1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war><a war against disease>
Does this war you refer to fall under definition 1 or 2?
Currently, it's mostly #2, but in the future, it might turn into #1, and that's ok too, because the vast majority of the firepower is held by only one side. It'll be hilarious if it were ever to happen.
1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war><a war against disease>
Does this war you refer to fall under definition 1 or 2?
Currently, it's mostly #2, but in the future, it might turn into #1, and that's ok too, because the vast majority of the firepower is held by only one side. It'll be hilarious if it were ever to happen.
Currently, it's mostly #2, but in the future, it might turn into #1, and that's ok too, because the vast majority of the firepower is held by only one side. It'll be hilarious if it were ever to happen.
I was okay with them doing this stuff when Apple was on its A game. When I hear that they don't have time for monitors, desktops, routers, etc....then they shouldn't be talking about anything other than the company.
As a shareholder, What Tim does on his spare time is his business. He's a good man and I have a lot of respect for him personally, however, Apple's product lineup is appalling at this time so until things are back in order, we should not be hearing about books, Christmas trees, Political views, Human Rights.
Don't get me wrong. These things are important, even more important than Apple itself but Tim and company are hired to run a corporation. Like Bill Gates, If Tim feels this is what he wants to do with him time, then he should pass the company torch to someone else.
I disagree with you a little bit on this.
I totally agree with you criticism of Apple's products and performance, but I think it's fine for Cook to talk about these types of issues. I don't think it's his focus on these things that leads to all the problems that I agree with you exist.
But I do think that when the Board evaluates Cook's performance, his speaking out on these types of issues should have nothing to do with their evaluation. They should evaluate his performance based on how the business is doing. And let's face it -- 2015 and 2016 sucked.
blastdoor said: But I do think that when the Board evaluates Cook's performance....
Are you kidding me? Cook doesn't sit in front of the BOD for an annual review lIke some secretary being evaluated for a raise. If a group of major shareholders or a consensus of the directors start an initiatve to remove him then they might organize a vote on the matter, but otherwise he currently enjoys a very positive approval rating. There is no routine evaluation of performance except for perhaps bonuses and stock options.
"....And corporations are just a bunch of people."
Not true, Mr. Cook. Yes, corporations are populated by a bunch of people, but corporations are not "just a bunch of people." Rather, corporations most fundamentally a nexus of contracts.
In fact, the nexus-of-contracts conception is the basis for the most widely prevalent view of the corporation under US law and governance.
Yes, corporations are legal entities, but there are no decisions that are made by corporations without the input and influence of people. So, both Tim Cook and Mitt Romney are right... "Corporations are made of people."
That's a very different statement from "corporations are people." After all, if they are, they would also have 2nd, 5th and 14th amendment rights (1st amendment rights under Citizens United notwithstanding.). And many others. Would you want Goldman Sachs to be able to have a well-regulated militia? Or a company under indictment to be able to say that it has a right against self-incrimination when confronted? Or all manner of citizenship rights?
So many folks in this thread soft and ripe for the Trump Long Con Extravaganza.
Apple is doing what's right. They might lose a few customers here and there. The Steve Bannons out there. A lot of other things can lose a company customers as well. That's part of the biz. But those who really want Apple gear will always get them.
Even folks working for the competition keep flashing Apple gear in some way, shape or form. It's priceless.
It's high time the corporate sphere take socially responsible stances. It might just be *them* who will be pivotal in fixing a socially retarded America. With a massive chunk of your population throwing Bibles and Jesus at others, and these folks actually casting votes... that is some horrific stuff. THAT is what's messed up, folks, NOT Apple.
And guess what. A socially messed up and wrong-headed America can *still* have a great economy (if they have the manpower and expertise for it, and if they'll most be white, etc... just look to a WW2 Germany), but *that* is part of the con. It's part of the illusion. But your dear leader has no concept of law, economics, and even basic Constitutional facts. And the folks surrounding him either don't know either, don't really care, or are bent on subverting what good, useful knowledge is out there.
And NO, major corporations that are heavily invested in overseas manpower, knowledge and resources, will NOT change their position because of a few increased tariffs. All that will do is create a retaliatory increase, and then the consumer is pretty well fucked. All this talk about companies that will "re-invest" in local "talent" (you aint got none!) is nonsense. A few token gestures will materialize, but it won't be anything significant. The ideas (provided they even *are* ideas and not nonsense, because most of it is just nonsense) being batted around aren't realistic in the world of 2016. They're about 30-40 years out of date. But yeah, some folks will eat up the accompanying slogans without actually using their heads.
In re: to this Apple news, you have an ATTITUDE PROBLEM down south (from the Canadian border) way, way before any corporate-humanism problem. So check yourselves. Really.
What I appreciate about Sog35 are his relentless, single-minded reminders that AAPL is only great because of leap frog innovation. If AAPL were at 250 and the product line was stunning and the curve continued upward, we'd not be debating TC's social/political efforts. It ain't and we are and that's where Sog35 is always spot on. Anyone can get on a rocketship and ride. Cracks are forming. If they don't hit a few out of the park in 2018, then we have a new baseline of performance.
I feel much more inclined to purchase products from a company that has a social policy that is in line with mine. The thought that you can separate corporate behaviour from social behaviour I find affronting. If I were to find out that Apple had investments in big tobacco or big coal I would not continue buying their products. A corporation may exist to generate value for shareholders but there is intangible value in supporting social and environmental outcomes. You can't have an economy without an environment or a society to support it.
I would just as soon that corporations did not get involved with social policies, on either the Left or the Right. Social policymaking should be left to governments, NGOs, and private citizens.
I think everyone should keep, and be allowed to keep, their 9-to-5 life separate from their 5-to-9 life. I realize, however, that is wishful thinking.
This entire world is run by corporations. It's only natural the they'd get involved in social policies.
I feel much more inclined to purchase products from a company that has a social policy that is in line with mine. The thought that you can separate corporate behaviour from social behaviour I find affronting. If I were to find out that Apple had investments in big tobacco or big coal I would not continue buying their products. A corporation may exist to generate value for shareholders but there is intangible value in supporting social and environmental outcomes. You can't have an economy without an environment or a society to support it.
"....And corporations are just a bunch of people."
Not true, Mr. Cook. Yes, corporations are populated by a bunch of people, but corporations are not "just a bunch of people." Rather, corporations most fundamentally a nexus of contracts.
In fact, the nexus-of-contracts conception is the basis for the most widely prevalent view of the corporation under US law and governance.
The fact that it's the most widely prevalent view should tip you off. Never swallow the majority view uncritically; it's bound to be obsolete. I keep telling you guys to read your Marshall McLuhan.
Blah Blah
This is such condescending bullshit. It's the most inane thing I've read all day week.
I don't like religion and extremism and I classify most liberals as being very religious and extreme. Most operate on faith, feeling, emotion and not much fact or science.
Just out of curiosity: do you think climate change is happening, and if so, is it human-caused?
"....And corporations are just a bunch of people."
Not true, Mr. Cook. Yes, corporations are populated by a bunch of people, but corporations are not "just a bunch of people." Rather, corporations most fundamentally a nexus of contracts.
In fact, the nexus-of-contracts conception is the basis for the most widely prevalent view of the corporation under US law and governance.
Yes, corporations are legal entities, but there are no decisions that are made by corporations without the input and influence of people. So, both Tim Cook and Mitt Romney are right... "Corporations are made of people."
That's a very different statement from "corporations are people." After all, if they are, they would also have 2nd, 5th and 14th amendment rights (1st amendment rights under Citizens United notwithstanding.). And many others. Would you want Goldman Sachs to be able to have a well-regulated militia? Or a company under indictment to be able to say that it has a right against self-incrimination when confronted? Or all manner of citizenship rights?
Don't most big companies have private security?
You might wish to take a class or two on civics, and understand the logic/rationale for the second amendment.
Hint: Protecting a CEO against the public, or premises against vandals is not it.
Comments
I hope you find some peace.
That's a cute phrase and all, but I'd rather be packing heat, and my opponent can be armed with a ballpoint pen. We'll see who comes out of it alive.
I doubt you mean that liberals should be shot, but I can't help but read your statement as an enthusiastic hope for the opportunity to do so.
I totally agree with you criticism of Apple's products and performance, but I think it's fine for Cook to talk about these types of issues. I don't think it's his focus on these things that leads to all the problems that I agree with you exist.
But I do think that when the Board evaluates Cook's performance, his speaking out on these types of issues should have nothing to do with their evaluation. They should evaluate his performance based on how the business is doing. And let's face it -- 2015 and 2016 sucked.
Are you kidding me? Cook doesn't sit in front of the BOD for an annual review lIke some secretary being evaluated for a raise. If a group of major shareholders or a consensus of the directors start an initiatve to remove him then they might organize a vote on the matter, but otherwise he currently enjoys a very positive approval rating. There is no routine evaluation of performance except for perhaps bonuses and stock options.
Apple is doing what's right. They might lose a few customers here and there. The Steve Bannons out there. A lot of other things can lose a company customers as well. That's part of the biz. But those who really want Apple gear will always get them.
Even folks working for the competition keep flashing Apple gear in some way, shape or form. It's priceless.
It's high time the corporate sphere take socially responsible stances. It might just be *them* who will be pivotal in fixing a socially retarded America. With a massive chunk of your population throwing Bibles and Jesus at others, and these folks actually casting votes... that is some horrific stuff. THAT is what's messed up, folks, NOT Apple.
And guess what. A socially messed up and wrong-headed America can *still* have a great economy (if they have the manpower and expertise for it, and if they'll most be white, etc... just look to a WW2 Germany), but *that* is part of the con. It's part of the illusion. But your dear leader has no concept of law, economics, and even basic Constitutional facts. And the folks surrounding him either don't know either, don't really care, or are bent on subverting what good, useful knowledge is out there.
And NO, major corporations that are heavily invested in overseas manpower, knowledge and resources, will NOT change their position because of a few increased tariffs. All that will do is create a retaliatory increase, and then the consumer is pretty well fucked. All this talk about companies that will "re-invest" in local "talent" (you aint got none!) is nonsense. A few token gestures will materialize, but it won't be anything significant. The ideas (provided they even *are* ideas and not nonsense, because most of it is just nonsense) being batted around aren't realistic in the world of 2016. They're about 30-40 years out of date. But yeah, some folks will eat up the accompanying slogans without actually using their heads.
In re: to this Apple news, you have an ATTITUDE PROBLEM down south (from the Canadian border) way, way before any corporate-humanism problem. So check yourselves. Really.
Hint: Protecting a CEO against the public, or premises against vandals is not it.