Do not confuse the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. with the performance of AAPL stock. Though they are correlated. They are not the same.
Apple Inc. is financially better off today than it was when AAPL was at $200/share. The share price of AAPL is a speculative value based on what investors are willing to pay, based on Apple Inc. financial performance. (And other things that Apple itself can not control.) However, Apple financial performance is not based on the price of AAPL shares. Apple Inc. is not dependent upon it's market cap (total shares x value of share) to secure loans to run the company. Therefore, AAPL shares dropping 20 or 30% will not affect the financial performance of the company to make money. AAPL can drop 20% just base on investors only willing to pay 15 to 20X earnings for AAPL shares (instead of 25 to 30X). This would have no impact on the ability of Apple Inc. to make a profit.
Steve Jobs not to returning to Apple Inc (after his medical leave) will for sure have a great impact on AAPL share price. But not necessarily impact the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. At least not in the near future.
But a delay in release of "Snow Leopard" might have a great impact on the financial performance of Apple Inc. And may have very little impact on it's share price.
For sure Apple board would have to legally report any delay in "Snow Leopard". But it's questionable as to whether Apple board had to legally report that Steve Jobs MAY not return to Apple Inc. For what ever health reasons. (Though they may have to legally report that Steve Job WILL not be returning, once they knew for sure.) As Steve Jobs returning or not will have very little affect on the financial performance of Apple Inc. in the near future.
And so far the board has been right. Apple Inc. financial performance has not been affected, given the condition of the economy, in the absence of Steve Jobs.
I'm not confusing anything. Stock prices are very important to companies. The higher the stock, the more leverage they have in negotiation deals with companies they may want to buy or invest in, as much of that is often done with stock as a partial portion of payment.
It also plays an important part of retaining executives and other key employees.
So yes, stock price has importance aside from the success of the company otherwise.
We know that Apple has products in the pipeline. That would have to be the case. But after those products roll out over the next year, what happens if he's not around? It's been agreed that he exerts an almost fanatical amount of pressure to get a product, service etc. exactly right, or, that is, the way he thinks it should be.
If he's not there to continue that, is there someone else who will do that? Is there someone else there that COULD do that? Not just from the frame of competence, but from the frame of sheer power within the company. No one questions that SJ will get his way, no matter what. Is anyone else imbued with that same amount of authority and, I hesitate to say it, but I have to, reverence?
You haven't actually disagreed with what I said, as I've been saying here all along, that's its not clear as to how much information the board needed to release. I'm just saying that from a publicity standpoint, they could have handled this better.
1) Is there a map or somewhere you can see where 900 MHz is active? I'm sure SF and NYC suck, but LA/Santa Monica isn't breaking any speed records.
2) The sad part about this whole thing about Steve's health is that the shareholders don't really care about STEVE. They care whether his death or incapacitation would make them lose money. That's really it.
I guess I'm a little surprised by that. To me, it had seemed pretty obvious that he was going for some kind of major surgery. The actual surgery he got came as quite a surprise, though, and I'd assumed he was going to get his surgery toward the beginning of the 6 months and not toward the end (but it was a transplant, of course, and that's one whose timing you obviously don't get to pick).
One of the problems here is that people are assuming Mr Jobs himself had an accurate handle on his illness and was simply deliberately misleading us. We know he's a very strong-willed person, but we also hear stories that he's had ideas about health that were... not necessarily evidence based. I remember reading "The PIxar Touch" and it mentioned that when he was young (working at Atari, if memory serves?) they had to put him on night duty. He'd decided that a frutarian diet meant he didn't need to take showers. And then when he got this cancer years ago, we heard reports that he initially thought he could fix it once again with a special diet.
Sometimes, especially strong-willed people make the mistake of thinking they can solve all their problems with willpower. They resist the testing that allows their doctors to find out what's going on, they use selective hearing, and they shop around for opinions they like. Because no matter how great a man, he's still human, and he becomes ever more human when the topic at hand is his own possibly-imminent mortality. If you've never been in that position, don't underestimate how scary it is.
The messages we've had from Apple over the past couple of years likely do not represent a conspiracy of deception from a man (and company) that knew full well what his health status was. It's a very human story of a man with an illness, his evolving understanding of that illness, and how he comes to grip with it. We are not even assured that he has. (Emotionally, I mean). But I think it's a pretty safe assumption after the kind of surgery he had. You never know, though, unless you talk to him; and sometimes, not even then. Sometimes the patient himself doesn't know.
Hopefully, it ends up more happily that Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", but I think every Apple fan who thinks he has an opinion about this situation should read that story. It's a short story, not too long.
And to everyone, no matter what your opinion is... remember the bottom line is that we wish the man well. I don't know if the SEC rules somehow supervene over a man's right to privacy. If they do,,, well, they do. Personally, though, I don't feel like I have some innate right to know the details of the man's health. I'm not a stock-holder; just a fan. I agree with a previous poster, though: if you think you're not being well taken care of, you had the option to sell your shares. Do it. Right now, at least, it doesn't seem like anyone has a reason to complain. And the future, as everyone knows who has seen tragedy and struggled desperately to be the first person to think of a way to turn back time... well, the future isn't ours to command. But if you hold on to your shares and they tank, it'll be hard to argue that you didn't have ample warning (though no doubt we'll hear that precise argument, made most stridently, and here in these forums).
Peace, friends. Read the Tolstoy.
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
To say that he was ill enough to need some medium length treatment and recovery is something else.
And for Apple and SJ to have stated so emphatically that he would come back, it showed the world that his illness was such that it would be taken care of. His actual illness was more serious, and there was no guarantee that he could even have gotten a transplant on time. There never is. People do die waiting, and sometimes cancer spreads rapidly, so that even being on a list is not a guarantee that he would be alive if a liver became available, or, that he wouldn't be so ill that a transplant couldn't be warranted.
I'm finding it to be so interesting that the forums have moved from being skeptical about him being severely ill, and even angry with people who suggested it, to being so confident that they expected it because they're now angry about the idea that people think that Apple should have let us know what so many earlier denied, but are now so happy to accept.
They might have indeed handled it better. Speaking for myself however, I'm of really no opinion on that. I'd like to first know some of the reasons (and not speculation) behind the board's decision. I'm under the impression that they probably knew beforehand that there might be some fallout from this, and that their decision followed a weighed strategy of some kind. I'm curious to see what it was.
Do we know anything about this?
I can only assume that Apple and SJ consulted the company's attorneys.
Knowing all about Jobs's obsession with privacy, they would have biased their opinions in favor of that. I'm not saying, when I use the term biased, that they did something wrong. I'm saying that most issues can be biased in one way or the other. If SJ was one of those people who felt that everyone should know everything about him all the time, the attorneys would have advised them one way. With his penchant for secrecy, they gave advice on how to maintain it.
But in doing so, they would have had to keep within the reporting rules. Apple tends to live at the edge of those rules. That's fine from a legal standpoint as long as they don't have one foot so far off so that they fall.
I'm just concerned about the publicity fallout here.
2) The sad part about this whole thing about Steve's health is that the shareholders don't really care about STEVE. They care whether his death or incapacitation would make them lose money. That's really it.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
Well, but there is a lot of that. Some people on forums just get mad, and express things that way.
But in every article I've read in which they talk about this, whether they agree with how Apple has handled it or not, they always wish SJ well and hope for a full recovery. I've never seen anything else.
Investors must buy and sell. That's what keeps the world's finances going. It's part of trade.
but you can look at what a company and it's leaders do in an objective way, while hoping that someone who is ill will get better.
I suppose there are some mean people out there as well who are shorting the stock while hoping that he dies or something, but they are in a small minority.
We get people saying terrible things about Gates and others as well. look at how some people reacted to buffet's response to a question on this. Mad! they could have just said that they disagree with his opinion.
Heres a new article about this that came out today.
You'll notice that lawyers are divided on this issue as I've said. his importance to the company is also stated here.
Please don't "flame" those quoted in the article here because someone doesn't agree with their opinion. That's not necessary. The article just shows that this isn't so simple.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
The stars WAS the edit.
It's nice to see you again.
It looks to me that a lot of people here are arguing. I'm just being objective. Some people don't seem to like that. That's not my fault.
You don't have to be impertinent upon a rare appearance.
Buffett is wrong. SJ doesn't work for me and knowing of his personal health is none of my or anyone else's business. In fact, I don't even want to know. The shareholders agreed on a method to be informed and that's enough.
I agree, Buffet is clearly wrong. Apple had a "succession plan" in place and executed it with Cook filling in temporarily (or possibly permanently). Buffet has been dead wrong about a lot of things recently.
I came back to read this forum since macrumors is blocked by my college firewall (due to a thread about iPhone parent controls no less).
This thread is evidence of my reasons for leaving. Ranting idiots who have their noses so far up Apple's arse it gives new meaning to the word AppleInsider.
The stories about AT&T have been largely ignored in favour of a comment that dared to portray Apple negatively.
You can't "leave" if you haven't been here long enough to be part of the community. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. 8 posts. Troll.
IMHO it's not a question of loyalty, although I do appreciate your enthusiasm and support for the man. As satisfied (most of us, anyway) Apple users, we do owe him a lot. Fair enough.
We're loyal with our dollars, well Euros in my case. I don't owe anyone anything, except my mother, who gave me life.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
Shareholders are not interested in the intrinsic value of a corporation. They are purely interested in the specific value of their shares.
An increasing majority of shareholders across the markets clamor for more short term share price gains when the techniques to make those gains are clearly not the in the best long term interest of the corporation.
We're loyal with our dollars, well Euros in my case. I don't owe Jobs Jack ....
I think he means by "owe" that if it weren't for Jobs, Apple might not be here today, or at least, there wouldn't be the products from them today that we're buying.
You don't have to dismiss Jobs that strongly either. It's a strange comment.
Comments
Do not confuse the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. with the performance of AAPL stock. Though they are correlated. They are not the same.
Apple Inc. is financially better off today than it was when AAPL was at $200/share. The share price of AAPL is a speculative value based on what investors are willing to pay, based on Apple Inc. financial performance. (And other things that Apple itself can not control.) However, Apple financial performance is not based on the price of AAPL shares. Apple Inc. is not dependent upon it's market cap (total shares x value of share) to secure loans to run the company. Therefore, AAPL shares dropping 20 or 30% will not affect the financial performance of the company to make money. AAPL can drop 20% just base on investors only willing to pay 15 to 20X earnings for AAPL shares (instead of 25 to 30X). This would have no impact on the ability of Apple Inc. to make a profit.
Steve Jobs not to returning to Apple Inc (after his medical leave) will for sure have a great impact on AAPL share price. But not necessarily impact the "financial performance" of Apple Inc. At least not in the near future.
But a delay in release of "Snow Leopard" might have a great impact on the financial performance of Apple Inc. And may have very little impact on it's share price.
For sure Apple board would have to legally report any delay in "Snow Leopard". But it's questionable as to whether Apple board had to legally report that Steve Jobs MAY not return to Apple Inc. For what ever health reasons. (Though they may have to legally report that Steve Job WILL not be returning, once they knew for sure.) As Steve Jobs returning or not will have very little affect on the financial performance of Apple Inc. in the near future.
And so far the board has been right. Apple Inc. financial performance has not been affected, given the condition of the economy, in the absence of Steve Jobs.
I'm not confusing anything. Stock prices are very important to companies. The higher the stock, the more leverage they have in negotiation deals with companies they may want to buy or invest in, as much of that is often done with stock as a partial portion of payment.
It also plays an important part of retaining executives and other key employees.
So yes, stock price has importance aside from the success of the company otherwise.
We know that Apple has products in the pipeline. That would have to be the case. But after those products roll out over the next year, what happens if he's not around? It's been agreed that he exerts an almost fanatical amount of pressure to get a product, service etc. exactly right, or, that is, the way he thinks it should be.
If he's not there to continue that, is there someone else who will do that? Is there someone else there that COULD do that? Not just from the frame of competence, but from the frame of sheer power within the company. No one questions that SJ will get his way, no matter what. Is anyone else imbued with that same amount of authority and, I hesitate to say it, but I have to, reverence?
You haven't actually disagreed with what I said, as I've been saying here all along, that's its not clear as to how much information the board needed to release. I'm just saying that from a publicity standpoint, they could have handled this better.
2) The sad part about this whole thing about Steve's health is that the shareholders don't really care about STEVE. They care whether his death or incapacitation would make them lose money. That's really it.
I guess I'm a little surprised by that. To me, it had seemed pretty obvious that he was going for some kind of major surgery. The actual surgery he got came as quite a surprise, though, and I'd assumed he was going to get his surgery toward the beginning of the 6 months and not toward the end (but it was a transplant, of course, and that's one whose timing you obviously don't get to pick).
One of the problems here is that people are assuming Mr Jobs himself had an accurate handle on his illness and was simply deliberately misleading us. We know he's a very strong-willed person, but we also hear stories that he's had ideas about health that were... not necessarily evidence based. I remember reading "The PIxar Touch" and it mentioned that when he was young (working at Atari, if memory serves?) they had to put him on night duty. He'd decided that a frutarian diet meant he didn't need to take showers. And then when he got this cancer years ago, we heard reports that he initially thought he could fix it once again with a special diet.
Sometimes, especially strong-willed people make the mistake of thinking they can solve all their problems with willpower. They resist the testing that allows their doctors to find out what's going on, they use selective hearing, and they shop around for opinions they like. Because no matter how great a man, he's still human, and he becomes ever more human when the topic at hand is his own possibly-imminent mortality. If you've never been in that position, don't underestimate how scary it is.
The messages we've had from Apple over the past couple of years likely do not represent a conspiracy of deception from a man (and company) that knew full well what his health status was. It's a very human story of a man with an illness, his evolving understanding of that illness, and how he comes to grip with it. We are not even assured that he has. (Emotionally, I mean). But I think it's a pretty safe assumption after the kind of surgery he had. You never know, though, unless you talk to him; and sometimes, not even then. Sometimes the patient himself doesn't know.
Hopefully, it ends up more happily that Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", but I think every Apple fan who thinks he has an opinion about this situation should read that story. It's a short story, not too long.
And to everyone, no matter what your opinion is... remember the bottom line is that we wish the man well. I don't know if the SEC rules somehow supervene over a man's right to privacy. If they do,,, well, they do. Personally, though, I don't feel like I have some innate right to know the details of the man's health. I'm not a stock-holder; just a fan. I agree with a previous poster, though: if you think you're not being well taken care of, you had the option to sell your shares. Do it. Right now, at least, it doesn't seem like anyone has a reason to complain. And the future, as everyone knows who has seen tragedy and struggled desperately to be the first person to think of a way to turn back time... well, the future isn't ours to command. But if you hold on to your shares and they tank, it'll be hard to argue that you didn't have ample warning (though no doubt we'll hear that precise argument, made most stridently, and here in these forums).
Peace, friends. Read the Tolstoy.
I don't think it was obvious at all. If you read all the threads here about this over the past 6 months, you would see that there was a great deal of resistance to the idea that he might be seriously ill to the point that his cancer came back or moved somewhere else.
To say that he was ill enough to need some medium length treatment and recovery is something else.
And for Apple and SJ to have stated so emphatically that he would come back, it showed the world that his illness was such that it would be taken care of. His actual illness was more serious, and there was no guarantee that he could even have gotten a transplant on time. There never is. People do die waiting, and sometimes cancer spreads rapidly, so that even being on a list is not a guarantee that he would be alive if a liver became available, or, that he wouldn't be so ill that a transplant couldn't be warranted.
I'm finding it to be so interesting that the forums have moved from being skeptical about him being severely ill, and even angry with people who suggested it, to being so confident that they expected it because they're now angry about the idea that people think that Apple should have let us know what so many earlier denied, but are now so happy to accept.
Very strange!
Fair enough, and I have no issue with that.
They might have indeed handled it better. Speaking for myself however, I'm of really no opinion on that. I'd like to first know some of the reasons (and not speculation) behind the board's decision. I'm under the impression that they probably knew beforehand that there might be some fallout from this, and that their decision followed a weighed strategy of some kind. I'm curious to see what it was.
Do we know anything about this?
I can only assume that Apple and SJ consulted the company's attorneys.
Knowing all about Jobs's obsession with privacy, they would have biased their opinions in favor of that. I'm not saying, when I use the term biased, that they did something wrong. I'm saying that most issues can be biased in one way or the other. If SJ was one of those people who felt that everyone should know everything about him all the time, the attorneys would have advised them one way. With his penchant for secrecy, they gave advice on how to maintain it.
But in doing so, they would have had to keep within the reporting rules. Apple tends to live at the edge of those rules. That's fine from a legal standpoint as long as they don't have one foot so far off so that they fall.
I'm just concerned about the publicity fallout here.
1)
2) The sad part about this whole thing about Steve's health is that the shareholders don't really care about STEVE. They care whether his death or incapacitation would make them lose money. That's really it.
I see no reason why you can't do both.
I see no reason why you can't do both.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
Well, but there is a lot of that. Some people on forums just get mad, and express things that way.
But in every article I've read in which they talk about this, whether they agree with how Apple has handled it or not, they always wish SJ well and hope for a full recovery. I've never seen anything else.
Investors must buy and sell. That's what keeps the world's finances going. It's part of trade.
but you can look at what a company and it's leaders do in an objective way, while hoping that someone who is ill will get better.
I suppose there are some mean people out there as well who are shorting the stock while hoping that he dies or something, but they are in a small minority.
We get people saying terrible things about Gates and others as well. look at how some people reacted to buffet's response to a question on this. Mad! they could have just said that they disagree with his opinion.
You'll notice that lawyers are divided on this issue as I've said. his importance to the company is also stated here.
Please don't "flame" those quoted in the article here because someone doesn't agree with their opinion. That's not necessary. The article just shows that this isn't so simple.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...,3034262.story
****
Four stars is 'swearing'?
As for the debate, easy.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
I don't know which swear word it is. But it must be a big one.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I can never tell myself.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Four stars is 'swearing'?
As for the debate, easy.
It's Steve's personal and private business. None of anyone else's business. I'd say it falls under doctor patient confidentiality. He stepped aside because he was ill and that was he informed the board that he was ill. That's fair enough.
Without Steve there wouldn't be an Apple around today. I feel confident about that. And when he does die, Apple will slowly die without him. I feel pretty confident about that too.
Mel', do you argue when there's an empty room (or phonebox...) and just you in it? I'm just curious.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Big surprise. Lawyers don't agree. Shock. Horror. Tell me something I don't know.
The stars WAS the edit.
It's nice to see you again.
It looks to me that a lot of people here are arguing. I'm just being objective. Some people don't seem to like that. That's not my fault.
You don't have to be impertinent upon a rare appearance.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...624_212886.htm
Buffett is wrong. SJ doesn't work for me and knowing of his personal health is none of my or anyone else's business. In fact, I don't even want to know. The shareholders agreed on a method to be informed and that's enough.
I agree, Buffet is clearly wrong. Apple had a "succession plan" in place and executed it with Cook filling in temporarily (or possibly permanently). Buffet has been dead wrong about a lot of things recently.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/203361/page/1
Why can't we give steve the same love and conern he gAVE US and give him some quiet breathing room to recover .
dude. We expect more from you dude .
What are you taking about?
I came back to read this forum since macrumors is blocked by my college firewall (due to a thread about iPhone parent controls no less).
This thread is evidence of my reasons for leaving. Ranting idiots who have their noses so far up Apple's arse it gives new meaning to the word AppleInsider.
The stories about AT&T have been largely ignored in favour of a comment that dared to portray Apple negatively.
You can't "leave" if you haven't been here long enough to be part of the community. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. 8 posts. Troll.
IMHO it's not a question of loyalty, although I do appreciate your enthusiasm and support for the man. As satisfied (most of us, anyway) Apple users, we do owe him a lot. Fair enough.
We're loyal with our dollars, well Euros in my case. I don't owe anyone anything, except my mother, who gave me life.
If that was true, the prevailing notion would be "get better Steve. Take your time, Buddy" instead of "why didn't you tell us you secretive bastard?" While I have no way of truly measuring this, shareholders' true motivations are clouded by their intrinsic financial interest in the comporation. Indeed, the endless spewing of analysts is for one fundamental reason -- so shareholders can have an insight into whether they should sell or buy.
Shareholders are not interested in the intrinsic value of a corporation. They are purely interested in the specific value of their shares.
An increasing majority of shareholders across the markets clamor for more short term share price gains when the techniques to make those gains are clearly not the in the best long term interest of the corporation.
Analysts are the worst example of this lot.
We're loyal with our dollars, well Euros in my case. I don't owe Jobs Jack ....
I think he means by "owe" that if it weren't for Jobs, Apple might not be here today, or at least, there wouldn't be the products from them today that we're buying.
You don't have to dismiss Jobs that strongly either. It's a strange comment.