The Guardian is not a tabloid, unless you count breaking the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, PRISM, and the Edward Snowden revelations as "tabloid journalism."
I've read it enough during my times in London, and while it's not strictly a tabloid, they do get their share of sensationalism, as do most British papers.
Watch the recent episode of MacBreak Weekly. Both Andy Ihnatko and Rene Ritchie said from what they've heard, no one inside Apple is trying to claim the Steve Jobs mantle. I'm sure some would find that worrying, that Apple needs a "visionary". But personally I think the executives at Apple know Steve can't be replaced and they're not trying to groom any one person to be the next Steve. I hope when Angela starts she's able to do her job and doesn't have to deal with any noise about if she's being groomed to take over the
CEO role.
Not gonna watch that, because if I read (or hear) just one more "talker" opine about the inner-workings of Apple and/or who will be the next "Steve Jobs", it will be one opinion too many. Not only are their answers usually speculative to a fault, but I even find the question ill-posed. It's the latter part that bugs me. The conversation is ridiculous to start with at this point in time. (I realize that Wall Street is impatient, but that's their problem. I don't have to bite, even though I, too, am a shareholder.) The performance of Apple (the company) is amazing, and the stock is not performing well only because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who are fretting. The performance will win out in the long run.
With respect to "vision", until we find out otherwise, I would think that the presence of Jony Ive would be good enough to match up against the competition. Vision doesn't have to come from the CEO, provided the CEO realizes his strengths and weaknesses and gives the appropriate authority for other aspects to those who have those strengths. Tim strikes me as having the wherewithal to do just that.
In other words, Apple does not need to get anyone to replace Steve Jobs. They appear to have an excellent team in place, acting just like Steve Jobs did for many years (between big product launches). When they finally release whatever new things are in the pipeline, we can finally judge if their team (and vision) is sufficient. If the products flop, or if they never arrive, then it will be right to question Tim Cook. But not before then.
The Guardian is not a tabloid, unless you count breaking the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, PRISM, and the Edward Snowden revelations as "tabloid journalism."
I've read it enough during my times in London, and while it's not strictly a tabloid, they do get their share of sensationalism, as do most British papers.
The Guardian is probably one of the most serious newspapers of the world. They may be somewhat left-ish in their views (most British media is), but boy, are they credible. Nowhere close to being a tabloid.
I think Ms. Ahrendts is looking at this as a huge honor and challenge. Years down the road, if she demonstrates skills that are applicable to the broader picture at Apple, and if Tim has either flopped or is ready to retire, then MAYBE she might be considered. Until then, talking about her as a planned successor is just malarkey.
I watch a lot of companies do presentations, and even without Jobs, Apple is, by far, the best of them. Tim is, from reports, a shy person. Jobs wasn't. He's been taking lessons on presenting. And he does give Shiller and the rest more time than Jobs did except when he was sicker, and too weak to be up there too long, sadly.
I've seen her give some speeches on YouTube, and she looks pretty good. We'll just have to see how she does here.
TC is hardly riveting but in spite of appearing as somewhat 'presenting by numbers' with well rehearsed enthusiasm he still comes across as a 'normal guy' as opposed to a corporate bigwig, which I think is very important for Apple. The best presenter they have is Craig Federighi, hands down, but I think Ahrendts will be a great addition to the on stage mix of presenting execs. The fact that she comes across as genuine (not corporate), speaking from her heart rather from a company textbook, and that she clearly is super smart, and very very important - female, all bodes well future presentations.
The Guardian is probably one of the most serious newspapers of the world. They may be somewhat left-ish in their views (most British media is), but boy, are they credible. Nowhere close to being a tabloid.
The physical format is tabloid as opposed to broadsheet. But yeah, The Guardian is the antithesis of a tabloid newspaper. I wouldn't call all British Media left leaning - the Sun? the Mail? the Telegraph? the Times. I guess one's view of what is left leaning depends on one's vantage point - for some the Guardian is the centre and for others the Telegraph is.
Obviously, when I was talking about great speakers, I meant those who matter to industry, not those who win contests in high school or college. There's a big difference in having people at the top of a profession who can get up and speak well about what they are doing, and those who can get up and ramble about much of nothing. It's a real art to be able to convey information about something, which getting people interested, and talking about a book.
And it's not just nerds who watch these things, but financial people too, and no, they are not nerds, not by the meaning that most of us understand. My wife watches, and she's anything but a nerd.
He can be exciting up there, and that's what being a really good speaker is all about. Maybe he doesn't excite you, and that's fine, but you likely think of yourself as jaded.
Hah- I'm not jaded. I just try not to use the word "great" when it isn't warranted. I also said that Apple isnt just nerds and developers- so I agree with you.
There are motivational speakers- thousands- that make livings because of their deliveries- not just high school and college. Not saying Apple should hire one to do the keynotes. But when I watch Craig- I don't think "wow- that guy is an amazing presenter!"- I'm much more interested in the product- which is what got me there in the first place. Honestly, with Apple products- even Eddy Cue gets me excited- because its about Apple products. And I think we can all agree he isn't good.
Again- not saying they should change a thing. Eddy, Craig, Phil, and Tim should all talk up there. But none are great speakers, because that's not how they were designed and it doesn't play to their natural strengths. They are brilliant in their own ways.
You clearly haven't heard a truly "great speaker" if you think Craig Federighi is. Is he a great speaker for a software engineer? Absolutely. But he ain't Zig Zigler.
I'm not talking about slick salespeople, I'm talking about credible, relaxed presenters in tech (to get really specific). Look at Mark Zuckerberg, for example. He's improved quite a bit, but he isn't much better than a pre-programmed robot.
The physical format is tabloid as opposed to broadsheet. But yeah, The Guardian is the antithesis of a tabloid newspaper. I wouldn't call all British Media left leaning - the Sun? the Mail? the Telegraph? the Times. I guess one's view of what is left leaning depends on one's vantage point - for some the Guardian is the centre and for others the Telegraph is.
I suppose, left leaning is a matter of opinion. Here, the right wing considers anything left of Fox News as left wing.
Hah- I'm not jaded. I just try not to use the word "great" when it isn't warranted. I also said that Apple isnt just nerds and developers- so I agree with you.
There are motivational speakers- thousands- that make livings because of their deliveries- not just high school and college. Not saying Apple should hire one to do the keynotes. But when I watch Craig- I don't think "wow- that guy is an amazing presenter!"- I'm much more interested in the product- which is what got me there in the first place. Honestly, with Apple products- even Eddy Cue gets me excited- because its about Apple products. And I think we can all agree he isn't good.
Again- not saying they should change a thing. Eddy, Craig, Phil, and Tim should all talk up there. But none are great speakers, because that's not how they were designed and it doesn't play to their natural strengths. They are brilliant in their own ways.
You can be taught to be a motivational speaker. It just like preaching. You learn the right words and phrases, and you learn the cadence.
You can be taught to be a motivational speaker. It just like preaching. You learn the right words and phrases, and you learn the cadence.
I disagree- you can be taught to be a better speaker by learning the right words, phrases, and cadence. Clearly it's not all taught- there are born-with talents that separate the "great" from the "Craigs" "good"
But yeah, The Guardian is the antithesis of a tabloid newspaper.
There are only three newspaper websites I read every day (and one weekly): New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian (and weekly, The Economist).
There are only three newspaper websites I read every day (and one weekly): New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian (and weekly, The Economist).
That's a good selection! I subscribe to the Guardian / Observer iPad edition. Worth the money!
I suppose, left leaning is a matter of opinion. Here, the right wing considers anything left of Fox News as left wing.
Which is pretty hilarious. Fox News is right wing reactionary and a long way from the centre. Actually, Fox is in a whole category of its own. I don't mind the right leaning politics as much as I mind the indignant nature and lack of intelligence. Tabloid? Nah, gutter, more like it.
Which is pretty hilarious. Fox News is right wing reactionary and a long way from the centre. Actually, Fox is in a whole category of its own. I don't mind the right leaning politics as much as I mind the indignant nature and lack of intelligence. Tabloid? Nah, gutter, more like it.
As insulting as "Fox News" is, I find CNN, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, David Gregory and Rachel Maddow equally crass and insulting. Propaganda and mindless drivel are not limited solely to Fox News.
She's likely a lot smarter than any of us. Big business operates in ways that are different from what you may think. Even with my own, much smaller, companies, I've hired people who needed to wait for a bonus. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You're acting as if this means much. It's only another four to six weeks. Not much.
In all probability, it'll make no difference, but it raises a question mark over her commitment which would have not been there if there had been no delay in her transfer.
Not just the British. The summer solstice has been known as "Midsummer's Day" for thousands of years all over Europe. As far as I can tell, it's only US weather presenters on TV who seriously promote the solstices as the "first day" of winter or summer
Not at all. It's one of the quirks of the nomenclature that Midsummer's Day happens to be the first day of summer. Go figure, as you would say in the States. There is some sense to it, though. The weather keeps on getting hotter in the months afterwards.
The Guardian is not a tabloid, unless you count breaking the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, PRISM, and the Edward Snowden revelations as "tabloid journalism."
Frankly, all the papers are tabloids these days, regardless of their broadsheet origins. It's a sad state of affairs.
Comments
I've read it enough during my times in London, and while it's not strictly a tabloid, they do get their share of sensationalism, as do most British papers.
Not just behemoth, but blows away every other retailer -- including the most well-known luxury retailers -- on performance metrics such as sales per square foot: http://www.asymco.com/2012/04/18/apple-stores-have-seventeen-times-better-performance-than-the-average-retailer/
Watch the recent episode of MacBreak Weekly. Both Andy Ihnatko and Rene Ritchie said from what they've heard, no one inside Apple is trying to claim the Steve Jobs mantle. I'm sure some would find that worrying, that Apple needs a "visionary". But personally I think the executives at Apple know Steve can't be replaced and they're not trying to groom any one person to be the next Steve. I hope when Angela starts she's able to do her job and doesn't have to deal with any noise about if she's being groomed to take over the
CEO role.
Not gonna watch that, because if I read (or hear) just one more "talker" opine about the inner-workings of Apple and/or who will be the next "Steve Jobs", it will be one opinion too many. Not only are their answers usually speculative to a fault, but I even find the question ill-posed. It's the latter part that bugs me. The conversation is ridiculous to start with at this point in time. (I realize that Wall Street is impatient, but that's their problem. I don't have to bite, even though I, too, am a shareholder.) The performance of Apple (the company) is amazing, and the stock is not performing well only because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who are fretting. The performance will win out in the long run.
With respect to "vision", until we find out otherwise, I would think that the presence of Jony Ive would be good enough to match up against the competition. Vision doesn't have to come from the CEO, provided the CEO realizes his strengths and weaknesses and gives the appropriate authority for other aspects to those who have those strengths. Tim strikes me as having the wherewithal to do just that.
In other words, Apple does not need to get anyone to replace Steve Jobs. They appear to have an excellent team in place, acting just like Steve Jobs did for many years (between big product launches). When they finally release whatever new things are in the pipeline, we can finally judge if their team (and vision) is sufficient. If the products flop, or if they never arrive, then it will be right to question Tim Cook. But not before then.
Thompson
The Guardian is not a tabloid, unless you count breaking the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, PRISM, and the Edward Snowden revelations as "tabloid journalism."
I've read it enough during my times in London, and while it's not strictly a tabloid, they do get their share of sensationalism, as do most British papers.
The Guardian is probably one of the most serious newspapers of the world. They may be somewhat left-ish in their views (most British media is), but boy, are they credible. Nowhere close to being a tabloid.
Not just behemoth, but blows away every other retailer -- including the most well-known luxury retailers -- on performance metrics such as sales per square foot: http://www.asymco.com/2012/04/18/apple-stores-have-seventeen-times-better-performance-than-the-average-retailer/
Exactly.
I think Ms. Ahrendts is looking at this as a huge honor and challenge. Years down the road, if she demonstrates skills that are applicable to the broader picture at Apple, and if Tim has either flopped or is ready to retire, then MAYBE she might be considered. Until then, talking about her as a planned successor is just malarkey.
Thompson
I watch a lot of companies do presentations, and even without Jobs, Apple is, by far, the best of them. Tim is, from reports, a shy person. Jobs wasn't. He's been taking lessons on presenting. And he does give Shiller and the rest more time than Jobs did except when he was sicker, and too weak to be up there too long, sadly.
I've seen her give some speeches on YouTube, and she looks pretty good. We'll just have to see how she does here.
TC is hardly riveting but in spite of appearing as somewhat 'presenting by numbers' with well rehearsed enthusiasm he still comes across as a 'normal guy' as opposed to a corporate bigwig, which I think is very important for Apple. The best presenter they have is Craig Federighi, hands down, but I think Ahrendts will be a great addition to the on stage mix of presenting execs. The fact that she comes across as genuine (not corporate), speaking from her heart rather from a company textbook, and that she clearly is super smart, and very very important - female, all bodes well future presentations.
The Guardian is probably one of the most serious newspapers of the world. They may be somewhat left-ish in their views (most British media is), but boy, are they credible. Nowhere close to being a tabloid.
The physical format is tabloid as opposed to broadsheet. But yeah, The Guardian is the antithesis of a tabloid newspaper. I wouldn't call all British Media left leaning - the Sun? the Mail? the Telegraph? the Times. I guess one's view of what is left leaning depends on one's vantage point - for some the Guardian is the centre and for others the Telegraph is.
Obviously, when I was talking about great speakers, I meant those who matter to industry, not those who win contests in high school or college. There's a big difference in having people at the top of a profession who can get up and speak well about what they are doing, and those who can get up and ramble about much of nothing. It's a real art to be able to convey information about something, which getting people interested, and talking about a book.
And it's not just nerds who watch these things, but financial people too, and no, they are not nerds, not by the meaning that most of us understand. My wife watches, and she's anything but a nerd.
He can be exciting up there, and that's what being a really good speaker is all about. Maybe he doesn't excite you, and that's fine, but you likely think of yourself as jaded.
Hah- I'm not jaded. I just try not to use the word "great" when it isn't warranted. I also said that Apple isnt just nerds and developers- so I agree with you.
There are motivational speakers- thousands- that make livings because of their deliveries- not just high school and college. Not saying Apple should hire one to do the keynotes. But when I watch Craig- I don't think "wow- that guy is an amazing presenter!"- I'm much more interested in the product- which is what got me there in the first place. Honestly, with Apple products- even Eddy Cue gets me excited- because its about Apple products. And I think we can all agree he isn't good.
Again- not saying they should change a thing. Eddy, Craig, Phil, and Tim should all talk up there. But none are great speakers, because that's not how they were designed and it doesn't play to their natural strengths. They are brilliant in their own ways.
You clearly haven't heard a truly "great speaker" if you think Craig Federighi is. Is he a great speaker for a software engineer? Absolutely. But he ain't Zig Zigler.
I'm not talking about slick salespeople, I'm talking about credible, relaxed presenters in tech (to get really specific). Look at Mark Zuckerberg, for example. He's improved quite a bit, but he isn't much better than a pre-programmed robot.
I suppose, left leaning is a matter of opinion. Here, the right wing considers anything left of Fox News as left wing.
You can be taught to be a motivational speaker. It just like preaching. You learn the right words and phrases, and you learn the cadence.
You can be taught to be a motivational speaker. It just like preaching. You learn the right words and phrases, and you learn the cadence.
I disagree- you can be taught to be a better speaker by learning the right words, phrases, and cadence. Clearly it's not all taught- there are born-with talents that separate the "great" from the "Craigs" "good"
There are only three newspaper websites I read every day (and one weekly): New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian (and weekly, The Economist).
There are only three newspaper websites I read every day (and one weekly): New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian (and weekly, The Economist).
That's a good selection! I subscribe to the Guardian / Observer iPad edition. Worth the money!
I suppose, left leaning is a matter of opinion. Here, the right wing considers anything left of Fox News as left wing.
Which is pretty hilarious. Fox News is right wing reactionary and a long way from the centre. Actually, Fox is in a whole category of its own. I don't mind the right leaning politics as much as I mind the indignant nature and lack of intelligence. Tabloid? Nah, gutter, more like it.
Which is pretty hilarious. Fox News is right wing reactionary and a long way from the centre. Actually, Fox is in a whole category of its own. I don't mind the right leaning politics as much as I mind the indignant nature and lack of intelligence. Tabloid? Nah, gutter, more like it.
As insulting as "Fox News" is, I find CNN, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, David Gregory and Rachel Maddow equally crass and insulting. Propaganda and mindless drivel are not limited solely to Fox News.
Spring ends on June 21st this year.
Spring ends on June 21st this year.
She's likely a lot smarter than any of us. Big business operates in ways that are different from what you may think. Even with my own, much smaller, companies, I've hired people who needed to wait for a bonus. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You're acting as if this means much. It's only another four to six weeks. Not much.
In all probability, it'll make no difference, but it raises a question mark over her commitment which would have not been there if there had been no delay in her transfer.
Not just the British. The summer solstice has been known as "Midsummer's Day" for thousands of years all over Europe. As far as I can tell, it's only US weather presenters on TV who seriously promote the solstices as the "first day" of winter or summer
Not at all. It's one of the quirks of the nomenclature that Midsummer's Day happens to be the first day of summer. Go figure, as you would say in the States. There is some sense to it, though. The weather keeps on getting hotter in the months afterwards.
The Guardian is not a tabloid, unless you count breaking the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, PRISM, and the Edward Snowden revelations as "tabloid journalism."
Frankly, all the papers are tabloids these days, regardless of their broadsheet origins. It's a sad state of affairs.