LOL. I love this. It's classic Steve Jobs. There is a reason it is redacted. This makes it seem like Steve had NO hand in ousting Amelio. Gimme a break. Does anyone really believe that? Yes, Steve Jobs just sat by the wayside and was innocently approached by the board. Yeah, right.
Look, Amelio was no Jobs, but he was hardly as bad as he is made out. Read his book. Clearly, it's biased, but filled with some interesting insight. If Amelio was SO bad, why was he ousted and then Jobs simply continued following Amelio's financial and strategic game plan? Of course, Steve made many changes, but I find the whole section about how things transpired comical. You've gotta love Steve Jobs.
Let's put you under oath and have you describe your career from the time you were in college until decades later. Would it line up fact for fact with your wikipedia entry? Probably not. That's human nature. I think we as readers understand that and take this testimony for what it's worth: an interesting summary of events from SJ's perspective.
No, the shares are worth $80. That sentence is just contrasting the value of stock shares
to the value of options. Options with a strike price of $100 are not worth much when the
underlying stock is at $80. In this instance, the Apple employee would be much better off
owning restricted stock than options, although the employee could not realize any cash by
selling the shares until the restriction lapses.
Where the article makes a mistake is where it says:
Options however, represent the ability to buy stock at a given strike price. If options are granted at $100 and the market value drops to $80, they become worthless to employees because they only represent the option to buy shares at a lower price than the market. If the market price drops, those worthless options are referred to as "underwater."
When the options are underwater, they represent an opportunity to buy the shares at a higher price
than the market. This is obviously a bad idea. Buying at lower than the market price is what you want to
do, and is the idea behind granting options as compensation (when a company's stock price is rising).
After which he said "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system", so unless you want to claim that Gore was taking credit for the country's economic growth, environmental protection, and educational system, you might want to draw the obvious conclusion that he was referring to the kind of congressional initiatives that help move things along.
Which is in fact quite a bit different from the popular but brain dead talking point "Al Gore says he invented the internet."
Great- now can you explain to us what the definition of the word "is" is?
Let's put you under oath and have you describe your career from the time you were in college until decades later. Would it line up fact for fact with your wikipedia entry? Probably not. That's human nature. I think we as readers understand that and take this testimony for what it's worth: an interesting summary of events from SJ's perspective.
His testimony is pure spin. This is a clever, clever man. You don't sort of slide your way into the control of a company like Apple. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew why he was doing it the way he did it.
Anybody who believes a megalomaniac like Jobs thought at any time that he could not run two tech companies has not been paying attention. Of course he thought he could do it. If it hadn't been done before, that just made it more interesting. Jobs is all about doing what hasn't been done before. It's his MO.
He was so good at this game that he figured out he had to do it in a way that would not result in negative fallout at Pixar. He would never admit this on the record, nor would his intentions be subject to cross-checking. Oath? Give me a break. It's not like the SEC would have access to his thoughts from 10 years ago.
We are talking about a true genius here, and somebody who never telegraphs his next move. I truly hope he recovers; the world will be a more boring place without him.
His testimony is pure spin. This is a clever, clever man. You don't sort of slide your way into the control of a company like Apple. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew why he was doing it the way he did it.
Anybody who believes a megalomaniac like Jobs thought at any time that he could not run two tech companies has not been paying attention. Of course he thought he could do it. If it hadn't been done before, that just made it more interesting. Jobs is all about doing what hasn't been done before. It's his MO.
He was so good at this game that he figured out he had to do it in a way that would not result in negative fallout at Pixar. He would never admit this on the record, nor would his intentions be subject to cross-checking. Oath? Give me a break. It's not like the SEC would have access to his thoughts from 10 years ago.
We are talking about a true genius here, and somebody who never telegraphs his next move. I truly hope he recovers; the world will be a more boring place without him.
Comments
Look, Amelio was no Jobs, but he was hardly as bad as he is made out. Read his book. Clearly, it's biased, but filled with some interesting insight. If Amelio was SO bad, why was he ousted and then Jobs simply continued following Amelio's financial and strategic game plan? Of course, Steve made many changes, but I find the whole section about how things transpired comical. You've gotta love Steve Jobs.
Let's put you under oath and have you describe your career from the time you were in college until decades later. Would it line up fact for fact with your wikipedia entry? Probably not. That's human nature. I think we as readers understand that and take this testimony for what it's worth: an interesting summary of events from SJ's perspective.
No, the shares are worth $80. That sentence is just contrasting the value of stock shares
to the value of options. Options with a strike price of $100 are not worth much when the
underlying stock is at $80. In this instance, the Apple employee would be much better off
owning restricted stock than options, although the employee could not realize any cash by
selling the shares until the restriction lapses.
Where the article makes a mistake is where it says:
Options however, represent the ability to buy stock at a given strike price. If options are granted at $100 and the market value drops to $80, they become worthless to employees because they only represent the option to buy shares at a lower price than the market. If the market price drops, those worthless options are referred to as "underwater."
When the options are underwater, they represent an opportunity to buy the shares at a higher price
than the market. This is obviously a bad idea. Buying at lower than the market price is what you want to
do, and is the idea behind granting options as compensation (when a company's stock price is rising).
ah alright, thanx
After which he said "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system", so unless you want to claim that Gore was taking credit for the country's economic growth, environmental protection, and educational system, you might want to draw the obvious conclusion that he was referring to the kind of congressional initiatives that help move things along.
Which is in fact quite a bit different from the popular but brain dead talking point "Al Gore says he invented the internet."
Great- now can you explain to us what the definition of the word "is" is?
Great- now can you explain to us what the definition of the word "is" is?
I may not know what a specific definition of "is" under a specific context is, but I know the definition of "torture" under any context.
Let's put you under oath and have you describe your career from the time you were in college until decades later. Would it line up fact for fact with your wikipedia entry? Probably not. That's human nature. I think we as readers understand that and take this testimony for what it's worth: an interesting summary of events from SJ's perspective.
His testimony is pure spin. This is a clever, clever man. You don't sort of slide your way into the control of a company like Apple. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew why he was doing it the way he did it.
Anybody who believes a megalomaniac like Jobs thought at any time that he could not run two tech companies has not been paying attention. Of course he thought he could do it. If it hadn't been done before, that just made it more interesting. Jobs is all about doing what hasn't been done before. It's his MO.
He was so good at this game that he figured out he had to do it in a way that would not result in negative fallout at Pixar. He would never admit this on the record, nor would his intentions be subject to cross-checking. Oath? Give me a break. It's not like the SEC would have access to his thoughts from 10 years ago.
We are talking about a true genius here, and somebody who never telegraphs his next move. I truly hope he recovers; the world will be a more boring place without him.
His testimony is pure spin. This is a clever, clever man. You don't sort of slide your way into the control of a company like Apple. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew why he was doing it the way he did it.
Anybody who believes a megalomaniac like Jobs thought at any time that he could not run two tech companies has not been paying attention. Of course he thought he could do it. If it hadn't been done before, that just made it more interesting. Jobs is all about doing what hasn't been done before. It's his MO.
He was so good at this game that he figured out he had to do it in a way that would not result in negative fallout at Pixar. He would never admit this on the record, nor would his intentions be subject to cross-checking. Oath? Give me a break. It's not like the SEC would have access to his thoughts from 10 years ago.
We are talking about a true genius here, and somebody who never telegraphs his next move. I truly hope he recovers; the world will be a more boring place without him.
Well said!
Al Gore- the self proclaimed "inventor" of the internet!
Al Gore didn't invent the internet.
He did make up Global Warming though.