Bogged down AT&T 3G to clear in months; Buffett criticizes Jobs

2456711

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    okay lets look at this rationally



    1. Buffet's personal opinion is not law. or even SEC regulations. did Jobs violate either. perhaps. but the SEC hasn't decided. But regardless, Buffet has a Constitutional right to have and speak his personal opinion. Even if some of us don't like said opinion.



    2. We've seen what rumors have done to Apple's stock. The stock holders are owed something and that is value on the stock shares they own. I can't even imagine the fall the value would have taken had Jobs said straight up "I am going on a leave of absence because my doctors determined that my liver had failed and I just found out that a donor liver is available. Wish me luck" or even "I am suffering from a hormonal imbalance which might be due to a faulty liver and I'm being put on the donor list. Fortunately my health is so crappy I am being put near the top. Until a new liver is available I"m going to take time off so all this stress over my health doesn't kill me first" or whatever. for the stock holders not saying anything that dire kept the stock at a stable level until the whole thing was over and Jobs is not only still alive but with his 'work from home via email/ichat etc' they revamped the laptops, released a new phone etc. so in the end, it was the better choice. not only that but it showed folks that Schiller, Cook etc can handle running the show in Jobs absence, which is something so many feared was going to kill the company.



    so in my opinion, and contrary to Mr Buffet, I say they made the right call



    That's the best post on this much-debated issue, so far.



    For the record, I am a deep admirer of Buffett (and obviously, Jobs).
  • Reply 22 of 205
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    1) Is there a reason why AT&T couldn’t have switched these towers before, or why it seems like they are doing them all at once instead of doing them one at a time?



    2) Way to go Palm. You aren’t gonna kill the iPhone but you may just save yourself and help Sprint to loss less customers than they did the quarter prior.



    3) How did that $3B investment to GM work out for Buffett?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.



    Jobs stepped down for a well known 6 month hiatus because he was ill. He is under no obligation to tell us what his stool looks like every morning. If he hadn’t stepped down then the surgery would have been important to shareholder, but not while he is out of the picture. I think Buffett is quite wrong in this instance.



    Now, that does not excuse Apple from not disclosing of other situations while Jobs was CEO, but if the board knew and they voted to keep it quite then that becomes a different issue altogether.



    Personally, I’m a stock holder and I dont’ care what happens to Jobs. Don’t get me wrong, I hope the guy is okay —in the same way I wish any other person i don’t know happiness and long life— but the company is on a path that is well set and with enough momentum to keep it focused with a Jobsian viewpoint for several years to come regardless of the role he plays. In other threads there were plenty of comments made about Cook being in charge is why this or that product came to be are just ludicrous. These wheels were turning before Jobs left and they will continue to turn after he is gone. It will take some time for the new vision to start revealing what the future of Apple will be like.
  • Reply 23 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidT View Post


    You do know what the word "responsibility" means, right? As opposed to "personal preferences"?



    What arrant nonsense. There are different types of 'responsibility.' Responsibility to job is different from responsibility to oneself, one's family, one's community, etc.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidT View Post


    SJ has responsibility to shareholders. That's his job.



    Yeah, you yourself said it: job. His Job is 9-5, his other responsibilities are 5-9 and nobody's business.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidT View Post


    In business (and SJ is nothing if not a business man, a very good one) our decency should not enter into the debate.but if you're determined to see decency enter into the equation: what about Apple's decency to shareholders. private people all over the world who own shares, investing their hard earned money.



    Our sense of "decency should not enter into the debate" because it is about "shareholders"? Wow. Your moral universe sounds like a dark place.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidT View Post


    3 of my freinds own share, they are furious.



    Your friends are a bunch of crybabies. If they think this is unacceptable risk, they should sell.



    No one is forcing them to hold their shares. If they are still holding, obviously they have already made this trade-off in their risk-return calculus.
  • Reply 24 of 205
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    Buffett: Jobs' surgery should have been reported



    Berkshire Hathaway head Warren Buffett had stern words for Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs on Wednesday for the latter's failure to disclose his liver transplant to the public.




    The differance between Buffet and just about any C*O and Jobs in a situation like this is that the other execs don't have rabid fanboys who would love nothing more than to get a "scoop" for blogs like this, they wouldn't have media, outside of maybe one lone investigative reporter from CNBC or the WSJ: a simple press release about a vague medical leave would have been enough.



    What if this had been the CEO of Coke, The Home Depot, or Cisco? Who woulda cared? The business that is Apple was and is in good hands the whole time, you think Cook, Schiller and the crew weren't ready for the worst? you'd be wrong, and as a stockholder via my retirement plan, that is what matters. I do not want to know the medical dealings of anyone, I don't care as long as the job gets done and money is made, which has not been a problem for some time now at Apple Inc.
  • Reply 25 of 205
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.



    Great statement. Agree with you in everyway!
  • Reply 26 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Common sense can be useful genius.



    Wow, you don't say!
  • Reply 27 of 205
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    What arrant nonsense. There are different types of 'responsibility.' Responsibility to job is different from responsibility to oneself, one's family, one's community, etc.









    Yeah, you yourself said it: job. His Job is 9-5, his other responsibilities are 5-9 and nobody's business.







    Our sense of "decency should not enter into the debate" because it is about "shareholders"? Wow. Your moral universe sounds like a dark place.







    Your friends are a bunch of crybabies. If they think this is unacceptable risk, they should sell.



    No one is forcing them to hold their shares. If they are still holding, obviously they have already made this trade-off in their risk-return calculus.



    It is our business. The company sold the public stock. Instead of the fanboys looking for loopholes and technical excuses, how about just doing the right thing. Instead of us selling our stock, if he wants his privacy and feels he has no responsibility to shareholders, he can resign and have all the privacy he wants.



    It would be really refreshing for the head of a major corporation to do the right thing occasionally.
  • Reply 28 of 205
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post


    Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).



    Precisely. You have made a good case for Buffett's bias.
  • Reply 29 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    @ davidT



    You seem to want a sensical, non-emotional debate. Fine. For the boards edification, can you please point to where it is by law that Steve Jobs is required to release information pertaining to his medical conditions. If you can't do that, then I'd say in this particular instance, Apple and Steve handled it correctly, and probable the best it could have been handled. I await your reply.
  • Reply 30 of 205
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled. There are no examples to point to that make meaning, but there's always room for common sense and objectivity. Common sense can be useful genius. Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while. Defending Steve here is naive. One of the people who seem to have had the vision to see the bullshit on this all along was ironically enough Fake Steve.



    Could you supply irrefutable proof?
  • Reply 31 of 205
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I agree with Buffet. Steve is human, and this whole debacle was a mistake and badly handled.



    Are you *** kidding me?!???! It was BEAUTIFULLY handled! Straight out of the Apple play book.



    "Just one more thing ..."



    All joking aside - shareholders OWE Steve for the way he handled this. Imagine if he announced he was dying of liver disease, Apple's stock would have crashed through the floor. He took care of what he needed to do, and then returned Apple - leaked the news to the WSJ, and later confirmed it. AAPL barely blipped.



    EDIT: Language please!
  • Reply 32 of 205
    iphone1982iphone1982 Posts: 109member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Precisely. You have made a good case for Buffett's bias.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iPhone1982

    Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).



    Have you ever thought he would have donated the money to Steve Jobs charity foundation if he actually had a foundation?
  • Reply 33 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Could you supply irrefutable proof?



    Well, by law, he does have to keep the board informed of his health. So assuming that he did keep them informed, they haven't been, let us say, open about what was happening.
  • Reply 34 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Apple knew full well they were telling lies about this for a while.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Could you supply irrefutable proof?



    Seconded Abster2core, and actually, tracking this over time, it seemed as if they were still pin pointing what may be wrong with Steve Jobs. So its not clear by any stretch that Apple was lying at any point in time. At worst, you could accuse them of not telling the whole truth, but that may be because at the time the rest of the story was still being speculated and there was still ongoing research as to what was ailing SJ.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Defending Steve here is naive.[



    On the contrary, I think there is quite a bit of room for defense of Apple and SJ's handling of this issue. Since we're all working with an incomplete knowledge as to the full timeline of events, it would therefore be too early to be pointing the finger either way. Unless you are an inside man into this?
  • Reply 35 of 205
    ibillibill Posts: 392member
    Warren Buffett can kiss my ass.
  • Reply 36 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post


    Have you ever thought he would have donated the money to Steve Jobs charity foundation if he actually had a foundation?



    Why not?



    But he was very impressed with the Gate's determination in this, and his commitment. Though I think it was really a way to garner good publicity for Gates after all the criticism he received over the years.



    Understand that before this, Gates gave almost nothing to charity. It was his father that suggested this.



    To be fair, SJ has also given almost nothing to charity over the years.
  • Reply 37 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well, by law, he does have to keep the board informed of his health. So assuming that he did keep them informed, they haven't been, let us say, open about what was happening.



    I'm still unclear as to what law you and DavidT are referring to, and whether or not it applies to SJ's situation.



    Also, they may not have known exactly what was wrong with SJ or how serious the situation may have been at the time. So to us, it may have seemed like back tracking, but that isn't necessarily how the events played out.
  • Reply 38 of 205
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well, by law, he does have to keep the board informed of his health. So assuming that he did keep them informed, they haven't been, let us say, open about what was happening.



    And that is lying?



    Can you give us irrefutable proof that the Board lied?



    P.S. As far as I know, there are only three instances from Jobs and/or the board that said anything about his health. In none of these, is their a hint, let alone irrefutable evidence, that someone was lying.



    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/14advisory.html

    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/05sjletter.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123116274391653637.html
  • Reply 39 of 205
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,309member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    Are you *** kidding me?!???! It was BEAUTIFULLY handled! Straight out of the Apple play book.



    "Just one more thing ..."



    All joking aside - shareholders OWE Steve for the way he handled this. Imagine if he announced he was dying of liver disease, Apple's stock would have crashed through the floor. He took care of what he needed to do, and then returned Apple - leaked the news to the WSJ, and later confirmed it. AAPL barely blipped.



    EDIT: Language please!



    Exactly! We owe Steve for a lot more too. Like all this wonderful hardware and software that just works!
  • Reply 40 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Why not?



    But he was very impressed with the Gate's determination in this, and his commitment. Though I think it was really a way to garner good publicity for Gates after all the criticism he received over the years.



    Understand that before this, Gates gave almost nothing to charity. It was his father that suggested this.



    To be fair, SJ has also given almost nothing to charity over the years.



    Note; none of this is directed at you melgross, more so at the person you quoted. Why are people concerned whether or not wealthy people donate to charity? The economic whole of everyone gains far more when wealthy people invest in the market, which is what wealthy people do with their money most of the time. This creates new job opportunities and other "trickle down" effects for everyone. Being a good or bad person is independent of donating to a charity for anyone, wealthy or otherwise.



    General economic note: Capitalism is about increasing the wealth, pie gets bigger = more people can eat. Socialism is about redistributing the wealth, it does not encourage the increasing of the pie's overall size.
Sign In or Register to comment.