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

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post


    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.



    The chairman and CEO (president, COO..) must keep key members of the board informed of any illness or other matter that would materially affect their performance of their duties.
  • Reply 42 of 205
    irelandireland Posts: 17,616member
    Objectivity fanboys, objectivity.



    Before question others, first question self - Yoda
  • Reply 43 of 205
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post




    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.



    I suspect the ideal is around the middle of these two extremes ...
  • Reply 44 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The chairman and CEO (president, COO..) must keep key members of the board informed of any illness or other matter that would materially affect their performance of their duties.



    Fair enough, and you beat DavidT to the punch! However, how does this translate into regular stockholders (some of us), the general public, and news media from knowing any of this? None of us are key board members. So this does seem to mainly fall under the preference / private domain of SJ as to whether or not any of us knows.
  • Reply 45 of 205
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 362member
    Had Apple reported to their shareholders what was happening when they didn't have a perfect handle on it themselves, and things turned out differently the shareholders, media, and people on forums like this would have been a thousand times more outraged than the little bits of squabbling I hear here.



    Enough was given out as it was clearly known. Arbitrary information and information that Apple itself could not corroborate with cold, hard facts were not given out because, in my mind, that is much more conscientious and serving the shareholders better. I do believe that a person's health should be his own private matter except when it will materially affect the stockholders, however when even the person himself may not be completely informed as to what his condition is and how it will affect his life, then releasing "we think it might be this" information is not serving the stockholders, the company, and Steve himself.



    He took a leave of absence for his health. He did that for himself, his family, and for Apple and its shareholders. Isn't that enough for you? Steve is obsessed with Apple and its fortunes, whether monetary or just producing great products. Do you think he really wanted to take this leave of absence which resulted in major surgery? No. But in doing that he helped himself, his family, and damnit, he did right by the shareholders.



    People complain so much that Apple revolves around Steve. You think he doesn't know that? So, in keeping things fairly under wraps until all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed was, in my opinion, a very business-like and fair way of handling it for all concerned.



    Greg
  • Reply 46 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    And that is lying?



    Can you give us irrefutable proof that the Board lied?



    I said what I said, that they weren't being open about it.



    What is a lie? Is saying that someone is taking time off to take care of his problems for a certain period, a lie if he required a major operation? I think the impression given to the world was that this was a matter that was somewhat serious, but NOT life threatening.



    Honestly now, did you at any time get the impression from Apple's statements over the past 6 months that SJ was SO ill that he might require major surgery? I didn't. In fact, many people here were poo pooing the idea that he may be seriously sick, and using Apple's statements as proof.



    I think that Apple cultivated the idea that whatever his problems, Apple wasn't concerned that he might not come back in time, and in good health. But in needing a liver transplant, that wouldn't have been the case. While I'm certainly happy that he seems to be ok, a major operation like that is not without high risk. There was also no guarantee that a proper liver would be found in time. Not everyone does get one, not matter how famous or rich they may be.



    Basically, Apple was saying; Don't worry, Steve will be ok, he just needs some time rest, and treatments.



    So, you tell me what you think they were saying.
  • Reply 47 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I suspect the ideal is around the middle of these two extremes ...



    I agree. Socialism, ideally should work as well as any other human envisioned system under ideal conditions should work. Capitalism is not executed perfectly by humans, for instance governments needing to create labor laws. I'd say under a modified capitalistic economy, we should aim for around 75 to 85 percent capitalism, the remaining socialism. However, I fear we are drifting quite off topic now.
  • Reply 48 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Before question others, first question self - Yoda



    Wow. You don't say!
  • Reply 49 of 205
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member
    Houston, TX. Eldridge and Briarforest area. iPhone 3G w/3.0 - 3G constant signal, dropped calls every now and then. iPhone 3G S - Edge constant signal, sometimes GPRS, rarely 3G. Same amount of dropped calls. I wonder what changed? This issue is only noticeable at my apt, not anywhere else. Of course at work I have an AT&T tower right next to the building, so never any issues there. All over town, I still get the random dropped calls here and there. What happened at my apt? Frustrating.
  • Reply 50 of 205
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 362member
    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.



    And you are his accountant? You have the information readily available about Steve and all of his finances? Are you aware that there are billionaires and millionaires around the world who give to charities anonymously?



    I think it is great that Gates and Buffet are contributing to charity whether it be out of the goodness of their hearts or out of wanting to garner publicity or a combination of both.



    Perhaps Steve has contributed and not wanted to garner that publicity? Hmmmmmmm?



    Mel, I appreciate a lot of what you say in these forums, but sometimes your posts are conjecture not supported by facts, even though you often require others to supply the facts before you will accept what they have to say.



    Show me the last 10 years of Steve's tax returns. Even then, he doesn't need to declare his charity contributions unless he wants a tax benefit.



    Only Steve knows where he puts his money. You don't.



    Greg
  • Reply 51 of 205
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 362member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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



    My thoughts exactly.
  • Reply 52 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    The company sold the public stock.



    And they held a gun to the heads of a bunch of crybabies to buy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    Instead of us selling our stock,.... he can resign



    Easier yet, instead of you selling, the board can collectively commit seppuku.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    It would be really refreshing for the head of a major corporation to do the right thing occasionally.



    Since heads of major corporations can almost never be trusted to do the right thing, only a moron would buy stock.



    </sarcasm>
  • Reply 53 of 205
    iphone1982iphone1982 Posts: 109member
    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.



    My point exactly about Steve giving nothing back.



    I like my Mac and my iPhone and think that SJ is an incredible salesman.



    As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates.



    Don't know about the posting, not qualified to know what legally s/b exposed on CEO's personal health. To be honest, I don't think 99.9999% of the room in here are qualified yet have no problem giving an opinion about a Buffet statement and what a horrible ass he is and he should die.



    If it was wrong, obviously the courts will decide it. Since it's been announced and there have been nothing but opinions stated on his decision my "GUESS" would be he had legal counsel to know he didn't need to give any information.



    Is it right? I guess it depends on what type of person you are...
  • Reply 54 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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



    Ok, you added stuff.



    I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.



    A problem that was more serious that expected, yes, but what does that mean?



    It doesn't read in any of those statements, or the more off the cuff ones given in response to questions at events or at the quarterly conference call, as to the seriousness of his illness. It was always something like; Steve has been ill, he's recovering. It will take time. we expect to have him back at work at the end of june.



    I never got from any of that that he might need a liver transplant, or that he did get a liver transplant.



    Did you?



    In fact, there were articles written that were saying that his illness was more serious than either he, or Apple was admitting to, and those articles were blown away by many people here.



    I'm sure we all remember that.
  • Reply 55 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post


    As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates.



    As a "person"? What do you mean by that? Don't follow.....
  • Reply 56 of 205
    talon8472talon8472 Posts: 149member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    It is our business.



    According to melgross, the only one who responded as to who specifically needs to know is key board members. The average joe is, or stock holder for that matter is not a key board member. They do little to run the company and most of the time only have a small vested interest in the company. Also, is it too much to assume that you safely accounted for the fact that...



    1.) Apple is a well run business with several key behind the scenes leaders?

    - See no debt.

    - See huge supply reserve.

    - See continued growth.



    2.) Apple has had a long period of going up for the past 9 years.



    3.) You should diversify your stock portfolio, as good investing practices dictate?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    It would be really refreshing for the head of a major corporation to do the right thing occasionally.



    To be fair, not all major corporations are in trouble. Also, businesses that were doing okay or well suddenly went into serious trouble as getting money from the banks suddenly tightened up.
  • Reply 57 of 205
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,729member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post


    Fair enough, and you beat DavidT to the punch! However, how does this translate into regular stockholders (some of us), the general public, and news media from knowing any of this? None of us are key board members. So this does seem to mainly fall under the preference / private domain of SJ as to whether or not any of us knows.



    This is where it becomes more complex.



    The law also requires public companies to inform the investor community, through conference calls, or other means of information of anything that would, or could affect the financial performance of the company in any reasonable fashion.



    In the case of an important and charismatic leader who has his hands in every pot of the company, that would include information as to his (her) health and well being.
  • Reply 58 of 205
    breezebreeze Posts: 96member
    [QUOTE=Abster2core;1439785]Buffett is a buffoon





    Buffett once said he doesn't invest in technology because he doesn't understand it...Apple is a technology company that thinks differently so do it's lifelong loyal customers and serious investors.



    Don't understand Apple , Warren how could you possibly understand jobs, the rest of his company and what he means or doesn't mean. Apple investors have been following this circus of idiot anal- ists and stock manipulative self serving reporting and are still quite happy with their positions - they're not demanding that he forgo his privacy. Anyone who doesn't like it can quite simply fuck off.
  • Reply 59 of 205
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I'm not saying that they lied, per say. /but they didn't tell the full extent of his illness either. SJ's letters didn't either.



    Indeed, you did not say that. And, you are right that Apple, by hindsight, dissembled about the gravity of it all.



    I think that it was simple business decision on the part of the board -- they probably weighed the personal versus shareholder-related costs and benefits, and came out on the side of reticence in their business judgment. Even though I happen to side with that, I have no idea whether and how this will come back to haunt Apple.



    Some day we will know most or all of the facts. Until then, all we can do is speculate (and have heated arguments), unfortunately.....
  • Reply 60 of 205
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post


    My point exactly about Steve giving nothing back.



    I like my Mac and my iPhone and think that SJ is an incredible salesman.



    As a person he has a lot to learn from Buffet and Gates.



    Doesn't really figure highly in my decision to buy Apple products. Whether the CEO gives a dime to charity is really immaterial to the product.



    Steve has always been an arrogant SOB (and also right about most things.) But over the past 8+ years look at what has rolled out of Cupertino under his watch.



    Quite frankly, SJ can go on with whatever personality he likes. If anything, it seems to help with his creativity. I'm all for it.



    This whole issue of his illness and how that affected the stock is absolutely peanuts in light of what he has achieved under Apple. It actually seems like it'll blow over in due course. Let those that have an issue with it file the appropriate claims. Smart money says Steve was acting lawfully and Apple covered its legal bases on the matter. So far the law says no wrong was done. But aparently Steve's "unique position" (whatever that means) calls for a specialized application of the law (mostly by laypeople.) That sounds rather unwise and faintly dangerous.



    As for Warren Buffet, he's entitled like everyone else. He's still kicking around it seems. Not sure, however, whether tomorrow people will have remembered what he said. Oh well.
Sign In or Register to comment.