Now getting back to TC, the real litmus test would be can he turn around one of the failing smartphone vendors. Can he right a ship, or can he only keep one on course which isn't easy as you pointed out, but the prior is much more difficult.
That is not a fair test. Being a great CEO does not mean you can turn ANY company or product around, nor is the requirement that you have to be able to step into any size company and be successful. Tim Cook is pretty much the best there is at where he and Apple is now.
What failing smartphone vendor would he have to turn around in order to prove his worth? I think it is pretty clear that Tim Cook is passionate about Apple in a very broad sense, and not just as a money machine to make shareholders happy. I suspect that he would need to have that kind of passion to be a truly great CEO. Why mess with a good thing?
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction. A ship like that is easy to keep on course, so no I don't think there's anyone that can do a better job, but I believe there's a boat load that can do the same job.
ANYTHING to take credit away from Tim Cook.
This is the "Apple is coasting on Steve Jobs' coat tails" meme. Are you still hoping it works 4 years after Steve's death?
There's no way Apple can coast on momentum for four years. That's an eternity in Silicon Valley. A high profile tech company's fortunes can turn pretty quickly since there is a lot of competitive pressure all around. Just look how quickly HP, Dell, Microsoft, Palm, RIM and Nokia and the like had their fortunes reversed. I don't know if you're delusional or naive or just trolling, but Apple could not have grown the way they have since 2011 without Tim Cook doing a bang-on job as CEO.
The road map was laid out for him to follow for several years. The only decision he's probably made was to make the iPhone larger which he let market forces dictate. He has a done a good job, but I'm giving it a few more years before I lavish him with praise. If you want to call that discrediting then so be it, I'm just not ready to crown him king.
The road map was laid out for him to follow for several years. The only decision he's probably made was to make the iPhone larger which he let market forces dictate. He has a done a good job, but I'm giving it a few more years before I lavish him with praise. If you want to call that discrediting then so be it, I'm just not ready to crown him king.
Yea, Jobs isolated his COO/successor from any discussion on future products. Seems logical enough. /s
Now getting back to TC, the real litmus test would be can he turn around one of the failing smartphone vendors. Can he right a ship, or can he only keep one on course which isn't easy as you pointed out, but the prior is much more difficult.
That is not a fair test. Being a great CEO does not mean you can turn ANY company or product around, nor is the requirement that you have to be able to step into any size company and be successful. Tim Cook is pretty much the best there is at where he and Apple is now.
What failing smartphone vendor would he have to turn around in order to prove his worth? I think it is pretty clear that Tim Cook is passionate about Apple in a very broad sense, and not just as a money machine to make shareholders happy. I suspect that he would need to have that kind of passion to be a truly great CEO. Why mess with a good thing?
How is that not a fair test? I chose companies in his field of expertise, or do you think there's absolutely nothing to turn things around? According to [@]SolipsismY[/@] since he's successful with Apple he can be. successful anywhere, so if there's anyone that can help one of these companies it should be TC.
How is that not a fair test? I chose companies in his field of expertise, or do you think there's absolutely nothing to turn things around? According to [@]SolipsismY[/@] since he's successful with Apple he can be. successful anywhere, so if there's anyone that can help one of these companies it should be TC.
I neither stated nor implied that Tim Cook could make any company successful. I said he would be successful anywhere. This is about one's aptitude, acumen, desire and dedication, and part of that is knowing which endeavors aren't worth pursuing.
For example, imagine a personal trainer and dietitian who knows everything possible about fitness and diet. They can tell you what you need to do, show you how to do it, and train you to do it. But if you hire them and then eat junk food and don't exercise when they aren't around you're to blame. Of course, as a CEO the trainee in this scenario would be the company itself which means he bend the mindset of the company to his will, which a personal trainer can't do, so now consider this excellent and successful personal trainer having to fix someone in late stages of cancer. The person dies and, you based on your previous comments, want to say they are an unsuccessful personal trainer because they couldn't fix the cancer. Well, that's what many companies are. They are decaying from the inside out.
So why do your think Cook is a failure as a CEO if he doesn't wish to work for a lost cause?
How is that not a fair test? I chose companies in his field of expertise, or do you think there's absolutely nothing to turn things around? According to [@]SolipsismY[/@] since he's successful with Apple he can be. successful anywhere, so if there's anyone that can help one of these companies it should be TC.
I neither stated nor implied that Tim Cook could make any company successful. I said he would be successful anywhere. This is about one's aptitude, acumen, desire and dedication, and part of that is knowing which endeavors aren't worth pursuing.
For example, imagine a personal trainer and dietitian who knows everything possible about fitness and diet. They can tell you what you need to do, show you how to do it, and train you to do it. But if you hire them and then eat junk food and don't exercise when they aren't around you're to blame. Of course, as a CEO the trainee in this scenario would be the company itself which means he bend the mindset of the company to his will, which a personal trainer can't do, so now consider this excellent and successful personal trainer having to fix someone in late stages of cancer. The person dies and, you based on your previous comments, want to say they are an unsuccessful personal trainer because they couldn't fix the cancer. Well, that's what many companies are. They are decaying from the inside out.
So why do your think Cook is a failure as a CEO if he doesn't wish to work for a lost cause?
Where did I say TC is a failure? I just don't think he's really been tested. Also, wasn't Apple once seemingly a lost cause? Did SJ say "you guys screwed this up royally, I want no part of it"?
Where did I say TC is a failure? I just don't think he's really been tested. Also, wasn't Apple once seemingly a lost cause? Did SJ say "you guys screwed this up royally, I want no part of it"?
1) Your comments would lead me to believe that if Cook stays with Apple it means he can't be a successful person anywhere else.
2) Can you really not see the forest for the trees? Steve didn't come back to Apple because he thought it was a lost cause, he came back to Apple because he saw and opportunity. Cook also saw and opportunity when he joined Apple during its dark years. However, just because Apple still had the potential to succeed doesn't mean that all companies can be turned around the same way. If you think that Cook should be able to do the same for every company in the world then you're misguided.
While with ordinary restricted stocks, you actually receive the stocks (at a certain price), but just can't sell it until it's vested. Therefore, you can elect to pay the tax on the market value of the ordinary restricted stocks when you received the restricted stocks and then pay capital gains on it when they are vested AND you sell. (No tax due on date of vesting and all of it would be long term capital gains when you sell, if it took more than a year to vest.)
Those are options, which give you the right to purchase shares at a favorable price. lnvestopedia explains the details pretty well. I just used it to ensure I didn't type something inaccurate due to edge cases.
Quote:
So basically, it was a big advantage for Tim Cook to have Apple drop on the days leading up to his RSU becoming vested, as this would reduce his tax burden. (Unless he had a sell order in on the date of vesting. Which he didn't, because the sell order would have had to be put in weeks in advance and can't be cancelled on the days leading up to the sale.) So all gains in AAPL, from yesterday on, would be taxed as capital gains on Tim Cook's remaining RSU's that vested on Monday.
Well it's also not exactly computed from the price that day. I think they determine average fair market value based on a number of preceding days. I'm not positive though.
Where did I say TC is a failure? I just don't think he's really been tested. Also, wasn't Apple once seemingly a lost cause? Did SJ say "you guys screwed this up royally, I want no part of it"?
1) Your comments would lead me to believe that if Cook stays with Apple it means he can't be a successful person anywhere else.
2) Can you really not see the forest for the trees? Steve didn't come back to Apple because he thought it was a lost cause, he came back to Apple because he saw and opportunity. Cook also saw and opportunity when he joined Apple during its dark years. However, just because Apple still had the potential to succeed doesn't mean that all companies can be turned around the same way. If you think that Cook should be able to do the same for every company in the world then you're misguided.
What differentiates a lost cause from an opportunity?
It may very well be that he indeed can't be successful anywhere else. We've already seen successful people from Apple fail elsewhere.
What differentiates a lost cause from an opportunity?
Perception. Michael Dell saw Apple as a lost cause and Steve Jobs saw an opportunity. Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
It may very well be that he indeed can't be successful anywhere else.
Sure he can, and he's already shown he can. Success is something you cultivate within yourself and despite repeatedly making that point you're still holding onto some worthless notion of only measuring it against going into some cancer-ridden company and making it the next Apple. That's a stupid fucking measure. Again, successful people are successful because of they engage with the world. In no way does this have anything to do with how much you're worth..
We've already seen successful people from Apple fail elsewhere.
Who? Forget that, it's irrelevant to this discussion since your litmus test is people that left Apple to go work at another company, when you're discounting how people can be successful when they leave to focus on their family and/or personal health. You have the mindset of the typical executive that only focuses on numbers one quarter a time.
What differentiates a lost cause from an opportunity?
Perception. Michael Dell saw Apple as a lost cause and Steve Jobs saw an opportunity. Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
It may very well be that he indeed can't be successful anywhere else.
Sure he can, and he's already shown he can. Success is something you cultivate within yourself and despite repeatedly making that point you're still holding onto some worthless notion of only measuring it against going into some cancer-ridden company and making it the next Apple. That's a stupid fucking measure. Again, successful people are successful because of they engage with the world. In no way does this have anything to do with how much you're worth..
We've already seen successful people from Apple fail elsewhere.
Who? Forget that, it's irrelevant to this discussion since your litmus test is people that left Apple to go work at another company, when you're discounting how people can be successful when they leave to focus on their family and/or personal health. You have the mindset of the typical executive that only focuses on numbers one quarter a time.
Ron Johnson. Nobody needs to become the next Apple. There's plenty of space from nothingness to where Apple is that would be deemed successful.
Upon reflection, I don't care for the word "awarded" in the headline. Cook earned that stock according to his agreement with Apple.
Awarded is a typical term here. It indicates that Apple grants shares to Cook, because he met certain contingencies. If the article focused on Cook's performance rather than a stock event, the author would naturally use different language. This one is really written from a neutral perspective unless I missed some omission.
As successful as Apple is too high a bar. He was given the helm of an extremely large ship moving in the right direction. A ship like that is easy to keep on course, so no I don't think there's anyone that can do a better job, but I believe there's a boat load that can do the same job.
Where did I say TC is a failure? I just don't think he's really been tested. Also, wasn't Apple once seemingly a lost cause? Did SJ say "you guys screwed this up royally, I want no part of it"?
1) Your comments would lead me to believe that if Cook stays with Apple it means he can't be a successful person anywhere else.
2) Can you really not see the forest for the trees? Steve didn't come back to Apple because he thought it was a lost cause, he came back to Apple because he saw and opportunity. Cook also saw and opportunity when he joined Apple during its dark years. However, just because Apple still had the potential to succeed doesn't mean that all companies can be turned around the same way. If you think that Cook should be able to do the same for every company in the world then you're misguided.
FFS! Let's lay it on the line here:
Tim Cook BUILT Apple alongside Steve Jobs. PERIOD.
SJ had an idea: TC said, "I can get it built... and ship in quantity".
Jony Ives has a wildly expensive, super difficult to manufacture, but gorgeous design, TC said, "I can get it made for you in bulk... and shipped".
Every single other piece of Apple's endeavors and success has been/is dependent upon Tim Cook saying, "I can get it made, and shipped".... and delivering(!).... SINCE 1998!
From Wiki:
His first assignment was SVP for Worldwide Operations.[4] In relation to the role, Cook was quoted as saying: "You kind of want to manage it like you're in the dairy business. If it gets past its freshness date, you have a problem".[17] Cook closed factories and warehouses, replacing them with contract manufacturers, causing a reduction in the company's inventory, from months to days. Predicting its importance, his group invested in long-term deals such as advance investment in flash memory from 2005 onwards, guaranteeing stable supply of what became a key iPod nano, then iPhone and iPad component. Competitors at HP, describing their cancelled TouchPad tablet computer, later said that it was made from "cast-off reject iPad parts."[18] Cook's actions were credited with keeping costs under control and, combined with the company's design and marketing savvy, generated huge profits.[19]
In January 2007, Cook was promoted to the position of COO[20] and served as CEO in 2009, while Jobs was away on a leave of absence to manage his health. In January 2011, Apple's Board of Directors approved a third medical leave of absence requested by Jobs. During that time, Cook was responsible for most of Apple's day-to-day operations, while Jobs made most major decisions.[21][22]
Comments
What failing smartphone vendor would he have to turn around in order to prove his worth? I think it is pretty clear that Tim Cook is passionate about Apple in a very broad sense, and not just as a money machine to make shareholders happy. I suspect that he would need to have that kind of passion to be a truly great CEO. Why mess with a good thing?
The road map was laid out for him to follow for several years. The only decision he's probably made was to make the iPhone larger which he let market forces dictate. He has a done a good job, but I'm giving it a few more years before I lavish him with praise. If you want to call that discrediting then so be it, I'm just not ready to crown him king.
Yea, Jobs isolated his COO/successor from any discussion on future products. Seems logical enough. /s
How is that not a fair test? I chose companies in his field of expertise, or do you think there's absolutely nothing to turn things around? According to [@]SolipsismY[/@] since he's successful with Apple he can be. successful anywhere, so if there's anyone that can help one of these companies it should be TC.
I neither stated nor implied that Tim Cook could make any company successful. I said he would be successful anywhere. This is about one's aptitude, acumen, desire and dedication, and part of that is knowing which endeavors aren't worth pursuing.
For example, imagine a personal trainer and dietitian who knows everything possible about fitness and diet. They can tell you what you need to do, show you how to do it, and train you to do it. But if you hire them and then eat junk food and don't exercise when they aren't around you're to blame. Of course, as a CEO the trainee in this scenario would be the company itself which means he bend the mindset of the company to his will, which a personal trainer can't do, so now consider this excellent and successful personal trainer having to fix someone in late stages of cancer. The person dies and, you based on your previous comments, want to say they are an unsuccessful personal trainer because they couldn't fix the cancer. Well, that's what many companies are. They are decaying from the inside out.
So why do your think Cook is a failure as a CEO if he doesn't wish to work for a lost cause?
Where did I say TC is a failure? I just don't think he's really been tested. Also, wasn't Apple once seemingly a lost cause? Did SJ say "you guys screwed this up royally, I want no part of it"?
1) Your comments would lead me to believe that if Cook stays with Apple it means he can't be a successful person anywhere else.
2) Can you really not see the forest for the trees? Steve didn't come back to Apple because he thought it was a lost cause, he came back to Apple because he saw and opportunity. Cook also saw and opportunity when he joined Apple during its dark years. However, just because Apple still had the potential to succeed doesn't mean that all companies can be turned around the same way. If you think that Cook should be able to do the same for every company in the world then you're misguided.
While with ordinary restricted stocks, you actually receive the stocks (at a certain price), but just can't sell it until it's vested. Therefore, you can elect to pay the tax on the market value of the ordinary restricted stocks when you received the restricted stocks and then pay capital gains on it when they are vested AND you sell. (No tax due on date of vesting and all of it would be long term capital gains when you sell, if it took more than a year to vest.)
Those are options, which give you the right to purchase shares at a favorable price. lnvestopedia explains the details pretty well. I just used it to ensure I didn't type something inaccurate due to edge cases.
Well it's also not exactly computed from the price that day. I think they determine average fair market value based on a number of preceding days. I'm not positive though.
What differentiates a lost cause from an opportunity?
It may very well be that he indeed can't be successful anywhere else. We've already seen successful people from Apple fail elsewhere.
Upon reflection, I don't care for the word "awarded" in the headline. Cook earned that stock according to his agreement with Apple.
Perception. Michael Dell saw Apple as a lost cause and Steve Jobs saw an opportunity. Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Sure he can, and he's already shown he can. Success is something you cultivate within yourself and despite repeatedly making that point you're still holding onto some worthless notion of only measuring it against going into some cancer-ridden company and making it the next Apple. That's a stupid fucking measure. Again, successful people are successful because of they engage with the world. In no way does this have anything to do with how much you're worth..
Who?Forget that, it's irrelevant to this discussion since your litmus test is people that left Apple to go work at another company, when you're discounting how people can be successful when they leave to focus on their family and/or personal health. You have the mindset of the typical executive that only focuses on numbers one quarter a time.Ron Johnson. Nobody needs to become the next Apple. There's plenty of space from nothingness to where Apple is that would be deemed successful.
You're point? Are you saying he's not - successful person because his short tenure at Apple?
Upon reflection, I don't care for the word "awarded" in the headline. Cook earned that stock according to his agreement with Apple.
Awarded is a typical term here. It indicates that Apple grants shares to Cook, because he met certain contingencies. If the article focused on Cook's performance rather than a stock event, the author would naturally use different language. This one is really written from a neutral perspective unless I missed some omission.
How well did he do at JC Penney? He failed in spectacular fashion.
And, once again, what's your point?
FFS! Let's lay it on the line here:
Tim Cook BUILT Apple alongside Steve Jobs. PERIOD.
SJ had an idea: TC said, "I can get it built... and ship in quantity".
Jony Ives has a wildly expensive, super difficult to manufacture, but gorgeous design, TC said, "I can get it made for you in bulk... and shipped".
Every single other piece of Apple's endeavors and success has been/is dependent upon Tim Cook saying, "I can get it made, and shipped".... and delivering(!).... SINCE 1998!
From Wiki:
His first assignment was SVP for Worldwide Operations.[4] In relation to the role, Cook was quoted as saying: "You kind of want to manage it like you're in the dairy business. If it gets past its freshness date, you have a problem".[17] Cook closed factories and warehouses, replacing them with contract manufacturers, causing a reduction in the company's inventory, from months to days. Predicting its importance, his group invested in long-term deals such as advance investment in flash memory from 2005 onwards, guaranteeing stable supply of what became a key iPod nano, then iPhone and iPad component. Competitors at HP, describing their cancelled TouchPad tablet computer, later said that it was made from "cast-off reject iPad parts."[18] Cook's actions were credited with keeping costs under control and, combined with the company's design and marketing savvy, generated huge profits.[19]
In January 2007, Cook was promoted to the position of COO[20] and served as CEO in 2009, while Jobs was away on a leave of absence to manage his health. In January 2011, Apple's Board of Directors approved a third medical leave of absence requested by Jobs. During that time, Cook was responsible for most of Apple's day-to-day operations, while Jobs made most major decisions.[21][22]
Lucky
I lost track of my point.