Angela Ahrendts talks future after Apple as Deirdre O'Brien receives stock bonus

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    MisterKit said:
    It is hard to read the conditions of her leaving. It is hard to imagine any major changes in Apple retail. It seems stable and solid. It does seem like the short time between the announcement and her actual departure date would signal an abrupt decision, whether hers or Apple’s. The reasons may never be made public.
    I can easily imagine significant, fundamental shifts from an emphasis on sales to an emphasis on supporting both customers and their products.   That is the future of Apple.   Anybody can do sales -- you don't need even a store front for that.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    Asked to leave or resigned of her free will?  Any thoughts?
    Absent any evidence except for the increasingly chaotic anecdotal experience of waiting for help in the Apple Store, I’ll guess she was fired... er, “decided to pursue other opportunities.”
  • Reply 23 of 30
    65026502 Posts: 276member
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
  • Reply 24 of 30
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    claire1
  • Reply 25 of 30
    65026502 Posts: 276member
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
  • Reply 26 of 30
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
    Ahh, ran out of arguments huh?
  • Reply 27 of 30
    65026502 Posts: 276member
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
    Ahh, ran out of arguments huh?
    And you saying "it derives profit from product, not the other way around" is meaningful?

    Apple is no different than any other company. It makes billions of dollars by selling products and services like every other company. It markets them like any other company. It hires and fires people like any other company. It runs customer satisfaction surveys like any other company. It squeezes every penny of profit from its products like every other company. It keeps its off-shore profit off-shore to avoid paying US taxes like every other company. It lobbied for Trump to reduce the tax rate so it could bring its money to the US, like every other 
    company. It rather pay low interest on bonds then pay US tax rates on its off-shore money like every other company. It pays it execs large bonuses like every other company. It pay its retail employees crap, like every other company. It buys back its stock to make its profit/share to look higher rather than pay larger dividend to stock holders, like every other company. It makes all its products in china to take advantage of the cheap labor rates (and lax environmental and employment law enforcement), like every other company. It hires lobbyists to lobby the US gov't, like every other company. It kisses china's ass, like every other company. It kisses India's ass, like every other company. Rather hire cheap H1Bs vs US citizens, like every other company.

    And on and on and on....
  • Reply 28 of 30
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
    Ahh, ran out of arguments huh?
    And you saying "it derives profit from product, not the other way around" is meaningful?

    Apple is no different than any other company. It makes billions of dollars by selling products and services like every other company. It markets them like any other company. It hires and fires people like any other company. It runs customer satisfaction surveys like any other company. It squeezes every penny of profit from its products like every other company. It keeps its off-shore profit off-shore to avoid paying US taxes like every other company. It lobbied for Trump to reduce the tax rate so it could bring its money to the US, like every other 
    company. It rather pay low interest on bonds then pay US tax rates on its off-shore money like every other company. It pays it execs large bonuses like every other company. It pay its retail employees crap, like every other company. It buys back its stock to make its profit/share to look higher rather than pay larger dividend to stock holders, like every other company. It makes all its products in china to take advantage of the cheap labor rates (and lax environmental and employment law enforcement), like every other company. It hires lobbyists to lobby the US gov't, like every other company. It kisses china's ass, like every other company. It kisses India's ass, like every other company. Rather hire cheap H1Bs vs US citizens, like every other company.

    And on and on and on....
    Ahh, you ran out arguments -- so you circle around and repeat the same nonsense you started with.
  • Reply 29 of 30
    65026502 Posts: 276member
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
    Ahh, ran out of arguments huh?
    And you saying "it derives profit from product, not the other way around" is meaningful?

    Apple is no different than any other company. It makes billions of dollars by selling products and services like every other company. It markets them like any other company. It hires and fires people like any other company. It runs customer satisfaction surveys like any other company. It squeezes every penny of profit from its products like every other company. It keeps its off-shore profit off-shore to avoid paying US taxes like every other company. It lobbied for Trump to reduce the tax rate so it could bring its money to the US, like every other company. It rather pay low interest on bonds then pay US tax rates on its off-shore money like every other company. It pays it execs large bonuses like every other company. It pay its retail employees crap, like every other company. It buys back its stock to make its profit/share to look higher rather than pay larger dividend to stock holders, like every other company. It makes all its products in china to take advantage of the cheap labor rates (and lax environmental and employment law enforcement), like every other company. It hires lobbyists to lobby the US gov't, like every other company. It kisses china's ass, like every other company. It kisses India's ass, like every other company. Rather hire cheap H1Bs vs US citizens, like every other company.

    And on and on and on....
    Ahh, you ran out arguments -- so you circle around and repeat the same nonsense you started with.
    You're completely nonsensical. I just gave dozens of reasons why Apple is just like every other company and you say I ran out of arguments. My dog can have a better discussion than you can. Enjoy your alternate reality, it must be nice in your imaginary world. Bye.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:

    cubefan said:
    Five years is long enough when your family is thousands of miles away - what's the difference between 100,000 developers and store workers? nothing, although I'm not a fan of what is known over here as Human Remains - there's still a job to be done and keeping your staff happy and productive is the most important thing HR can do - not be there just to control and limit and block creative people - which is what they are often guilty of.. Ms Ahrendts leave the retail side in better shape than it was when she arrived, job done. To claim anything else is unfair to a fellow human being.
    However....
    Her title is:  Senior VP of people.   That carries a very different connotation than VP of Human Resources.   A human resource is just a machine put in place to do a job.  Apple employees people.   The best people.  Not slaves or machines.
    It is just semantics and marketing BS, it does't connote anything different. Just like, as great at Andy Hertzfeld was, he wasn't really a wizard (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Software_Wizard.txt).
    LOL....  Why would Apple use an internal, non-pubic position as a marketing gimmick?
    No, knowing what we know about Apple:  They look to employ the best available and then grow and develop them into the best they can be.   That requires a VP of PEOPLE -- not inanimate resources or slaves.
    That can be said of every company. No company says we hire mediocre people and let them languish. It's not really a non-public internal position; Apple hires thousands of people a year and for PR sakes likes to be known as a benevolent employer. But, having a mission statement and actually following it are 2 different things. I'm sure Apple's HR department can be just as brutal as any others. And, let's be clear, HR personnel care about themselves #1, the company #2 and the employees (a distant) #3. I've never met a highly intelligent HR person; smart people just don't go into HR.
    Yes, that CAN be said of any company.   But saying it doesn't make it true.

    You can also say that Apple is just another mediocre, average company (which you basically did).  But saying that doesn't make it true either.

    And, by the way, managing high quality people doesn't mean you have to be benevolent.   Steve pushed his people hard.   Almost as hard as they pushed themselves.  And, as he said:  "A level players don't like to work with "B" level players".   Tim has continued that culture.

    Human Resource departments are for companies who employ human resources.   Apple employs smart, high quality, hard working, committed people.
    The point is calling yourself the VP of People is no different than VP of HR. Apple doesn't treat its employees any different than any other fortune 100 company just because it has People vs HR in the title.


    True -- you can call yourself anything you like.   But that does not mean that the title is meaningless.   Real people and real companies use real titles meant to describe the purpose and goals of the position.   Your jaded outlook doesn't change that.

    And, your contention that Apple is just a typical Fortune 100 corporation is not supported by reality.
    VP of People = VP of HR, there is no difference. And how exactly is Apple different than any other typical Fortune 100 company?
    1)  It can be -- but that doesn't mean that it is.
    2)  Apple is different.   Among a host of other things (such as values) it derives profit from product, not the other way around.
    Ahh, Apple's reality distortion field is alive and well.
    Ahh, ran out of arguments huh?
    And you saying "it derives profit from product, not the other way around" is meaningful?

    Apple is no different than any other company. It makes billions of dollars by selling products and services like every other company. It markets them like any other company. It hires and fires people like any other company. It runs customer satisfaction surveys like any other company. It squeezes every penny of profit from its products like every other company. It keeps its off-shore profit off-shore to avoid paying US taxes like every other company. It lobbied for Trump to reduce the tax rate so it could bring its money to the US, like every other company. It rather pay low interest on bonds then pay US tax rates on its off-shore money like every other company. It pays it execs large bonuses like every other company. It pay its retail employees crap, like every other company. It buys back its stock to make its profit/share to look higher rather than pay larger dividend to stock holders, like every other company. It makes all its products in china to take advantage of the cheap labor rates (and lax environmental and employment law enforcement), like every other company. It hires lobbyists to lobby the US gov't, like every other company. It kisses china's ass, like every other company. It kisses India's ass, like every other company. Rather hire cheap H1Bs vs US citizens, like every other company.

    And on and on and on....
    Ahh, you ran out arguments -- so you circle around and repeat the same nonsense you started with.
    You're completely nonsensical. I just gave dozens of reasons why Apple is just like every other company and you say I ran out of arguments. My dog can have a better discussion than you can. Enjoy your alternate reality, it must be nice in your imaginary world. Bye.
    The trouble is that none of your so called "reasons" are true.
Sign In or Register to comment.