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 disagree with 90% of what you posted today, but at face value, I agree with the words you wrote here. I care about him alienating some Apple customers, but I don't think he has (on net). Apple could lose some customers if he uses Apple to push a political agenda; I agree, but a) Apple's already been doing that to a small degree, and I haven't observed any impact and b) I don't expect Apple to ramp this up.
So yes, in theory it's bad thing if a CEO does something controversial that hurts the company. But I don't believe that's happening at Apple.
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.
The constitution is not gospel. It should change with attitudes, technology and evolution. That being said, I don't want the government to be in charge of maintaining or changing the constitution and lawmaking. They've shown themselves to be inadequate. I actually trust large corporations like Apple more than public servants. Way off topic now.
The constitution is not gospel. It should change with attitudes, technology and evolution. That being said, I don't want the government to be in charge of maintaining or changing the constitution and lawmaking. They've shown themselves to be inadequate. I actually trust large corporations like Apple more than public servants. Way off topic now.
Here's the thing, it is very difficult to change the Constitution and that is for solid historical reasons. It cannot, nor should it be, subject to the whims of politicians attempting to curry favor with the electorate.
I also trust Apple more than either public servants or the government in general. At least Apple can be punished by investors if they make bad decisions. Not so with government.
So you were ostracized and had hurtful things said to you when people found out you were straight woman?
That's what Tim means when he said he "understands what it's like to be part of a minority". Whether you happened to have seen it or not (and taken notice of it) in your life experience, there are many places on earth where those in the majority cause hardship for those in the minority simply because they are different and herd mentality establishes order.
If Tim's coming out prevents even a small fraction of that hardship, it's worth it. That's why praise is being heaped on him. People confuse the issue as gays and lesbians getting "more of something" than straight people would, when it's really about doing something that makes life better for others.
But..but there's a war on women, remember?! At least according to CNN and Obama and everyone else.
I disagree with 90% of what you posted today, but at face value, I agree with the words you wrote here. I care about him alienating some Apple customers, but I don't think he has (on net). Apple could lose some customers if he uses Apple to push a political agenda; I agree, but a) Apple's already been doing that to a small degree, and I haven't observed any impact and b) I don't expect Apple to ramp this up.
So yes, in theory it's bad thing if a CEO does something controversial that hurts the company. But I don't believe that's happening at Apple.
We'll see. Once the floodgates are open people will be wanting more and more.
I also trust Apple more than either public servants or the government in general. At least Apple can be punished by investors if they make bad decisions.
As we've seen Wall Street do time and time again despite Apple releasing great products that customers love. So why again are we putting faith in investor opinion?
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.
Oddly, There's the story of Andy Rubin seeing the 2007 iPhone keynote and saying "I guess we're not going to be shipping that phone," referring to the version of Android they had been working on. The same keynote that Schmidt shook hands with Steve Jobs while smiling that fat smirk.
So you were ostracized and had hurtful things said to you when people found out you were straight woman?
Judging from the ongoing "discussion" about the way women are treated by society, almost certainly. Identifying as anything other than a straight white male seems to leave one open to all manner of abuse.
That's what Tim means when he said he "understands what it's like to be part of a minority". Whether you happened to have seen it or not (and taken notice of it) in your life experience, there are many places on earth where those in the majority cause hardship for those in the minority simply because they are different and herd mentality establishes order.
If Tim's coming out prevents even a small fraction of that hardship, it's worth it. That's why praise is being heaped on him. People confuse the issue as gays and lesbians getting "more of something" than straight people would, when it's really about doing something that makes life better for others.
I pretty much agree with everything you said in this bit, but it doesn't just apply to gays and lesbians. The chief difference is that he has to tell people he's gay, while Nadella doesn't have to tell anyone he's Asian, and Meyer doesn't have to announce she's a woman.
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.
Being gay has nothing to do with his ability to run Apple. Having the courage to stand up and say "I'm gay" in a world where many people still see homosexuality as wrong, and homosexuals as less than human does have something to do with it.
We'll see. Once the floodgates are open people will be wanting more and more.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
And yet again, point missed. This is what happens when people only see the world in market valuations, being on trend, doing things for the most personal gain, etc.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Actually, there's almost no personal downside saying you're gay if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. See Richard Branson and Jeffery Katzenberg (sp?).
Actually, there's almost no personal downside saying you're gay if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. See Richard Branson and Jeffery Katzenberg (sp?).
Actually, there's almost no personal downside saying you're gay if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. See Richard Branson and Jeffery Katzenberg (sp?).
Using that logic there is no downside to anything if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Now that he's out there's going to be lots of pressure on him to be active in gay right causes. I hope he resists the temptation. The focus should be on Apple and its products not Tim Cook.
Comments
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 disagree with 90% of what you posted today, but at face value, I agree with the words you wrote here. I care about him alienating some Apple customers, but I don't think he has (on net). Apple could lose some customers if he uses Apple to push a political agenda; I agree, but a) Apple's already been doing that to a small degree, and I haven't observed any impact and b) I don't expect Apple to ramp this up.
So yes, in theory it's bad thing if a CEO does something controversial that hurts the company. But I don't believe that's happening at Apple.
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.
The constitution is not gospel. It should change with attitudes, technology and evolution. That being said, I don't want the government to be in charge of maintaining or changing the constitution and lawmaking. They've shown themselves to be inadequate. I actually trust large corporations like Apple more than public servants. Way off topic now.
The constitution is not gospel. It should change with attitudes, technology and evolution. That being said, I don't want the government to be in charge of maintaining or changing the constitution and lawmaking. They've shown themselves to be inadequate. I actually trust large corporations like Apple more than public servants. Way off topic now.
Here's the thing, it is very difficult to change the Constitution and that is for solid historical reasons. It cannot, nor should it be, subject to the whims of politicians attempting to curry favor with the electorate.
I also trust Apple more than either public servants or the government in general. At least Apple can be punished by investors if they make bad decisions. Not so with government.
But..but there's a war on women, remember?! At least according to CNN and Obama and everyone else.
I also trust Apple more than either public servants or the government in general. At least Apple can be punished by investors if they make bad decisions.
As we've seen Wall Street do time and time again despite Apple releasing great products that customers love. So why again are we putting faith in investor opinion?
These responses on top of it only add to the benefit!
Oddly, There's the story of Andy Rubin seeing the 2007 iPhone keynote and saying "I guess we're not going to be shipping that phone," referring to the version of Android they had been working on. The same keynote that Schmidt shook hands with Steve Jobs while smiling that fat smirk.
Judging from the ongoing "discussion" about the way women are treated by society, almost certainly. Identifying as anything other than a straight white male seems to leave one open to all manner of abuse.
I pretty much agree with everything you said in this bit, but it doesn't just apply to gays and lesbians. The chief difference is that he has to tell people he's gay, while Nadella doesn't have to tell anyone he's Asian, and Meyer doesn't have to announce she's a woman.
Being gay has nothing to do with his ability to run Apple. Having the courage to stand up and say "I'm gay" in a world where many people still see homosexuality as wrong, and homosexuals as less than human does have something to do with it.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
And yet again, point missed. This is what happens when people only see the world in market valuations, being on trend, doing things for the most personal gain, etc.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Actually, there's almost no personal downside saying you're gay if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. See Richard Branson and Jeffery Katzenberg (sp?).
Richard Branson is gay?
Isn't he?
Actually, there's almost no personal downside saying you're gay if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. See Richard Branson and Jeffery Katzenberg (sp?).
Using that logic there is no downside to anything if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now that he's out there's going to be lots of pressure on him to be active in gay right causes. I hope he resists the temptation. The focus should be on Apple and its products not Tim Cook.
Isn't he?
He plays a over-sexed womanizer in the Virgin commercials. I assumed that persona was close to the truth.
Using that logic there is no downside to anything if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
You are correct. No "personal" downside.
Nope.