I happen to think that it does not matter whether he announces it or not - I thought it was general knowledge.
Before today my wife didn't know he was gay (she's a fan of Apple products, but doesn't read Apple fan/rumor sites), and I only "knew" it because it was mentioned here. Millions of people (hundreds of millions?) learned that he was gay only because of this. Before it wasn't exactly a secret, but it wasn't "general knowledge."
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
I wasn't aware that he issued this statement with the Apple logo alongside it.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I guarantee once half the country hears about Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi praising Tim Cook, they will rethink their Apple purchases.</span>
And you know there's plenty here would be perfectly fine with that.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
So some of us can choose to live lives unhappily or unfulfilled in fears that others might not reward us with as much money or we can try to actually change the world by doing something unexpected or unpopular or fiscally dangerous? What's the point of a great portfolio if you're ashamed of yourself?
As an AAPL shareholder, I applaud his actions today. I wish I could as much courage as Tim Cook.
People couldn't live until Tim told them everything's OK?
Young people who are surrounded by others who shame them for their sexual preference (or are hiding it for fear of that happening) and are considering taking their own lives might find some inspiration in the fact that someone else made it through that and became the CEO of a major company.
He made this announcement to Bloomberg Businessweek, not a gay publication. So, yes, he was representing the business.
John Gruber asked if there was any doubt that Steve picked the right man to lead Apple. Hey John, I thought he was the right man yesterday and every day before. I'm not sure what one's sexual orientation has to do with running a multinational corporation.
I don't think he felt obligated to, but rather did it because he thought it might help people live their lives
I disagree on this. My take is that the press have taken on a 'nudge nudge' attitude in covering Apple when it comes to things like Pride Events, California politics, HR policies as they reflect on same-sex relationships, and the whole Fox Spews debacle. This muddies Apple's corporate message relating to human rights.
He was obligated to make the focus on his orientation a Tim Cook personal thing, and that Tim Cook's leadership of Apple revolves around a much richer and deeper gamut of personal values.
I do think his message (and his manner of delivering it) is a net positive for homosexual men and women, but it's more a positive to Apple in that they can stay on message. And when you are one of key components of the world's economic engine, staying on message is key.
Comparing the old apple CEO's personal life (Steve's Liver Transplant) to the new Apple, I've come to see that it's likely better to 'answer' the nagging question, and then move on, than to eddy currents caused by the vacuum of no information.
Should the public have known that Steve left california to get into a shorter line for a liver transplant? Probably not, but it leaking after the fact made it hard for Apple to stay on message for a couple months. Very personal matter, but as long as the board (some of) knew, then there was some semblance of ensuring proper oversight that Apple decisions weren't being made based solely on the health(sexuality) of the CEO, but for what was right for Apple. Apple was big then... now... like I said, Tim Cook oversees a component that makes a huge amount of the world's economy happen, in the financial markets, and in the consumer markets.
[all that said, fast forward x months. When Tim is seen in public 'dating' or announces a life partner, that's when the fireworks will start at Fox News and Christian Broadcasting, and the GOP HQ.... I grew up catholic... and the message was, 'you could be homosexual and God/Church will love you just the same, just don't practice it with anybody... then it's a sin']
I'm not. To be clear, I don't care about Tim's personal life, but I do care about the CEO of Apple diverting attention away from Apple.
I don't care about his personal life either. I do care about him not alienating some Apple customers. And if he starts using Apple to push a political agenda Apple may lose some customers. When your CEO of a major corporation there isn't anything you can say or do that doesn't get tied to the company.
I'm not. To be clear, I don't care about Tim's personal life, but I do care about the CEO of Apple diverting attention away from Apple.
I think he's diverting attention right back to Apple. Sometimes this works in a good way and sometimes not so good. But as an AAPL shareholder, I would rather risk a few markets or a few billions in profit if it means people think just a little bit different about what Apple stands for or what it means to run a company like Apple. Our governments do so little for us. Just imagine something as powerful as Apple acting as a force for change outside of the technology sector. They've already begun in the environmental, educational and corporate sectors.
I think he's diverting attention right back to Apple. Sometimes this works in a good way and sometimes not so good. But as an AAPL shareholder, I would rather risk a few markets or a few billions in profit if it means people think just a little bit different about what Apple stands for or what it means to run a company like Apple. Our governments do so little for us. Just imagine something as powerful as Apple acting as a force for change outside of the technology sector. They've already begun in the environmental, educational and corporate sectors.
I don't want our government to "do more". I want it to do as little as possible, while still adhering to the Constitution. As it is now, our Federal government has violated nearly every part of the Constitution. The government is not here to hold your hand while you cross the street.
And if/when Apple's profits soar because most people see Tim's humanity as something they value and connect with in a company, the people who only see the world in stock valuations will do what?
This is why, in general, I've drifted away from friends who are heavily involved with the stock market over my lifetime. Most don't see the importance of things which don't generate monetary value of some sort, and will flip-flop to whatever values happen to be beneficial at a given time.
Comments
I happen to think that it does not matter whether he announces it or not - I thought it was general knowledge.
Before today my wife didn't know he was gay (she's a fan of Apple products, but doesn't read Apple fan/rumor sites), and I only "knew" it because it was mentioned here. Millions of people (hundreds of millions?) learned that he was gay only because of this. Before it wasn't exactly a secret, but it wasn't "general knowledge."
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
I wasn't aware that he issued this statement with the Apple logo alongside it.
Did Satya Nadella come out today as well?
I just want to announce that I'm proud to be straight! Thank you!
Yay! Another deep thinker chimes in.
Some
People couldn't live until Tim told them everything's OK?
Some people, yes. Do you have a problem with that?
I wasn't aware that he issued this statement with the Apple logo alongside it.
He made this announcement to Bloomberg Businessweek, not a gay publication. So, yes, he was representing the business.
And you know there's plenty here would be perfectly fine with that.
Some
Some people, yes. Do you have a problem with that?
I have a problem believing it, for one thing.
And you know there's plenty here would be perfectly fine with that.
I'm not. To be clear, I don't care about Tim's personal life, but I do care about the CEO of Apple diverting attention away from Apple.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
So some of us can choose to live lives unhappily or unfulfilled in fears that others might not reward us with as much money or we can try to actually change the world by doing something unexpected or unpopular or fiscally dangerous? What's the point of a great portfolio if you're ashamed of yourself?
As an AAPL shareholder, I applaud his actions today. I wish I could as much courage as Tim Cook.
People couldn't live until Tim told them everything's OK?
Young people who are surrounded by others who shame them for their sexual preference (or are hiding it for fear of that happening) and are considering taking their own lives might find some inspiration in the fact that someone else made it through that and became the CEO of a major company.
I don't think he felt obligated to, but rather did it because he thought it might help people live their lives
I disagree on this. My take is that the press have taken on a 'nudge nudge' attitude in covering Apple when it comes to things like Pride Events, California politics, HR policies as they reflect on same-sex relationships, and the whole Fox Spews debacle. This muddies Apple's corporate message relating to human rights.
He was obligated to make the focus on his orientation a Tim Cook personal thing, and that Tim Cook's leadership of Apple revolves around a much richer and deeper gamut of personal values.
I do think his message (and his manner of delivering it) is a net positive for homosexual men and women, but it's more a positive to Apple in that they can stay on message. And when you are one of key components of the world's economic engine, staying on message is key.
Comparing the old apple CEO's personal life (Steve's Liver Transplant) to the new Apple, I've come to see that it's likely better to 'answer' the nagging question, and then move on, than to eddy currents caused by the vacuum of no information.
Should the public have known that Steve left california to get into a shorter line for a liver transplant? Probably not, but it leaking after the fact made it hard for Apple to stay on message for a couple months. Very personal matter, but as long as the board (some of) knew, then there was some semblance of ensuring proper oversight that Apple decisions weren't being made based solely on the health(sexuality) of the CEO, but for what was right for Apple. Apple was big then... now... like I said, Tim Cook oversees a component that makes a huge amount of the world's economy happen, in the financial markets, and in the consumer markets.
[all that said, fast forward x months. When Tim is seen in public 'dating' or announces a life partner, that's when the fireworks will start at Fox News and Christian Broadcasting, and the GOP HQ.... I grew up catholic... and the message was, 'you could be homosexual and God/Church will love you just the same, just don't practice it with anybody... then it's a sin']
I'm not. To be clear, I don't care about Tim's personal life, but I do care about the CEO of Apple diverting attention away from Apple.
I think he's diverting attention right back to Apple. Sometimes this works in a good way and sometimes not so good. But as an AAPL shareholder, I would rather risk a few markets or a few billions in profit if it means people think just a little bit different about what Apple stands for or what it means to run a company like Apple. Our governments do so little for us. Just imagine something as powerful as Apple acting as a force for change outside of the technology sector. They've already begun in the environmental, educational and corporate sectors.
I think he's diverting attention right back to Apple. Sometimes this works in a good way and sometimes not so good. But as an AAPL shareholder, I would rather risk a few markets or a few billions in profit if it means people think just a little bit different about what Apple stands for or what it means to run a company like Apple. Our governments do so little for us. Just imagine something as powerful as Apple acting as a force for change outside of the technology sector. They've already begun in the environmental, educational and corporate sectors.
I don't want our government to "do more". I want it to do as little as possible, while still adhering to the Constitution. As it is now, our Federal government has violated nearly every part of the Constitution. The government is not here to hold your hand while you cross the street.
Your move, JK Shin, Eric Schmidt.
All I want from Schmidt is an admission that he told Google what Apple was doing with the iPhone while he was an Apple board member.
And if/when Apple's profits soar because most people see Tim's humanity as something they value and connect with in a company, the people who only see the world in stock valuations will do what?
This is why, in general, I've drifted away from friends who are heavily involved with the stock market over my lifetime. Most don't see the importance of things which don't generate monetary value of some sort, and will flip-flop to whatever values happen to be beneficial at a given time.