seems like a nice gig, if you can get it. It's like winning the lottery.
All this list shows me is how the corporate world is inter twined and how they're all looking out for each other. How the corporate system may f*cked up however, is a whole different topic.
Other than Tim Cook and Al Gore whom you personally dislike, why are all the following on the board of directors?
Once you answer that, I may then share your skepticism.
Arthur Levinson
Chairman and former CEO
Genentech, Inc.
William Campbell
Chairman and former CEO
Intuit, Inc.
Tim Cook
CEO
Apple
Millard Drexler
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
J. Crew
Al Gore
Former Vice President of the United States
Robert Iger
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Walt Disney Company
Andrea Jung
Senior Advisor to the Board of Directors
Avon Products, Inc.
Ronald Sugar
Former Chairman and CEO
Northrop Grumman Corporation
A break down of the board.
Arthur Levinson - Highly influential in the medical field. He's no longer at Genentech. He is at Calico now, which incidentally is a Google venture. A little iffy keeping him on the BoD.
William Campbell - He is highly regarded in the Valley. He was a personal confidant to Steve Jobs. He has also been involved in Apple in various capacities since the 80s.
Millard Drexler - Very influential in retail. Grew Gap and now J. Crew to great heights. Has been a part of Apple since 1999.
Al Gore - Besides being the former Vice President, he has been involved in sustainability worldwide. Probably still has some political clout.
Robert Iger - Walt Disney is one of the largest media companies in the world. Having the CEO of such a influential company on your board can't hurt. Walt Disney also owns ESPN, which is the largest sports broadcaster and that could play into future Apple TV stuff.
Andrea Jung - Influential female executive, who sits on the board of GE and now Daimler's supervisory board.
Ronald Sugar - NGC is one of the largest defense contractors in the world and having someone who understands the nature of that part of the government, is important.
With all that being said, I am sure everyone plays a role in Apple's success. We all are sitting on the outside and don't know all the back room stuff that goes on.
The only questionable one now is Arthur Levinson, although I don't think he could be as bad an Apple as Eric Schmidt was. Andrea Jung is also kind of weird, but who would replace her?
Two board members needs to be kicked out Gore and one more so that room for genius and great people can be made. How about Elon Musk and Burberry lady Andrea 8-)
Too bad Apple chose not to agree on the human rights group and, maybe even more of a problem for them at the movement, on a response to the NSA scandal.
Too bad Apple chose not to agree on the human rights group and, maybe even more of a problem for them at the movement, on a response to the NSA scandal.
Apple already does a relatively amazing job in human rights. It doesn't need another group.
As for the NSA, they probably aren't allowed to comment.
Why would anyone be thrilled about Al Gore on the board? WTF does he know about business or technology?
Been living under a rock. Republicrats are very good, and the people are easily persuaded, that the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth. John Kerry, as war hero, was made to look like a lier, while a draft dodger, Bush, was made to look like a hero. Maybe you and others like you will finally stop the crap. So I've included in full, the statement sent by the two main and acknowledged contributors to the Internet, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf on this matter. I'm doubtful facts will persuade you, but perhaps others will prefer facts over propaganda:
----
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Dated: 28 Sep 2000
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively invented the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he invented the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an Interagency Network. Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This Gore Act supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nations schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Cook said Apple's environmental efforts also made economic sense, but when challenged by conservative shareholder activism group to pledge that Apple wouldn't do anything related to the environment that didn't follow a clear profit motive, Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," and recommended that anyone who had a problem with that "should get out of the stock."
That's the way to tell them. I just hope the majority of Apple's stockholders align with Apple's core values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Why would anyone be thrilled about Al Gore on the board? WTF does he know about business or technology?
"The Internet began to find its way well beyond the scientific community by the late 1980’s.
A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13-14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking."
More a quip of late to tell Tesla fans that Apple doesn't spend billions on any single acquisition.
Except $12b on a stock buyback that has all but vanished is better? The benefits of that may become apparent in future but all spending is done for growth. They could easily spend the same amount of money on the buyback they are going to anyway and give them to Tesla investors during a takeover rather than retire them. What's the difference? The risk of retiring the shares is that it has negligible difference to their company value, same as with Tesla. The reward from a buyback to the company itself is pretty much zero, some minor savings in future dividend payments, the main reward is to existing stockholders, eventually. The reward from revolutionising the mass-market transport system with your brand is much more rewarding. If they're going to burn $24b anyway, I say it might as well be used on something with strong growth potential.
Two board members needs to be kicked out Gore and one more so that room for genius and great people can be made. How about Elon Musk and Burberry lady Andrea
How do you know Al Gore isn't a positive influence to Apple? I'm not saying he is or isn't, but to categorically state that he should be shown the door without having insight into the inner workings of Apple, is weird.
Too bad Apple chose not to agree on the human rights group and, maybe even more of a problem for them at the movement, on a response to the NSA scandal.
Apple is actually a leader in human rights issues amongst its peers. Their annual supplier responsibility reports get more and more detailed every year. They continue to push better practices without the need for additional bureaucracy.
Sounds like the same speech Cook gave at last years annual meeting. He mentions Apple sold more iPads, iPhones, and iPads, than ever before but neglects to mention that growth in these segments has been on a multi-year downward spiral, year-over-year, for the the past two years, after several years of exponential growth. That's why AAPL was valued over 30% higher two years ago.
Cook warned investors who don't like his style to get out of the stock and the moment he opened his trap AAPL slipped from green into red in a up market on yet another record day. Cook brags about a billion FaceTime and iMessage requests but Apple doesn't seem to have a clue how to monetize it or all the other valuable data Apple has access to but doesn't make a cent off.
The only "real" solid good news to come out o this year's meeting is the BRIC growth numbers. Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," because under Cook's management Apple's trajectory has shriveled. We need new product lines and killer apps Tim, not your snarky quips!
Sounds like the same speech Cook gave at last years annual meeting. He mentions Apple sold more iPads, iPhones, and iPads, than ever before but neglects to mention that growth in these segments has been on a multi-year downward spiral, year-over-year, for the the past two years, after several years of exponential growth. That's why AAPL was valued over 30% higher two years ago.
Cook warned investors who don't like his style to get out of the stock and the moment he opened his trap AAPL slipped from green into red in a up market on yet another record day. Cook brags about a billion FaceTime and iMessage requests but Apple doesn't seem to have a clue how to monetize it or all the other valuable data Apple has access to but doesn't make a cent off.
The only "real" solid good news to come out o this year's meeting is the BRIC growth numbers. Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," because under Cook's management Apple's trajectory has shriveled. We need new product lines and killer apps Tim, not your snarky quips!
Yeah I'm sure a CEO is going to show up at a shareholders meeting and highlight bad figures. :no: Of course Cook is going to highlight the positives. And I'm perfectly happy with Apple not making money off my use of FaceTime and iMessages. The minute Apple becomes Google is the minute I stop using their products.
Sounds like the same speech Cook gave at last years annual meeting. He mentions Apple sold more iPads, iPhones, and iPads, than ever before but neglects to mention that growth in these segments has been on a multi-year downward spiral, year-over-year, for the the past two years, after several years of exponential growth. That's why AAPL was valued over 30% higher two years ago.
Cook warned investors who don't like his style to get out of the stock and the moment he opened his trap AAPL slipped from green into red in a up market on yet another record day. Cook brags about a billion FaceTime and iMessage requests but Apple doesn't seem to have a clue how to monetize it or all the other valuable data Apple has access to but doesn't make a cent off.
The only "real" solid good news to come out o this year's meeting is the BRIC growth numbers. Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," because under Cook's management Apple's trajectory has shriveled. We need new product lines and killer apps Tim, not your snarky quips!
Comments
I am especially skeptical of any politicians on company boards.
I am not. It's really useful for a company of Apple's size and scope if someone can successfully navigate that cesspool, Washington, DC.
You're absolutely right that I have a personal dislike of Al Gore.
As for the others, I admit to being ignorant as to how company boards work and what their purpose is supposed to be. I don't even know how many times a year Apple's board meets. You'd figure that with all of the money that they're getting paid, they'd at least have to make some sort of effort, but I honestly don't know, and I also don't know if everybody on Apple's board deserves to be there. An Avon lady?
It sure seems like a nice gig, if you can get it. It's like winning the lottery.
All this list shows me is how the corporate world is inter twined and how they're all looking out for each other. How the corporate system may f*cked up however, is a whole different topic.
Apple is winning.
I am not. It's really useful for a company of Apple's size and scope if someone can successfully navigate that cesspool, Washington, DC.
As you wrote in your post above, Gore being a former Vice President of the US, hasn't seemed to benefit them all that much (DOJ vs Apple).
Other than Tim Cook and Al Gore whom you personally dislike, why are all the following on the board of directors?
Once you answer that, I may then share your skepticism.
Arthur Levinson
Chairman and former CEO
Genentech, Inc.
William Campbell
Chairman and former CEO
Intuit, Inc.
Tim Cook
CEO
Apple
Millard Drexler
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
J. Crew
Al Gore
Former Vice President of the United States
Robert Iger
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Walt Disney Company
Andrea Jung
Senior Advisor to the Board of Directors
Avon Products, Inc.
Ronald Sugar
Former Chairman and CEO
Northrop Grumman Corporation
A break down of the board.
Arthur Levinson - Highly influential in the medical field. He's no longer at Genentech. He is at Calico now, which incidentally is a Google venture. A little iffy keeping him on the BoD.
William Campbell - He is highly regarded in the Valley. He was a personal confidant to Steve Jobs. He has also been involved in Apple in various capacities since the 80s.
Millard Drexler - Very influential in retail. Grew Gap and now J. Crew to great heights. Has been a part of Apple since 1999.
Al Gore - Besides being the former Vice President, he has been involved in sustainability worldwide. Probably still has some political clout.
Robert Iger - Walt Disney is one of the largest media companies in the world. Having the CEO of such a influential company on your board can't hurt. Walt Disney also owns ESPN, which is the largest sports broadcaster and that could play into future Apple TV stuff.
Andrea Jung - Influential female executive, who sits on the board of GE and now Daimler's supervisory board.
Ronald Sugar - NGC is one of the largest defense contractors in the world and having someone who understands the nature of that part of the government, is important.
With all that being said, I am sure everyone plays a role in Apple's success. We all are sitting on the outside and don't know all the back room stuff that goes on.
The only questionable one now is Arthur Levinson, although I don't think he could be as bad an Apple as Eric Schmidt was. Andrea Jung is also kind of weird, but who would replace her?
Apple already does a relatively amazing job in human rights. It doesn't need another group.
As for the NSA, they probably aren't allowed to comment.
Why would anyone be thrilled about Al Gore on the board? WTF does he know about business or technology?
Been living under a rock. Republicrats are very good, and the people are easily persuaded, that the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth. John Kerry, as war hero, was made to look like a lier, while a draft dodger, Bush, was made to look like a hero. Maybe you and others like you will finally stop the crap. So I've included in full, the statement sent by the two main and acknowledged contributors to the Internet, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf on this matter. I'm doubtful facts will persuade you, but perhaps others will prefer facts over propaganda:
----
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Dated: 28 Sep 2000
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively invented the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he invented the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an Interagency Network. Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This Gore Act supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nations schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Cook said Apple's environmental efforts also made economic sense, but when challenged by conservative shareholder activism group to pledge that Apple wouldn't do anything related to the environment that didn't follow a clear profit motive, Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," and recommended that anyone who had a problem with that "should get out of the stock."
That's the way to tell them. I just hope the majority of Apple's stockholders align with Apple's core values.
Why would anyone be thrilled about Al Gore on the board? WTF does he know about business or technology?
"The Internet began to find its way well beyond the scientific community by the late 1980’s.
A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13-14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking."
http://web.archive.org/web/20070722223308/http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/PS/paper224.pdf
Thank you Marvin.
I am not. It's really useful for a company of Apple's size and scope if someone can successfully navigate that cesspool, Washington, DC.
As you wrote in your post above, Gore being a former Vice President of the US, hasn't seemed to benefit them all that much (DOJ vs Apple).
How do you know it hasn't benefitted them? Things could be a lot worse.
40 billion notifications per day.
That makes 500 000 notifications per second.
One notification per user per half hour approximately. Sounds right.
Except $12b on a stock buyback that has all but vanished is better? The benefits of that may become apparent in future but all spending is done for growth. They could easily spend the same amount of money on the buyback they are going to anyway and give them to Tesla investors during a takeover rather than retire them. What's the difference? The risk of retiring the shares is that it has negligible difference to their company value, same as with Tesla. The reward from a buyback to the company itself is pretty much zero, some minor savings in future dividend payments, the main reward is to existing stockholders, eventually. The reward from revolutionising the mass-market transport system with your brand is much more rewarding. If they're going to burn $24b anyway, I say it might as well be used on something with strong growth potential.
Two board members needs to be kicked out Gore and one more so that room for genius and great people can be made. How about Elon Musk and Burberry lady Andrea
How do you know Al Gore isn't a positive influence to Apple? I'm not saying he is or isn't, but to categorically state that he should be shown the door without having insight into the inner workings of Apple, is weird.
Too bad Apple chose not to agree on the human rights group and, maybe even more of a problem for them at the movement, on a response to the NSA scandal.
Apple is actually a leader in human rights issues amongst its peers. Their annual supplier responsibility reports get more and more detailed every year. They continue to push better practices without the need for additional bureaucracy.
Cook warned investors who don't like his style to get out of the stock and the moment he opened his trap AAPL slipped from green into red in a up market on yet another record day. Cook brags about a billion FaceTime and iMessage requests but Apple doesn't seem to have a clue how to monetize it or all the other valuable data Apple has access to but doesn't make a cent off.
The only "real" solid good news to come out o this year's meeting is the BRIC growth numbers. Cook bristled with a reply that "we do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," because under Cook's management Apple's trajectory has shriveled. We need new product lines and killer apps Tim, not your snarky quips!
As you wrote in your post above, Gore being a former Vice President of the US, hasn't seemed to benefit them all that much (DOJ vs Apple).
How do you know it hasn't benefitted them? Things could be a lot worse.
That's certainly possible.
Care to name a possible example?
FYI.