Yep. He's becoming a bit of a distraction lately, Steve was bigger than Apple because of all the tech stuff he'd done. If he spoke out, it was on a technical issue like Flash or DRM. Tim seems to see Apple as some sort of political engine.
For those who think that Tim should not have gone public because of his responsibility to Apple, it's shareholders, customers, suppliers ...
Consider what would have happened if someone else had [I] outed [/I] Tim to the general public:
For example, this from 2011:
[QUOTE] [COLOR=black][B][SIZE=4]Apple Insider Thursday, January 20, 2011, 08:00 pm PT (11:00 pm ET)[/SIZE][/B] [/COLOR] [B][SIZE=3]Apple's Tim Cook profiled as "most powerful gay man in Silicon Valley"[/SIZE][/B]
By Daniel Eran Dilger
Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs has left operations chief Tim Cook in command during extended periods of medical leave three times now, indicating confidence in a man who has been described as Jobs' heir apparent for years.
Valleywag profiled Cook as being "as reticent to acknowledge his sexual orientation as he has his prowess in overseeing the company supply chain," noting that despite being a "famously quiet and collected person," Cook "will find his backstory, both personal and professional, the topic of increasing interest and discussion in the tech community."
The profile notes that "Cook's rise to his position—he is one of the most powerful corporate executives in the world, to say nothing of being the most powerful gay person in tech by a mile—is also a tribute to his skill and work ethic on the one hand, and to the utterly unconventional and unconventionally empowering people skills of Jobs on the other."
Probably better for Tim to address this, responsibly, on his own terms and time of his choosing -- rather than leaving it to others for reasons known only to them ...
As an AAPL shareholder, Apple customer and longtime Apple observer -- this is a very proud and satisfying moment!
Product RED contributed to the bottom line, though it was certainly a niche product. Was it political? I suppose an argument could be made. However, it was not a person.
Probably better for Tim to address this, responsibly, on his own terms and time of his choosing -- rather than leaving it to others for reasons known only to them ...
As an AAPL shareholder, Apple customer and longtime Apple observer -- this is a very proud and satisfying moment!
Valleywag is a snarky, sarcastic site that isn't taken seriously.
If he's a gay man running the world's most valuable publicly held company, he's obligated to take a stand and speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights of equality. Why? It dismisses misconceptions of what it means to be "gay" and breaks down barriers for others.
And I would hardly call it a "distraction". He's not on tour promoting himself. His public speeches are during moments when he's being honored for his achievements - not for being gay, but for being an accomplished person.
So, using your logic (and it's banal), if Tim wants to "speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights" and he were pro-life, he's "obligated to take a stand" against abortion? I know, I know, the majority define what human rights are.
A CEO of a public company isn't obligated to speak out on personal issues that have social and political impact. The CEO can if s/he wishes to, but the company will have to deal with the reaction.
Eddy Cue and Phil Schiller aren't NeXT alum either. I think Cue came to Apple a few years before Jony Ive did.
Eddy and Jony are testaments to Steve keeping the best (and keeping those who wanted to work with Steve Jobs).
Schiller was a Apple/Jobs guy from way back in the day (original mac day), just didn't move to NeXT with Steve.
Tim's hire is important, in that he was an 'outsider' to Steve's and Apple's circle, at a time when Apple was literally in a death spiral. And the job he did (he engineered the contract manufacturing model, shutting down the Apple factories), was critical to drive margins up.
I can understand why he didnt say anything and why it was a difficult choice. its really no ones business and yet now the media will hit whore off this and make it into a major issue for days. and so on.
he never claimed to be anything so he didnt lie. it doesnt change if hes a decent person or his knowledge and skills as CEO.
Offering a new color of products was hardly a distraction, I doubt Steve spent more than five minutes on it. It's also not political, curing diseases crosses party lines last I checked.
Because Steve founded Apple as a company based on the intersection of science and the liberal arts this kind of predisposes Apple as a company and Tim as a leader to have views some of the more extreme minded here don't want to hear about. I am not taking a position, simply pointing out Tim is in line with 'Apple' very much and Steve would be very happy with all he has done and said IMHO.
Probably better for Tim to address this, responsibly, on his own terms and time of his choosing -- rather than leaving it to others for reasons known only to them ...
As an AAPL shareholder, Apple customer and longtime Apple observer -- this is a very proud and satisfying moment!
Valleywag is a snarky, sarcastic site that isn't taken seriously.
I fully agree and am a bit confused by this as well. He talks too much political issues, but rarely (except keynotes, of course) technical issues. Although I agree with Tim's political views – that's not why I want to listen to him.
But I think he's always been an operation guy, rather than a technical guy. He's just leaving the technical things to the technical ppl in his company. And that's fine with me.
Steve was bigger than Apple because of all the tech stuff he'd done. .
If you ignore his cancer yes. but once that came into the picturew the media made it THE thing. Most of them didnt believe there was Apple without Steve. Ignoring that he didnt design, build and program everything all by himself
Stock's down this morning, likely because there are more than a few people nervous about the increasing change in direction Cook has been making, and given that he is evidently spending a fair amount of time on this (I doubt his letter was something he hammered out on his iPad at 2AM), it's not wrong to be concerned about the direction of Apple. I'm actually considering if now is the time to sell, I'll show a profit on the stock if I get out now.
Actually it's because Apple is an a post-1980's IPO stock high. Any decline is natural profit taking. Which you are also considering. Automatic trading programs don't read Businessweek.
I am so proud of Tim. For those you say this is a distraction...maybe...but I work with many gay people....they are the most loyal iPhone users on the planet...they are the vanguard of Apple....and completely within the tradition of the company...think (and be) different.
Gays are the "vanguard of Apple"? Come one now. Let's not go crazy...unless you're outing Jony Ive.
Good for him! And he couldn't have picked a better time to do it, either. After the last quarter, even the most backward person cannot deny that he isn't doing an awesome job running the biggest company on earth.
Comments
Yep. He's becoming a bit of a distraction lately, Steve was bigger than Apple because of all the tech stuff he'd done. If he spoke out, it was on a technical issue like Flash or DRM. Tim seems to see Apple as some sort of political engine.
So Product RED was a distraction too?
Consider what would have happened if someone else had [I] outed [/I] Tim to the general public:
For example, this from 2011:
[QUOTE]
[COLOR=black][B][SIZE=4]Apple Insider Thursday, January 20, 2011, 08:00 pm PT (11:00 pm ET)[/SIZE][/B]
[/COLOR]
[B][SIZE=3]Apple's Tim Cook profiled as "most powerful gay man in Silicon Valley"[/SIZE][/B]
By Daniel Eran Dilger
Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs has left operations chief Tim Cook in command during extended periods of medical leave three times now, indicating confidence in a man who has been described as Jobs' heir apparent for years.
Valleywag profiled Cook as being "as reticent to acknowledge his sexual orientation as he has his prowess in overseeing the company supply chain," noting that despite being a "famously quiet and collected person," Cook "will find his backstory, both personal and professional, the topic of increasing interest and discussion in the tech community."
The profile notes that "Cook's rise to his position—he is one of the most powerful corporate executives in the world, to say nothing of being the most powerful gay person in tech by a mile—is also a tribute to his skill and work ethic on the one hand, and to the utterly unconventional and unconventionally empowering people skills of Jobs on the other."
---
[/QUOTE]
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/01/20/apples_tim_cook_profiled_as_most_powerful_gay_man_in_silicon_valley
Probably better for Tim to address this, responsibly, on his own terms and time of his choosing -- rather than leaving it to others for reasons known only to them ...
As an AAPL shareholder, Apple customer and longtime Apple observer -- this is a very proud and satisfying moment!
Product RED contributed to the bottom line, though it was certainly a niche product. Was it political? I suppose an argument could be made. However, it was not a person.
I'm sure if he was a pedophile he would be just as proud.
You mean like Rush Limbaugh and his vacations to the Dominican Republic?
Valleywag is a snarky, sarcastic site that isn't taken seriously.
If he's a gay man running the world's most valuable publicly held company, he's obligated to take a stand and speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights of equality. Why? It dismisses misconceptions of what it means to be "gay" and breaks down barriers for others.
And I would hardly call it a "distraction". He's not on tour promoting himself. His public speeches are during moments when he's being honored for his achievements - not for being gay, but for being an accomplished person.
So, using your logic (and it's banal), if Tim wants to "speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights" and he were pro-life, he's "obligated to take a stand" against abortion? I know, I know, the majority define what human rights are.
A CEO of a public company isn't obligated to speak out on personal issues that have social and political impact. The CEO can if s/he wishes to, but the company will have to deal with the reaction.
Eddy Cue and Phil Schiller aren't NeXT alum either. I think Cue came to Apple a few years before Jony Ive did.
Eddy and Jony are testaments to Steve keeping the best (and keeping those who wanted to work with Steve Jobs).
Schiller was a Apple/Jobs guy from way back in the day (original mac day), just didn't move to NeXT with Steve.
Tim's hire is important, in that he was an 'outsider' to Steve's and Apple's circle, at a time when Apple was literally in a death spiral. And the job he did (he engineered the contract manufacturing model, shutting down the Apple factories), was critical to drive margins up.
This will help save lives. Maybe not a lot, but one suicide averted is enough.
Apple : It Gets Better.
he never claimed to be anything so he didnt lie. it doesnt change if hes a decent person or his knowledge and skills as CEO.
So Product RED was a distraction too?
Offering a new color of products was hardly a distraction, I doubt Steve spent more than five minutes on it. It's also not political, curing diseases crosses party lines last I checked.
Bingo!!!
But the Article was printed in AI ...
so being openly gay is required to be a role model?
he couldnt be a role model as a gay supporting non gay. or just as a decent non gay human being.
I fully agree and am a bit confused by this as well. He talks too much political issues, but rarely (except keynotes, of course) technical issues. Although I agree with Tim's political views – that's not why I want to listen to him.
But I think he's always been an operation guy, rather than a technical guy. He's just leaving the technical things to the technical ppl in his company. And that's fine with me.
If you ignore his cancer yes. but once that came into the picturew the media made it THE thing. Most of them didnt believe there was Apple without Steve. Ignoring that he didnt design, build and program everything all by himself
AI headlines should also be treated with great skepticism.
Stock's down this morning, likely because there are more than a few people nervous about the increasing change in direction Cook has been making, and given that he is evidently spending a fair amount of time on this (I doubt his letter was something he hammered out on his iPad at 2AM), it's not wrong to be concerned about the direction of Apple. I'm actually considering if now is the time to sell, I'll show a profit on the stock if I get out now.
Actually it's because Apple is an a post-1980's IPO stock high. Any decline is natural profit taking. Which you are also considering. Automatic trading programs don't read Businessweek.
I am so proud of Tim. For those you say this is a distraction...maybe...but I work with many gay people....they are the most loyal iPhone users on the planet...they are the vanguard of Apple....and completely within the tradition of the company...think (and be) different.
Gays are the "vanguard of Apple"? Come one now. Let's not go crazy...unless you're outing Jony Ive.
Somewhere in the universe today Alan Turing is smiling.