Might have everything to do with Cook's calm, reserved demeanor. Imagine a swashbuckling Texan-American Apple CEO coming in, dropping folksy aphorisms ("Well, ain't you a fluffy tail on a Houston bunny!") and asking Angela, "Are you a drinking woman, Angie? Can I call you Angie?! Because Eddy, Craig and I are gonna drop bombs down at BJs after work. Haha, I said BJ! Care to join us for some spotted dick!?! Haha, spotted dick, don't all y'all eat that crap in Britain?! Wait, UK, no no, England, right??! Hehehehehehe! Welcome aboard Angela, hope you get to crackin' yer whip her in no time. I'm fixing to email the group to tell them you're on. You're on, right??"
Adherents may prove to be a great hire, but we have to wait for the cold, hard facts before we can cast our verdict, particularly as she cost $75 million just to woo her.
Those cold, hard facts will materialise in the form of retail sales and Apple Watch sales.
Just like you always wait for the "cold, hard facts" before incessantly bashing Apple on every single rumor or move they make that you don't like, right? Even when no one has anywhere near the full story? Fucking hypocrisy at its worst.
Might have everything to do with Cook's calm, reserved demeanor. Imagine a swashbuckling Texan-American Apple CEO coming in, dropping folksy aphorisms ("Well, ain't you a fluffy tail on a Houston bunny!") and asking Angela, "Are you a drinking woman, Angie? Can I call you Angie?! Because Eddy, Craig and I are gonna drop bombs down at BJs after work. Haha, I said BJ! Care to join us for some spotted dick!?! Haha, spotted dick, don't all y'all eat that crap in Britain?! Wait, UK, no no, England, right??! Hehehehehehe! Welcome aboard Angela, hope you get to crackin' yer whip her in no time. I'm fixing to email the group to tell them you're on. You're on, right??"
Might have everything to do with Cook's calm, reserved demeanor. Imagine a swashbuckling Texan-American Apple CEO coming in, dropping folksy aphorisms ("Well, ain't you a fluffy tail on a Houston bunny!") and asking Angela, "Are you a drinking woman, Angie? Can I call you Angie?! Because Eddy, Craig and I are gonna drop bombs down at BJs after work. Haha, I said BJ! Care to join us for some spotted dick!?! Haha, spotted dick, don't all y'all eat that crap in Britain?! Wait, UK, no no, England, right??! Hehehehehehe! Welcome aboard Angela, hope you get to crackin' yer whip her in no time. I'm fixing to email the group to tell them you're on. You're on, right??"
I think the issue is with the fact that Tim Cook has admitted to the mistake and given reasons why.
Tim Cook has never really given any "reasons why" he failed Apple by hiring Browett. Saying "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is just corporate BS. Sure, we can make educated guess like his electronics retailing experience, but we'll never really know why he went with Browett, and we'll never know why he decided to give a slap to the face of the many qualified, loyal internal candidates.
Quote:
John Browett was extremely capable in his prior position before joining Apple. The mistake made by Tim was assuming that he could transition his proficiencies in big box retail to a boutique shopping experience. He didn't. Apple knows that a good shopping experience is directly related to the amount of enjoyment and enthusiasm your employees have in working for you. John Browett did just about everything to tear that down. That's why he's gone.
This just isn't the case. Browett was not capable- his UK equivalent of Radio Shack was total crap and Cook easily could have flown his jet over there to see it. And Browett's record of reducing employee morale was well established.
Quote:
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, Angela Ahrendts left behind a sizable bonus - that she EARNED - at Burberry to take the position at Apple. Removing that as a factor for deciding to make the move was extremely smart on Tim's part. Her expertise isn't so much in "fashion" as it is in customer retail experience and she understands that employees are a significant part of that experience.
"Customer retail experience" isn't a thing. She ran a fashion store, full stop. We've already seen what happens when someone good at running one store pretends that they have "customer retail experience" that is transferrable to another store. Google Johnson's debacle for details. Maybe she can transfer her clothes skills to electronics stores, or maybe she can't. By the same token, caring about your employees doesn't guarantee success either. Johnson cared just as much.
Now I don't doubt for a second that she earned her bonus at the fashion store and I'm not saying Cook was wrong to let her take it from Apple's shareholders for whom she has done nothing. However, giving her that kind of money is a huge hazard to her future performance. It can cause arrogance- she may actually believe she is 1,000 times more important than Apple's other employees- and it can cause huge pressure- she may feel she needs to mess with lots of stuff to justify her salary. It can also cause laziness- Apple has lost many employees who got too rich to work hard. Markkula quit to spend money, Woz quit partially because he could afford to, and Bob Manstein has been clear that he's torn between going to work and enjoying his money.
Why? Who are you? Why do you think you're owed that information?
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know what she does? He didn't frame it as a demand or entitlement, and he even stated we'll have to wait and see. I think that's reasonable.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know what she does? He didn't frame it as a demand or entitlement, and he even stated we'll have to wait and see. I think that's reasonable.
Seriously, why? What if Apple does not feel like telling him (or you, or me, or anyone for that matter)?
He calls is a 'dumbfounding' article that amounts to 'air between the ears.' That really does not sound to you like a demand or an entitlement?
Here's a great quote from Tim Cook: “I’m not running for office,” he says. “I don’t need your vote. I have to feel myself doing what’s right. If I’m the arbiter of that instead of letting the guy on TV be that or someone who doesn’t know me at all, then I think that’s a much better way to live.” http://fortune.com/2015/03/26/tim-cook/
Seriously, why? What if Apple does not feel like telling him (or you, or me, or anyone for that matter)?
Then Apple shouldn't tell us, but that doesn't mean we're not curious. I was intrigued to know about what cars key Apple employees drive for its own sake, despite feeling that irrelevant to any autonomous car project and ultimately meaning nothing to my everyday life. It was merely interesting to me, and I do fine Ahrendts to a fascinating women.
He calls is a 'dumbfounding' article that amounts to 'air between the ears.' That really does not sound to you like a demand or an entitlement?
I read that as talking about the article not being revealing (i.e.: fluff), not as him feeling entitled to be on the inside circle of Apple's executive team.
Then Apple shouldn't tell us, but that doesn't mean we're not curious. ....., and I do fine Ahrendts to a fascinating women.
I read that as talking about the article not being revealing (i.e.: fluff), not as him feeling entitled to be on the inside circle of Apple's executive team.
We're all curious about lots of things Apple and lots of 'fascinating' people. Again, seriously, so what? I am totally failing to understand your reply.
How could an article (it was not clear which one he was referring to, btw) reveal more than it knows?! Am I missing something?
Add: Since you're acting as his protagonist, let me ask you, what do you think was the relevance of the (factually incorrect) reference to the "$75 million a year"? Would his concern be different if it is 750M? 75K? Why?
Comments
Well said.
Adherents may prove to be a great hire, but we have to wait for the cold, hard facts before we can cast our verdict, particularly as she cost $75 million just to woo her.
Those cold, hard facts will materialise in the form of retail sales and Apple Watch sales.
Just like you always wait for the "cold, hard facts" before incessantly bashing Apple on every single rumor or move they make that you don't like, right? Even when no one has anywhere near the full story? Fucking hypocrisy at its worst.
Post of the Day! Made me laugh a lot.
I think the issue is with the fact that Tim Cook has admitted to the mistake and given reasons why.
Tim Cook has never really given any "reasons why" he failed Apple by hiring Browett. Saying "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is just corporate BS. Sure, we can make educated guess like his electronics retailing experience, but we'll never really know why he went with Browett, and we'll never know why he decided to give a slap to the face of the many qualified, loyal internal candidates.
This just isn't the case. Browett was not capable- his UK equivalent of Radio Shack was total crap and Cook easily could have flown his jet over there to see it. And Browett's record of reducing employee morale was well established.
"Customer retail experience" isn't a thing. She ran a fashion store, full stop. We've already seen what happens when someone good at running one store pretends that they have "customer retail experience" that is transferrable to another store. Google Johnson's debacle for details. Maybe she can transfer her clothes skills to electronics stores, or maybe she can't. By the same token, caring about your employees doesn't guarantee success either. Johnson cared just as much.
Now I don't doubt for a second that she earned her bonus at the fashion store and I'm not saying Cook was wrong to let her take it from Apple's shareholders for whom she has done nothing. However, giving her that kind of money is a huge hazard to her future performance. It can cause arrogance- she may actually believe she is 1,000 times more important than Apple's other employees- and it can cause huge pressure- she may feel she needs to mess with lots of stuff to justify her salary. It can also cause laziness- Apple has lost many employees who got too rich to work hard. Markkula quit to spend money, Woz quit partially because he could afford to, and Bob Manstein has been clear that he's torn between going to work and enjoying his money.
So Tim Cook is God now?
She probably starts her day a 3:30am as well.
So Tim Cook is God now?
No. Stop trying to make magical connections.
More like biblical.
Unless she's sacked after a year.
Look at the previous incumbent…
I think the phrase you were searching for is "her predecessor", not "the previous incumbent", which is almost an oxymoron and definitely awkward.
In my comment Jobs would be god, and Cook would be a disciple… if you were to go that route, which I won't.
...before we can cast our verdict,...
You don't get to cast a verdict.
All you cast is bullsh¡t.
I thought you were Mormon, and believed anyone can be god.
But not nearly as awkward as precumbent.
Tasteless, I know but I couldn't resist.
I'd like to know more about what she actually does for $75 Million a year.
Why? Who are you? Why do you think you're owed that information?
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know what she does? He didn't frame it as a demand or entitlement, and he even stated we'll have to wait and see. I think that's reasonable.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know what she does? He didn't frame it as a demand or entitlement, and he even stated we'll have to wait and see. I think that's reasonable.
Seriously, why? What if Apple does not feel like telling him (or you, or me, or anyone for that matter)?
He calls is a 'dumbfounding' article that amounts to 'air between the ears.' That really does not sound to you like a demand or an entitlement?
Here's a great quote from Tim Cook: “I’m not running for office,” he says. “I don’t need your vote. I have to feel myself doing what’s right. If I’m the arbiter of that instead of letting the guy on TV be that or someone who doesn’t know me at all, then I think that’s a much better way to live.” http://fortune.com/2015/03/26/tim-cook/
Kudos, Mr. Cook.
Then Apple shouldn't tell us, but that doesn't mean we're not curious. I was intrigued to know about what cars key Apple employees drive for its own sake, despite feeling that irrelevant to any autonomous car project and ultimately meaning nothing to my everyday life. It was merely interesting to me, and I do fine Ahrendts to a fascinating women.
I read that as talking about the article not being revealing (i.e.: fluff), not as him feeling entitled to be on the inside circle of Apple's executive team.
Then Apple shouldn't tell us, but that doesn't mean we're not curious. ....., and I do fine Ahrendts to a fascinating women.
I read that as talking about the article not being revealing (i.e.: fluff), not as him feeling entitled to be on the inside circle of Apple's executive team.
We're all curious about lots of things Apple and lots of 'fascinating' people. Again, seriously, so what? I am totally failing to understand your reply.
How could an article (it was not clear which one he was referring to, btw) reveal more than it knows?! Am I missing something?
Add: Since you're acting as his protagonist, let me ask you, what do you think was the relevance of the (factually incorrect) reference to the "$75 million a year"? Would his concern be different if it is 750M? 75K? Why?