People are complaining because times are good, I guarantee you if things were bad and companies were all struggling to compete and make profits people would not be saying bad things about the company they work for, they would just be happy they had a job when others were out on the street. People are embolden, because they know they can go down the street and get another job and companies can not afford to loose people since it take a long time to replace good and bad workers, at this point warm bodies are most important.
I have been through 3 economic down turns and when the company is looking to get rid of people, the company lets the first level manager decide and guess who is first to go, those who complain about the company and how the company should change things. No one want to hear their complaints once they have to pick up the work load, you think they complained before, they will complain a lot more when times are bad.
The other things I find interest is how people will tell you how company is poorly run or the leader are horrible and how they would do things differently. But they forget they could start their own companies but they didn't and the person who took all the risk gets to make the rules about where you work.
... That may be good for the company, but it's not good for employees. If Apple wants to treat personnel as being highly expendable, that's fine, as those employees have the option to get jobs elsewhere...
No, it's not fine to abuse employees. Why do you expect they can just get jobs elsewhere? Just because someone works at Apple doesn't mean they are in huge demand as an individual. Also, how could anyone ever trust that the next employer won't be similarly abusive, or worse?
Employee abuse is never "fine". Also not "fine" is the mentality of treating employees like a commodity.
Interesting (and disgusting) the article you shared regarding Amazon's employee treatment. Thanks for sharing that.
You've jumped into it being an abusing work environment. You'll have to defend that. I took a job where I was on call 24/7 and had to be available to respond to issues of varying severity on different time frames. It was stressful, but it paid well. I also knew all this going in so I wouldn't call it abuse simply because it became too much to deal with after a few years.
"Gutted Mac Mini"……no one outside of Apple knows the future of the Mini, but I've read more stories about it's eventual revision.
So still gutted, since the model before the current one had better performance and wasn’t completely fucking sealed up.
"Gutted Displays"……except they have at least one new one coming out with the MacPro
I doubt that, never mind the quality issues of the unibody Cinema Displays… Hey, does anyone know what the “lifespan” of one of these displays is supposed to be?
not to mention the fact that there are many great 4 & 5k displays that are compatible, excellent quality, and often a real bargain!
I’m actually thinking of getting one of those 21:9 displays. LG will have a 21:9 “retina” next year. It’s too rich for my blood, but I doubt I need the pixels anyway.
the guts to come out as gay.
I won’t say another word on the subject here, but it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with “guts” and doesn’t relate to the discussion.
Rayz2016 said: Really? What people says about Apple products is tied to your self-esteem? How does that work?
Let me tell you a little story about modern liberalism…
patchythepirate said: Thanks, it really is strange just how difficult it is for Apple to understand the basic needs and functional dynamics of online social engagement.
Can you give your thoughts on what Apple could actually do in this sector that is worthwhile at all? Why does music need “social networking”, and why did Ping fail? DOES ANYONE EVEN REMEMBER PING?
dysamoria said: ...humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?...
What part of the status quo is supposed to be conservative, exactly? Or are you claiming that, by definition, all statuses quo (status quoi?) are “conservative”? There’s not a damn thing that fits the definition of the word conservative in globalist corporatocracy, but they sure as hell are angered by (and are hostile to) true environmentalist efforts, for example.
Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly.
It’s cute that you think that’s an argument. I’m not even commenting on whatever it is you’re saying. I take no side on whatever issue this is. I just know that you’re objectively wrong because you think that your statement is relevant or true.
If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
I’ll pull this sentence out of context and agree with it out of context.
I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago. I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology. I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations.
So, is "divisive" the new euphemism to throw at people who stand for humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?... or is that term also applied to the "world leaders" who are overtly hostile to humanitarian social issues?
How are Cook's social politics negatively impacting Apple's bottom line? I'll tell you: not at all. I don't think we or Apple should walk on eggshells to appease the indignation of people turned off by a CEO who supports ethics and humane ideologies. Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly. One would think that looking at the [slow and incomplete] progress on social equity, a business-minded individual would want to support a company who's leadership is aligned with inevitable progress, not those aligned with callous disregard or active opposition to social equity. If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
Tim Cook's social politics are the only thing I like about him at this point. I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago.
I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology.
I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations. I find it hard to support the notion of kicking him out, even with his poor product leadership, because I value society over my own personal product usage experiences.
1) Your political ramblings make very little sense, and seem to be based mostly on assumptions, false equivalencies, and non-sequiturs.
2) I don't think anyone is arguing that Tim's politics are affecting Apple's bottom line (I agree with you, highly doubt it), just what the title of the article was referring to (unless I missed something in the thread).
3) Cook is feeding shareholder lust??? From what I've seen he's doing exactly the opposite, telling people, and rightly so, something along the lines of "if you're in it for the bottom line, you should get out [of Apple's stock]." (Although, Apple's well-intentioned efforts are sometimes misguided in my view, focusing too much on gaseous plant food.)*
4) I respect Tim as well and of course think he should continue as CEO; I just wish he'd hold Apple's services to 1/2 the standard that Apple's core hardware and software are held to.
*CO2 caused climate change is a gross exaggeration at best , if you look at the data, which show correlation, not causation. Not to mention, man-made CO2 is beyond minuscule, only 4% of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; do the math: man-made CO2 is 0.0016% of the earth's atmosphere.
Sorry, Patchy; I edited my post above yours with a question to you, so you probably won’t see it otherwise. Can you give your thoughts on what you’d like to see out of a “social media” platform for music, particularly in relation to how Ping failed?
People are complaining because times are good, I guarantee you if things were bad and companies were all struggling to compete and make profits people would not be saying bad things about the company they work for, they would just be happy they had a job when others were out on the street. People are embolden, because they know they can go down the street and get another job and companies can not afford to loose people since it take a long time to replace good and bad workers, at this point warm bodies are most important.
I have been through 3 economic down turns and when the company is looking to get rid of people, the company lets the first level manager decide and guess who is first to go, those who complain about the company and how the company should change things. No one want to hear their complaints once they have to pick up the work load, you think they complained before, they will complain a lot more when times are bad.
The other things I find interest is how people will tell you how company is poorly run or the leader are horrible and how they would do things differently. But they forget they could start their own companies but they didn't and the person who took all the risk gets to make the rules about where you work.
Yes to this. Also amusing is how anonymous nobodies like us, often living in the opposite side of the country as Apple HQ, feel they somehow have a realistic idea of how Apple execs are performing, because of rumor articles they read. rolleyes... Yeahhh, that's how job performance is evaluated -- by rumors on Apple clickbait sites.
So, is "divisive" the new euphemism to throw at people who stand for humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?... or is that term also applied to the "world leaders" who are overtly hostile to humanitarian social issues?
How are Cook's social politics negatively impacting Apple's bottom line? I'll tell you: not at all. I don't think we or Apple should walk on eggshells to appease the indignation of people turned off by a CEO who supports ethics and humane ideologies. Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly. One would think that looking at the [slow and incomplete] progress on social equity, a business-minded individual would want to support a company who's leadership is aligned with inevitable progress, not those aligned with callous disregard or active opposition to social equity. If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
Tim Cook's social politics are the only thing I like about him at this point. I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago.
I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology.
I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations. I find it hard to support the notion of kicking him out, even with his poor product leadership, because I value society over my own personal product usage experiences.
*CO2 caused climate change is a gross exaggeration at best , if you look at the data, which show correlation, not causation. Not to mention, man-made CO2 is beyond minuscule, only 4% of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; do the math: man-made CO2 is 0.0016% of the earth's atmosphere.
Hey, you should get in touch w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson and him know they got it all wrong on Cosmos, and that greenhouse gases don't really trap the sun's energy inside our atmospheric envelope.
Hey, you should get in touch w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson and him know they got it all wrong on Cosmos, and that greenhouse gases don't really trap the sun's energy inside our atmospheric envelope.
Sorry, Patchy; I edited my post above yours with a question to you, so you probably won’t see it otherwise. Can you give your thoughts on what you’d like to see out of a “social media” platform for music, particularly in relation to how Ping failed?
Hey TS. I'd be happy to. As for Ping, I feel like Steve knew it would fail without connecting with FB, which unfortunately Zuck declined to do after they had their walk through the neighborhood. I use social media, and the Music app, all the time, mostly the big 4: snapchat, facebook, instagram, twitter. They're all interesting/fun in different ways, but all 4 share some very important qualities which make them successful, NONE of which are shared by social features in Apple music:
1) easy ability to express personal tastes, qualities, and values
2) easy ability to connect with others
3) easy, practical methods of communication
4) and most, particularly snapchat, are just fun to use
I can't think of a single Apple social app that as ANY one of those qualities. Messages comes close, but not quite, still mostly operates in a practical sense, where it is just convenient to text/message people. For other, more personal/fun/expressive interactions, most of that is done on the big 4. Stickers are fun and fairly easy to use, but I'm the only person I know that uses them for whatever reason. Apple Pay should be nice, but it's more practical than social. Animoji, as I mentioned above, while technologically very impressive, and may be fun to just try out, are not personal enough (just a watered down version of your facial expression only), expressive enough (expressiveness seems limited to me), and not practical (no one wants to communicate by sending recorded messages back and forth; with the exception of straight video messages). Mimoji only addresses the personal part, not practical, and actually not all that expressive (look at snapchats Bitmoji as a contrast).
For Apple Music to improve, and take advantage of it's unmatched social potential, it needs to:
1) have a highly customizable , personal homepage that allows for pictures, ability to organize songs and playlists, ability to add descriptors to these elements,
2) adopt ability to easily cross reference and drive interest using hashtags and ability to tag peers (like fb, ig, and twitter do); should be able to share posts from or share posts to other social media platforms; facilitate connectedness within Apple Music itself by having personalized groups and allow others to create their own personalized groups (public or private)
3) provide a UI and composing tools that make it easy to create creative, expressive posts (snapchat is the best at this, so easy to add words, Bitmoji, and even AR characters in your videos and pics; it's really fun actually).
4) have elements that are fun; again, snapchat excels at this. snapchat creates fun pre-made expressive elements that you can place into your media, or even incorporate your own personal bitmoji character into. Apple could *easily* do this with a better and more comprehensive application of their mimoji (which are basically their version of Bitmoji).*
*Bitmoji are much more fun and expressive than Apple's mimoji, which are more realistic. It's hard to say at this point which method is ultimately going to win out, more expressive/fun vs more accurate. I think ultimately people will use both, just in different contexts. It's also not hard to see that Apple likely has significant ambitions with mimoji, that will include full body characters, and incorporate AR/VR. But how long is apple going to take??? Animoji was a baby step, 1/20th to where snapchat is. Mimoji, an entire year later, brings us to about 1/10th of the usefulness/entertainment value of something like snapchat (primarily hamstrung by lack of practicality of sending videos as the method of engagement). I'm sick of Apple taking baby steps, esp when they've already done 90% of the hard work with FaceID/expression mimicking; a few software tweaks is all that's needed to make it very, very popular, useful, and fun:
-ability to make full body mimojis
-ability to freeze personal expressions (impromptu facial expressions plus manually selected body poses), save them, and be able to easily access them on the fly to use in messaging (which is how you use Bitmoji if you have it installed in Messages, which I do)
-create pre-made expressive themes (again, like Bitmoji), that are creative and allow for instant, fun, personal expression. For example: a mimoji laying in a bed with sheep jumping overhead is much more fun and engaging than typing "goodnight" to someone. Here's an example of how Bitmoji automatically plugs my character into expression suggestions:
So, is "divisive" the new euphemism to throw at people who stand for humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?... or is that term also applied to the "world leaders" who are overtly hostile to humanitarian social issues?
How are Cook's social politics negatively impacting Apple's bottom line? I'll tell you: not at all. I don't think we or Apple should walk on eggshells to appease the indignation of people turned off by a CEO who supports ethics and humane ideologies. Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly. One would think that looking at the [slow and incomplete] progress on social equity, a business-minded individual would want to support a company who's leadership is aligned with inevitable progress, not those aligned with callous disregard or active opposition to social equity. If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
Tim Cook's social politics are the only thing I like about him at this point. I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago.
I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology.
I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations. I find it hard to support the notion of kicking him out, even with his poor product leadership, because I value society over my own personal product usage experiences.
*CO2 caused climate change is a gross exaggeration at best , if you look at the data, which show correlation, not causation. Not to mention, man-made CO2 is beyond minuscule, only 4% of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; do the math: man-made CO2 is 0.0016% of the earth's atmosphere.
Hey, you should get in touch w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson and him know they got it all wrong on Cosmos, and that greenhouse gases don't really trap the sun's energy inside our atmospheric envelope.
Everyone knows Neil deGrasse Tyson is just a diversity hire with a vested interest in pushing the claims of Big Climate.
(Do I have to label that as a joke? I mean it seems obvious to me, but humour is so subjective.)
All this quibbling over a drop of 5 percentage points over 2 years. I understand why Apple Corporate might be interested in addressing this change, but from the sounds of things, the top 100 are all over 90% approval, which is pretty decent on the whole. It's not like you'll ever get 100%. I mean, next year we might find that, for some reason, they've gone up to 73rd place, while actually dropping to 85% approval. That would be more of a concern than this result is. Or they could drop out of the top 100 while actually going up in approval to 98%.(I'll admit those are extreme examples, but the do highlight the absurdity of some of the claims in comments on this thread.)
If Apple want a social network for music they should buy last.fm and/or Songkick, or replicate their functionality into iTunes. Live music is a blind spot for Apple, their recommendations are even worse than when local Genius playlists were a thing, and they don't seem to have a clue about community.
So, is "divisive" the new euphemism to throw at people who stand for humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?... or is that term also applied to the "world leaders" who are overtly hostile to humanitarian social issues?
How are Cook's social politics negatively impacting Apple's bottom line? I'll tell you: not at all. I don't think we or Apple should walk on eggshells to appease the indignation of people turned off by a CEO who supports ethics and humane ideologies. Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly. One would think that looking at the [slow and incomplete] progress on social equity, a business-minded individual would want to support a company who's leadership is aligned with inevitable progress, not those aligned with callous disregard or active opposition to social equity. If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
Tim Cook's social politics are the only thing I like about him at this point. I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago.
I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology.
I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations. I find it hard to support the notion of kicking him out, even with his poor product leadership, because I value society over my own personal product usage experiences.
*CO2 caused climate change is a gross exaggeration at best , if you look at the data, which show correlation, not causation. Not to mention, man-made CO2 is beyond minuscule, only 4% of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; do the math: man-made CO2 is 0.0016% of the earth's atmosphere.
Hey, you should get in touch w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson and him know they got it all wrong on Cosmos, and that greenhouse gases don't really trap the sun's energy inside our atmospheric envelope.
As TS mentioned, appeal to others is not an argument. Looks like you're referring to the black body effect. Even assuming CO2 is at an impact level in the atmosphere, and assuming that humans contribute more than 3-4% of this CO2.. CO2 is only capable of absorbing 8% of the total black body radiation emitted from the earth's surface.
I can't think of a single Apple social app that as ANY one of those qualities. Messages comes close, but not quite, still mostly operates in a practical sense, where it is just convenient to text/message people.
Thanks so much for the analysis. You have a lot of good points here. Specifically about Messages, under the “app” button there’s an option available for Apple Music, supposedly to share what song you’re currently playing. Years ago, iChat did the same thing, showing the currently-playing iTunes song under your username as your “banner” if you wanted to do that. This was a throwback to earlier IM systems, I suppose. The thing about Messages is that IT ONLY WORKS WITH APPLE MUSIC MUSIC. I don’t use Apple Music at all, and a fair bit of my music isn’t even purchased from Apple. But even the stuff that is purchased from Apple–not streamed–STILL CANNOT BE MESSAGED with this feature. It’s utterly astonishing. Apple, I don’t care if you can’t send my contacts a store link so they can buy the song from you immediately. I’d still like an easy way to send them what I’m hearing! Even without the cute little album artwork beside it. I don’t know if Messages has any further functionality in this regard, because again, I don’t use Apple Music at all and the window is completely blank when I touch it, not even showing ME the actively playing music.
I wonder what that feature really is, and if just expanding its functionality could fill some of these gaps.
Animoji... ...are not personal enough… ...expressive enough…
There’s a whole sociological and psychological argument that could be had (but is off-topic for the thread) regarding the simplification (“dumbing down”) and… this isn’t a word, but “façadicization” of social interaction. I agree that Animoji (particularly the live and customizable Animoji shown at WWDC) is a fine showcase for cutting edge AR technologies. But… why the hell do I want to wear a mask? Am I being told that I’m to hide my feelings? At least, the nuances thereof, which is the most important part of human interaction? A piece of music (or anything, really) doesn’t make me feel [generic flat happy face] or [generic thinking emoji]; there’s so much more than that even in a single expression, and if you take that away, you get… well, a caricature.
3) provide a UI and composing tools that make it easy to create creative, expressive posts…
...snapchat creates fun pre-made expressive elements that you can place into your media…
And to add to that, search (here we go, one of Apple’s least successful ventures) in the system could be as simple as “I’m looking for music that makes me feel…” and then they just list the pre-made expressive elements. You click on one and you’re given examples of music that other people have tagged as being that expression. And you can also see who tagged it, other things they liked, etc. If Apple was to try to create a “friends” system (I hope they don’t), or if not, you could still browse others’ tastes.
Wait so in context there are 100 business leaders with 9 out 10 of the staff willing to go out of their way to fill out a survey to say they are happy with their boss.
Given all the 100 had rankings in the 90's. I don't care were you are in the 100 that is seriously Impressive. TC drop was is basically a handful of people on various teams having a bad day.
Yes, staff have thing they'd like to make it better. Us customers have very legitimate concerns about things taking longer than they should and for no obvious reason.
Still if you step back from that and just think about the raw numbers this is an impressive show of support for Apple's and every CEO in the top 100's leadership.
I can't think of a single Apple social app that as ANY one of those qualities. Messages comes close, but not quite, still mostly operates in a practical sense, where it is just convenient to text/message people.
Thanks so much for the analysis. You have a lot of good points here. Specifically about Messages, under the “app” button there’s an option available for Apple Music, supposedly to share what song you’re currently playing. Years ago, iChat did the same thing, showing the currently-playing iTunes song under your username as your “banner” if you wanted to do that. This was a throwback to earlier IM systems, I suppose. The thing about Messages is that IT ONLY WORKS WITH APPLE MUSIC MUSIC. I don’t use Apple Music at all, and a fair bit of my music isn’t even purchased from Apple. But even the stuff that is purchased from Apple–not streamed–STILL CANNOT BE MESSAGED with this feature. It’s utterly astonishing. Apple, I don’t care if you can’t send my contacts a store link so they can buy the song from you immediately. I’d still like an easy way to send them what I’m hearing! Even without the cute little album artwork beside it. I don’t know if Messages has any further functionality in this regard, because again, I don’t use Apple Music at all and the window is completely blank when I touch it, not even showing ME the actively playing music.
I wonder what that feature really is, and if just expanding its functionality could fill some of these gaps.
Animoji... ...are not personal enough… ...expressive enough…
There’s a whole sociological and psychological argument that could be had (but is off-topic for the thread) regarding the simplification (“dumbing down”) and… this isn’t a word, but “façadicization” of social interaction. I agree that Animoji (particularly the live and customizable Animoji shown at WWDC) is a fine showcase for cutting edge AR technologies. But… why the hell do I want to wear a mask? Am I being told that I’m to hide my feelings? At least, the nuances thereof, which is the most important part of human interaction? A piece of music (or anything, really) doesn’t make me feel [generic flat happy face] or [generic thinking emoji]; there’s so much more than that even in a single expression, and if you take that away, you get… well, a caricature.
And to add to that, search (here we go, one of Apple’s least successful ventures) in the system could be as simple as “I’m looking for music that makes me feel…” and then they just list the pre-made expressive elements. You click on one and you’re given examples of music that other people have tagged as being that expression. And you can also see who tagged it, other things they liked, etc. If Apple was to try to create a “friends” system (I hope they don’t), or if not, you could still browse others’ tastes.
No problem. I wish Apple would try to get the social stuff right for once. They try and fail so many times. How do they not get it yet?
As for music in messages. It's way too inconvenient to click on the music thing, think of what song you want to send, search, then send; impractical.
As for the masks, a lot of people on social media strongly prefer them, for several, or a combination of different reasons:
-convenient
-more expressive, especially with built in themes and expressions
-a lot of people don't like how they look and would prefer to use a caricature
That's a good thought regarding the music, and using user responses/questions to guide selection and categorization. That was actually the original concept of Beats before it became Apple music. You were supposed to say "play some party house music," or "play some chill electronic music" and it would customize a playlist. Apple Music seems to slowly be getting back the ability to make requests like that.
So, is "divisive" the new euphemism to throw at people who stand for humane and ethical positions, just because they anger the status quo socially conservative/hostile corporatists?... or is that term also applied to the "world leaders" who are overtly hostile to humanitarian social issues?
How are Cook's social politics negatively impacting Apple's bottom line? I'll tell you: not at all. I don't think we or Apple should walk on eggshells to appease the indignation of people turned off by a CEO who supports ethics and humane ideologies. Such people are on the wrong side of history... repeatedly. One would think that looking at the [slow and incomplete] progress on social equity, a business-minded individual would want to support a company who's leadership is aligned with inevitable progress, not those aligned with callous disregard or active opposition to social equity. If they think social equity is a threat to capitalism, they're likely doing capitalism wrongly and are part of the problem.
Tim Cook's social politics are the only thing I like about him at this point. I don't like anything he's doing with Apple's business. I don't care about stock market gambling or profit margins. As a customer of their product, I only care about the quality of the product and it is not where it was years ago.
I think Cook is driving Apple into a path of deep self-injury by focusing all efforts on feeding shareholder lust / Wall Street pathology.
I'm not in any position to benefit from Cook's social politics; I just respect him using his position to promote humanitarian and ethical ideologies, rather than being callously "neutral" like most corporations. I find it hard to support the notion of kicking him out, even with his poor product leadership, because I value society over my own personal product usage experiences.
1) Your political ramblings make very little sense, and seem to be based mostly on assumptions, false equivalencies, and non-sequiturs.
2) I don't think anyone is arguing that Tim's politics are affecting Apple's bottom line (I agree with you, highly doubt it), just what the title of the article was referring to (unless I missed something in the thread).
3) Cook is feeding shareholder lust??? From what I've seen he's doing exactly the opposite, telling people, and rightly so, something along the lines of "if you're in it for the bottom line, you should get out [of Apple's stock]." (Although, Apple's well-intentioned efforts are sometimes misguided in my view, focusing too much on gaseous plant food.)*
4) I respect Tim as well and of course think he should continue as CEO; I just wish he'd hold Apple's services to 1/2 the standard that Apple's core hardware and software are held to.
*CO2 caused climate change is a gross exaggeration at best , if you look at the data, which show correlation, not causation. Not to mention, man-made CO2 is beyond minuscule, only 4% of the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere; do the math: man-made CO2 is 0.0016% of the earth's atmosphere.
Wait, what? Tim said that if I in AAPL for the botom line, I should get out of AAPL? Link to this quote, please. If it’s true, I’m getting out of AAPL. I’m in AAPL for the bottom line and not for Tim’s social agenda or gay propaganda stunts like rainbow watch bands and rainbow watch faces.
Apple would rather spend repatriated cash on dividends than employee raises and bonuses.
Sure they give their employees stock grants, but they are minuscule and have 5 year handcuffs before they vest. Meanwhile the board gets a huge stock bonus that vests next year. There is no one on the board that really needs the money, but there are a lot of employees who could use a fraction of that money to make their lives easier and help focus on making great products instead of worrying balancing their income between just surviving and thriving.
I totally disagree. The vast majority of Apple employees are very well compensated and are paid commensurate with their level of experience, skills, and market norms.
People who have invested in education, exerted lots of sweat equity, and performed professionally across the history of their job experience are primarily motivated by sense of purpose, recognition for their contributions (from both their peers and those above them in the corporate food chain), and opportunity to advance and diversify within their chosen profession. Money and financial factors are buried deep down and are actually more related to recognition than concern for paying the bills. It’s no different than the obscene levels of CEO compensation that has been happening for years. It’s a gesture of recognition and bragging rights against your rivals.
In usual fashion there are always be comments in this forum that attempt to conflate whatever grievances one has against Apple with whatever crumb of negative data that happens to surface. Some of it is plain silly. Mac Minis - really?
At the same time I wouldn’t blow the negative data off. It would be wise for Apple’s leadership team to view this introspectively and recognize that there are more than a few employees at Apple who don’t feel that their contributions are being sufficiently recognized or afforded opportunities to grow and excel within a company that they still believe in. Not recognition on the paycheck but recognition by peers and leaders. These are likely people who really want to be engaged but for whatever reason they don’t feel that the top dog in their organization is doing everything he should be doing to help make it happen.
Apple would rather spend repatriated cash on dividends than employee raises and bonuses.
Sure they give their employees stock grants, but they are minuscule and have 5 year handcuffs before they vest. Meanwhile the board gets a huge stock bonus that vests next year. There is no one on the board that really needs the money, but there are a lot of employees who could use a fraction of that money to make their lives easier and help focus on making great products instead of worrying balancing their income between just surviving and thriving.
At the same time I wouldn’t blow the negative data off. It would be wise for Apple’s leadership team to view this introspectively and recognize that there are more than a few employees at Apple who don’t feel that their contributions are being sufficiently recognized or afforded opportunities to grow and excel within a company that they still believe in. Not recognition on the paycheck but recognition by peers and leaders. These are likely people who really want to be engaged but for whatever reason they don’t feel that the top dog in their organization is doing everything he should be doing to help make it happen.
How is +90% approval a negative is the first place?
Sure high +95% is better but both are incredible. Of if the trend continued downward it would be negative. It's bouncing around in the +90% range suggesting it's more about how the stats are collected than growing problems not being dealt with.
Comments
I have been through 3 economic down turns and when the company is looking to get rid of people, the company lets the first level manager decide and guess who is first to go, those who complain about the company and how the company should change things. No one want to hear their complaints once they have to pick up the work load, you think they complained before, they will complain a lot more when times are bad.
The other things I find interest is how people will tell you how company is poorly run or the leader are horrible and how they would do things differently. But they forget they could start their own companies but they didn't and the person who took all the risk gets to make the rules about where you work.
So still gutted, since the model before the current one had better performance and wasn’t completely fucking sealed up.
I doubt that, never mind the quality issues of the unibody Cinema Displays… Hey, does anyone know what the “lifespan” of one of these displays is supposed to be?
I’m actually thinking of getting one of those 21:9 displays. LG will have a 21:9 “retina” next year. It’s too rich for my blood, but I doubt I need the pixels anyway.
I won’t say another word on the subject here, but it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with “guts” and doesn’t relate to the discussion. Let me tell you a little story about modern liberalism…
Can you give your thoughts on what Apple could actually do in this sector that is worthwhile at all? Why does music need “social networking”, and why did Ping fail? DOES ANYONE EVEN REMEMBER PING?
What part of the status quo is supposed to be conservative, exactly? Or are you claiming that, by definition, all statuses quo (status quoi?) are “conservative”? There’s not a damn thing that fits the definition of the word conservative in globalist corporatocracy, but they sure as hell are angered by (and are hostile to) true environmentalist efforts, for example.
It’s cute that you think that’s an argument. I’m not even commenting on whatever it is you’re saying. I take no side on whatever issue this is. I just know that you’re objectively wrong because you think that your statement is relevant or true.
I’ll pull this sentence out of context and agree with it out of context.
Hey, you should get in touch w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson and him know they got it all wrong on Cosmos, and that greenhouse gases don't really trap the sun's energy inside our atmospheric envelope.
Everyone knows Neil deGrasse Tyson is just a diversity hire with a vested interest in pushing the claims of Big Climate.
(Do I have to label that as a joke? I mean it seems obvious to me, but humour is so subjective.)
All this quibbling over a drop of 5 percentage points over 2 years. I understand why Apple Corporate might be interested in addressing this change, but from the sounds of things, the top 100 are all over 90% approval, which is pretty decent on the whole. It's not like you'll ever get 100%. I mean, next year we might find that, for some reason, they've gone up to 73rd place, while actually dropping to 85% approval. That would be more of a concern than this result is. Or they could drop out of the top 100 while actually going up in approval to 98%.(I'll admit those are extreme examples, but the do highlight the absurdity of some of the claims in comments on this thread.)
I wonder what that feature really is, and if just expanding its functionality could fill some of these gaps.
There’s a whole sociological and psychological argument that could be had (but is off-topic for the thread) regarding the simplification (“dumbing down”) and… this isn’t a word, but “façadicization” of social interaction. I agree that Animoji (particularly the live and customizable Animoji shown at WWDC) is a fine showcase for cutting edge AR technologies. But… why the hell do I want to wear a mask? Am I being told that I’m to hide my feelings? At least, the nuances thereof, which is the most important part of human interaction? A piece of music (or anything, really) doesn’t make me feel [generic flat happy face] or [generic thinking emoji]; there’s so much more than that even in a single expression, and if you take that away, you get… well, a caricature.
And to add to that, search (here we go, one of Apple’s least successful ventures) in the system could be as simple as “I’m looking for music that makes me feel…” and then they just list the pre-made expressive elements. You click on one and you’re given examples of music that other people have tagged as being that expression. And you can also see who tagged it, other things they liked, etc. If Apple was to try to create a “friends” system (I hope they don’t), or if not, you could still browse others’ tastes.
People who have invested in education, exerted lots of sweat equity, and performed professionally across the history of their job experience are primarily motivated by sense of purpose, recognition for their contributions (from both their peers and those above them in the corporate food chain), and opportunity to advance and diversify within their chosen profession. Money and financial factors are buried deep down and are actually more related to recognition than concern for paying the bills. It’s no different than the obscene levels of CEO compensation that has been happening for years. It’s a gesture of recognition and bragging rights against your rivals.
In usual fashion there are always be comments in this forum that attempt to conflate whatever grievances one has against Apple with whatever crumb of negative data that happens to surface. Some of it is plain silly. Mac Minis - really?
At the same time I wouldn’t blow the negative data off. It would be wise for Apple’s leadership team to view this introspectively and recognize that there are more than a few employees at Apple who don’t feel that their contributions are being sufficiently recognized or afforded opportunities to grow and excel within a company that they still believe in. Not recognition on the paycheck but recognition by peers and leaders. These are likely people who really want to be engaged but for whatever reason they don’t feel that the top dog in their organization is doing everything he should be doing to help make it happen.
Tim Cook must own this.