Exactly my point. "Do a little research on this guy."? THAT was my point, you don't need to do any research for Steve Jobs to be a familiar name. Plus you sound like you have anger issues... easy.... why are people so prone to getting irate when blogging. Something about being more anonymous behind a screen name sure can make people have an unhealthy edge. \
who is angry, I was emphasizing his known image in the business world. You the one who is getting emotional and assuming whatever in your head, not my fault you are sensitive.
Stated many times in this forum, nothing to get emotional about, when providing opinions and having discussions.
Britney Spears is a familiar name is she more influential than Bruce?
Wall Street should know, sorry mate, but they do not and it was evident at the time, with the stock price movement.
To this I say B.S.!!
First off; a persons health is a private matter and should only be addressed publically with their consent. Second; Apples stock slipped with everybody elses stock due to the banking melt down. Third; Apples performance did not slip at all with the so called economic reccesion. In fact Apple has been out doing itself through a tough down turn and with a sick CEO so really you have no basis for your point of view.
Quote:
Steve Jobs health was shareholders issue and WE had a right to know, since his health does affect the company performance.
You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. In any event you can't be much of an investor if you can't see that Apple has literally sailed through the economic downturn with a CEO out of commission. The state of Steves health didn't impact the company one bit. I think you like making moutains out of mole hills.
Quote:
Until a clear heir apparent is named and the secrecy is dropped, shareholders will hold Steve accountable for such behavior.
Now we are on some sort of power trip, time to grow up!!!
The only thing shareholders will be concerned with is profits.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with Steve being human, as WSJ said more about "Openness can be healthy."
In todays world who really gives a damn about what Wall Street or the WSJ says? It is very apparent these guys are motivated by self interests and are hardly concerned about the companies the buy and sell.
It isn't like I don't have personal experience here. The company i worked for was public for a very long time before going private. Such a move brings along a massive change in the mind set of management. They actually focus on the long term.
Frankly I could see Apple benefitting by going private right now. It would remove the influence of greedy investor and set Apple up to work for the long term. Over the last few years the mentality of the Wall Street investor has damaged more companies than it has helped.
First off; a persons health is a private matter and should only be addressed publically with their consent. Second; Apples stock slipped with everybody elses stock due to the banking melt down. Third; Apples performance did not slip at all with the so called economic reccesion. In fact Apple has been out doing itself through a tough down turn and with a sick CEO so really you have no basis for your point of view.
You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. In any event you can't be much of an investor if you can't see that Apple has literally sailed through the economic downturn with a CEO out of commission. The state of Steves health didn't impact the company one bit. I think you like making moutains out of mole hills.
Now we are on some sort of power trip, time to grow up!!!
The only thing shareholders will be concerned with is profits.
In todays world who really gives a damn about what Wall Street or the WSJ says? It is very apparent these guys are motivated by self interests and are hardly concerned about the companies the buy and sell.
It isn't like I don't have personal experience here. The company i worked for was public for a very long time before going private. Such a move brings along a massive change in the mind set of management. They actually focus on the long term.
Frankly I could see Apple benefitting by going private right now. It would remove the influence of greedy investor and set Apple up to work for the long term. Over the last few years the mentality of the Wall Street investor has damaged more companies than it has helped.
Dave
You can give your opinions and and I can disagree, thats the nature of this discussion. I do not count myself as great investor, but I purchased Apple shares in 1999 (commented on this numerous times in this forum) and so I am sitting on a mint for my retirement., so good investor maybe or just lucky.
Please take time to read all my comments, since someone did mention If I wanted him to tell us his complete health issue and I said no, just did not like 'cloak and dagger' scenario.
You assume, I do not have personal experience as well, since I have been involved in 2 start-up companies moving from private to public and seem the issues that are involved at senior management level.
This comment You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. I said health, nothing about the specifics of his health, again no 'cloak and dagger' behavior by the company board.
As for private ownership by who and at what price, it will cost Apple. Private Equity firm providing the funds to take Apple private or Steve/management team undertaking a buyout.
I do not know if I am right or wrong, just providing my opinion in non-emotional way on the discussion.
You have to weigh short term fluctuations against long term return. Giving CEOs their privacy might result in short term fluctuations, but it also results in higher long term returns, because you attract a higher quality of person to the role. "Sensitive genius" types typically don't want to be a public spectacle.
You have to weigh short term fluctuations against long term return. Giving CEOs their privacy might result in short term fluctuations, but it also results in higher long term returns, because you attract a higher quality of person to the role. "Sensitive genius" types typically don't want to be a public spectacle.
Thats true statement for SJ, but I do credit him with turning Apple around at a time, when senior management was more reactive, then proactive in their style. Making me happy (or hope happy) in my retirement (good distance off yet).
Apple Corporate Communications is run by a bunch of liars.
If you have ever worked in Silicon Valley, you have met these types before. "Steve has a virus." "Steve is taking antibiotics." (which have no affect on viruses...)
I think its not fair to say Apple should of been more open because this particular example was good for the stock price. Jobs may for example, be considered more critical to apple than this Wasser-guy to the other company (forgive, I am too lazy to look up the other name as I am about to collapse after being up for 22 hours straight after an irregular and lacking nights sleep). Bye. *THUD*
I really can't understand why Apple users would side with 'His Majesty SJ". It is apparent that he has absolutely no concern for stockholders or people who buy his products. He doesn't pay dividends to stockholders; while he's counting the billions he gets from us, he fills his products with sub par and sometimes obsolete parts. He charges obscene prices for computers that aren't 'up to snuff'. He creates havoc for Apple users who aren't able to make decisions because of SJ's insane secrecy policies.
The only thing he has going for him is a good OS which he wields as a club over our heads.
While I wish him well health-wise, I'd like to see him leave his high and mighty post at Apple. It's going to happen someday anyway. Possibly his heirs will make decisions that will give the 'faithful' what they need at a reasonable price. If they don't, I think users will vote with their wallets.
Anyway, I'm fed up with His Majesty's high handedness. When he's out of his place in the clouds (no pun), I'll say, "Good riddance." Please don't tell me that Apple will fold without him. I think Apple is on it's feet, now. If it does fold when he leaves, then that would have happened sooner or later, anyway. He can't rule forever.
Flame me; tell me I'm wrong; however, if you do so, tell me why we should revere a megalomaniac like SJ.
Regardless it is a personal decision. What one decides right wrong or indifferent is a deeply personal matter. There is no question whatever the decision is it will affect others. So shall many other events in life. If this information effects the way one handles one's finances those are the facts and they will not change. In the words of a leader of the past Quote "Get to heck out of the kitchen if you do not like the heat " End quote.
Actually Yes,Bruce Wasserstein is one of ICONs in investment industry and when he opens his mouth a look of people listen very carefully. Do a little research on this guy.
With all due respect to your knowledge of this guy, I still agree that it is Apples and Oranges in terms of global recognition of Bruce and Steve.
All the comparisons about SJ compared to the Lazard guy are totally irrelevant.
As customers and enthusiasts we like Steve's work, but the law doesn't distinguish between them and neither should professional investors and the regulators at the SEC.
If you take the public's money to help fund your company you are bound to follow the rules. In short, timely disclosure is required where a matter might be material to shareholders.
Apple, have been a bit too cute with this and shareholders are right to beat the stock around if Apple PR tell them nothing.
I'd accept the earlier point that creative geniuses don't like too much scrutiny, and the micro-managed PR process of Apple news reflects the company's preference for firmly controlling the opportunities for real discussion.
If you don't want scrutiny SJ then the appropriate thing to do is to take the company private.
Flame me; tell me I'm wrong; however, if you do so, tell me why we should revere a megalomaniac like SJ.
mmmm ... let me think ... how about ... there would be no Apple but for SJ? But seriously, no need to be so rude about the guy. No one is making you use Apple equipment nor read about Apple's founder and saviour.
Jobs is known immediately worldwide in business and consumers markets.
Bruce is someone that people have to "research" to become familiar with.
each event has happened in very different economic circumstances. stock markets in general were wildly up and down a few months ago, not just Apples because jobs was sick.
2 different humans, with their own personalities/values. One wants privacy on an illness, the other doesnt mind divulging info. And please dont pick on this point saying he has a duty to shareholders. Fulfilling a duty to shareholders does not have a handbook that says you need to tell them about your personal trials. Respect the fact he is still human. If you were in the same boat, you might not act so 'perfectly'
and all the other points people have pointed out above about industries etc.
Bottom line. What works for one might not work for the other. Thats kinda what we see everyday in live isnt it? Why does it still surprise people?
Possibly his heirs will make decisions that will give the 'faithful' what they need at a reasonable price. If they don't, I think users will vote with their wallets.
I think people have been voting with their wallets.
Ask a thousand people which is a worse condition, (a) an irregular heart beat, or (b) wasting away for months for all the world to see. People -- stockholders, analysts, fanboys, whoever -- have enough innate sense of the difference in prognosis.
"Irregular heart beat" is not heart attack, and frankly even if it were, if you made it to the hospital, you're probably going to be ok. "Irregular heartbeat" can mean a lot of different things, but as a cardiologist, when my patients say "my doctor told me I have an irregular heartbeat" they are talking about atrial fibrillation, a very common arrhythmia that increases the risk of stroke (clots form in the heart and can travel to distant tissues), but the stroke rate can be roughly halved with clot-reducing medicines, and a lot of people have this condition and you don't even know it. If patients don't mean atrial fibrillation when they say "irregular heartbeat," they usually mean something quite benign like an extra heartbeat here and there.
On the other hand, when people see a man waste away over months, everyone -- every physician -- thinks cancer first, and we're not talking the nice ones or the baddies detected early. Usually if you're losing weight like that, the horse is already out of the barn. And while doctors know that a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas is NOT the same thing as the much-dreaded adenocarcinoma (which accounts for most pancreatic cancer and has a 5-year survival rate of only 1%), do most stockholders? Most analysts? The media?
As silly as it sounds, if you could randomize billionaire cult-figure CEOs ALL WITH THE SAME DISEASE to strategy of "openness" versus "Jobsian secrecy," we might have something to talk about.
To me, this has more to do with the market's perceptions of cancer versus "irregular heartbeat," and I happen to agree with the market on this one.
I'd take "irregular heartbeat" any day, even with the risk of stroke, if the alternative is cancer (not otherwise specified) with a 50-# weight loss.
I am an Apple investor. I have been since the stock price was back at 14 a share. I also have no problem with the way Apple handled Jobs illness. As a stockholder I am not entitled to know every little detail of Jobs life. That is why there is a Board of Directors at Apple. Jobs is required to report to the B.O.D. any pertinent information. It is required to make sure Apple is being run well. The B.O.D. told me when Jobs wouldn't running the ship and that it was for health reasons. I am not entitled to know anything else.
Further, I agree comparing the two companies is ridiculous. As somebody else elegantly pointed out: Bob who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Totally disagree, the point was that Apple caused bigger drama with Steve illness, then what was required and this could have been handled much better. As shareholder, I was dismayed at THE lack of information and secrecy behind his illness.
Btw:Lazard is BIG investment firm that handles a LOT of money for private investors and Bruce Wasserstein (he is one of the LEADER in investment industry http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...6/b4048007.htm) is main driver of the investment decisions. By telling the investors of his illness and that it maybe serious, but he is stable, it stops panic and people pulling their funds from the firm.
Steve has to be more upfront with his illness, especially since he is driving force of Apple and it is BUSINESS!
Apple need to have heir-apprant in wings that can take over, if anything happens to Steve. That Cook guy did very well, but not sure if he has the same innovation qualities as Steve.
With all due respect to your knowledge of this guy, I still agree that it is Apples and Oranges in terms of global recognition of Bruce and Steve.
The comparison would be more apt if it was Warren Buffet with a disease, any disease, that had a low survival ratio. Other people in the investment or finance world don't have the same kind of name recognition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I am an Apple investor. I have been since the stock price was back at 14 a share. I also have no problem with the way Apple handled Jobs illness. As a stockholder I am not entitled to know every little detail of Jobs life. That is why there is a Board of Directors at Apple. Jobs is required to report to the B.O.D. any pertinent information. It is required to make sure Apple is being run well. The B.O.D. told me when Jobs wouldn't running the ship and that it was for health reasons. I am not entitled to know anything else.
True, but the illness wasn't a small detail, it was possibly of life or death concern. That's why there is this kind of disagreement.
Comments
Exactly my point. "Do a little research on this guy."? THAT was my point, you don't need to do any research for Steve Jobs to be a familiar name. Plus you sound like you have anger issues... easy.... why are people so prone to getting irate when blogging. Something about being more anonymous behind a screen name sure can make people have an unhealthy edge.
who is angry, I was emphasizing his known image in the business world. You the one who is getting emotional and assuming whatever in your head, not my fault you are sensitive.
Stated many times in this forum, nothing to get emotional about, when providing opinions and having discussions.
Britney Spears is a familiar name is she more influential than Bruce?
...
EDIT: I take back what I said... whoever said "do your research" was right. I should've done my research
Well, that's refreshing! Good for you!
Wall Street should know, sorry mate, but they do not and it was evident at the time, with the stock price movement.
To this I say B.S.!!
First off; a persons health is a private matter and should only be addressed publically with their consent. Second; Apples stock slipped with everybody elses stock due to the banking melt down. Third; Apples performance did not slip at all with the so called economic reccesion. In fact Apple has been out doing itself through a tough down turn and with a sick CEO so really you have no basis for your point of view.
Steve Jobs health was shareholders issue and WE had a right to know, since his health does affect the company performance.
You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. In any event you can't be much of an investor if you can't see that Apple has literally sailed through the economic downturn with a CEO out of commission. The state of Steves health didn't impact the company one bit. I think you like making moutains out of mole hills.
Until a clear heir apparent is named and the secrecy is dropped, shareholders will hold Steve accountable for such behavior.
Now we are on some sort of power trip, time to grow up!!!
The only thing shareholders will be concerned with is profits.
This has nothing to do with Steve being human, as WSJ said more about "Openness can be healthy."
In todays world who really gives a damn about what Wall Street or the WSJ says? It is very apparent these guys are motivated by self interests and are hardly concerned about the companies the buy and sell.
It isn't like I don't have personal experience here. The company i worked for was public for a very long time before going private. Such a move brings along a massive change in the mind set of management. They actually focus on the long term.
Frankly I could see Apple benefitting by going private right now. It would remove the influence of greedy investor and set Apple up to work for the long term. Over the last few years the mentality of the Wall Street investor has damaged more companies than it has helped.
Dave
To this I say B.S.!!
First off; a persons health is a private matter and should only be addressed publically with their consent. Second; Apples stock slipped with everybody elses stock due to the banking melt down. Third; Apples performance did not slip at all with the so called economic reccesion. In fact Apple has been out doing itself through a tough down turn and with a sick CEO so really you have no basis for your point of view.
You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. In any event you can't be much of an investor if you can't see that Apple has literally sailed through the economic downturn with a CEO out of commission. The state of Steves health didn't impact the company one bit. I think you like making moutains out of mole hills.
Now we are on some sort of power trip, time to grow up!!!
The only thing shareholders will be concerned with is profits.
In todays world who really gives a damn about what Wall Street or the WSJ says? It is very apparent these guys are motivated by self interests and are hardly concerned about the companies the buy and sell.
It isn't like I don't have personal experience here. The company i worked for was public for a very long time before going private. Such a move brings along a massive change in the mind set of management. They actually focus on the long term.
Frankly I could see Apple benefitting by going private right now. It would remove the influence of greedy investor and set Apple up to work for the long term. Over the last few years the mentality of the Wall Street investor has damaged more companies than it has helped.
Dave
You can give your opinions and and I can disagree, thats the nature of this discussion. I do not count myself as great investor, but I purchased Apple shares in 1999 (commented on this numerous times in this forum) and so I am sitting on a mint for my retirement., so good investor maybe or just lucky.
Please take time to read all my comments, since someone did mention If I wanted him to tell us his complete health issue and I said no, just did not like 'cloak and dagger' scenario.
You assume, I do not have personal experience as well, since I have been involved in 2 start-up companies moving from private to public and seem the issues that are involved at senior management level.
This comment You are so wrong here, he has the same rights as anybody else to private and secure health care. I said health, nothing about the specifics of his health, again no 'cloak and dagger' behavior by the company board.
As for private ownership by who and at what price, it will cost Apple. Private Equity firm providing the funds to take Apple private or Steve/management team undertaking a buyout.
I do not know if I am right or wrong, just providing my opinion in non-emotional way on the discussion.
You have to weigh short term fluctuations against long term return. Giving CEOs their privacy might result in short term fluctuations, but it also results in higher long term returns, because you attract a higher quality of person to the role. "Sensitive genius" types typically don't want to be a public spectacle.
Thats true statement for SJ, but I do credit him with turning Apple around at a time, when senior management was more reactive, then proactive in their style. Making me happy (or hope happy) in my retirement (good distance off yet).
If you have ever worked in Silicon Valley, you have met these types before. "Steve has a virus." "Steve is taking antibiotics." (which have no affect on viruses...)
Outright lying.
Messenger enters bearing bad news: stock drops.
Messenger enters bearing good news: stock drops.
Messenger enters bearing indifferent news: stock drops.
Messenger enters bearing bad news which he thinks is good news: stock drops.
The only thing he has going for him is a good OS which he wields as a club over our heads.
While I wish him well health-wise, I'd like to see him leave his high and mighty post at Apple. It's going to happen someday anyway. Possibly his heirs will make decisions that will give the 'faithful' what they need at a reasonable price. If they don't, I think users will vote with their wallets.
Anyway, I'm fed up with His Majesty's high handedness. When he's out of his place in the clouds (no pun), I'll say, "Good riddance." Please don't tell me that Apple will fold without him. I think Apple is on it's feet, now. If it does fold when he leaves, then that would have happened sooner or later, anyway. He can't rule forever.
Flame me; tell me I'm wrong; however, if you do so, tell me why we should revere a megalomaniac like SJ.
That may be cold and unfeeling but " grow-up "
said? Job' health is not stable and his condition continues
to deteriorate until and if he can get an organ transplant.
So you think the stock would have dropped only one percent?
Actually Yes,Bruce Wasserstein is one of ICONs in investment industry and when he opens his mouth a look of people listen very carefully. Do a little research on this guy.
With all due respect to your knowledge of this guy, I still agree that it is Apples and Oranges in terms of global recognition of Bruce and Steve.
As customers and enthusiasts we like Steve's work, but the law doesn't distinguish between them and neither should professional investors and the regulators at the SEC.
If you take the public's money to help fund your company you are bound to follow the rules. In short, timely disclosure is required where a matter might be material to shareholders.
Apple, have been a bit too cute with this and shareholders are right to beat the stock around if Apple PR tell them nothing.
I'd accept the earlier point that creative geniuses don't like too much scrutiny, and the micro-managed PR process of Apple news reflects the company's preference for firmly controlling the opportunities for real discussion.
If you don't want scrutiny SJ then the appropriate thing to do is to take the company private.
Flame me; tell me I'm wrong; however, if you do so, tell me why we should revere a megalomaniac like SJ.
mmmm ... let me think ... how about ... there would be no Apple but for SJ? But seriously, no need to be so rude about the guy. No one is making you use Apple equipment nor read about Apple's founder and saviour.
Bruce is someone that people have to "research" to become familiar with.
each event has happened in very different economic circumstances. stock markets in general were wildly up and down a few months ago, not just Apples because jobs was sick.
2 different humans, with their own personalities/values. One wants privacy on an illness, the other doesnt mind divulging info. And please dont pick on this point saying he has a duty to shareholders. Fulfilling a duty to shareholders does not have a handbook that says you need to tell them about your personal trials. Respect the fact he is still human. If you were in the same boat, you might not act so 'perfectly'
and all the other points people have pointed out above about industries etc.
Bottom line. What works for one might not work for the other. Thats kinda what we see everyday in live isnt it? Why does it still surprise people?
Possibly his heirs will make decisions that will give the 'faithful' what they need at a reasonable price. If they don't, I think users will vote with their wallets.
I think people have been voting with their wallets.
"Irregular heart beat" is not heart attack, and frankly even if it were, if you made it to the hospital, you're probably going to be ok. "Irregular heartbeat" can mean a lot of different things, but as a cardiologist, when my patients say "my doctor told me I have an irregular heartbeat" they are talking about atrial fibrillation, a very common arrhythmia that increases the risk of stroke (clots form in the heart and can travel to distant tissues), but the stroke rate can be roughly halved with clot-reducing medicines, and a lot of people have this condition and you don't even know it. If patients don't mean atrial fibrillation when they say "irregular heartbeat," they usually mean something quite benign like an extra heartbeat here and there.
On the other hand, when people see a man waste away over months, everyone -- every physician -- thinks cancer first, and we're not talking the nice ones or the baddies detected early. Usually if you're losing weight like that, the horse is already out of the barn. And while doctors know that a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas is NOT the same thing as the much-dreaded adenocarcinoma (which accounts for most pancreatic cancer and has a 5-year survival rate of only 1%), do most stockholders? Most analysts? The media?
As silly as it sounds, if you could randomize billionaire cult-figure CEOs ALL WITH THE SAME DISEASE to strategy of "openness" versus "Jobsian secrecy," we might have something to talk about.
To me, this has more to do with the market's perceptions of cancer versus "irregular heartbeat," and I happen to agree with the market on this one.
I'd take "irregular heartbeat" any day, even with the risk of stroke, if the alternative is cancer (not otherwise specified) with a 50-# weight loss.
Dr. Ben
Further, I agree comparing the two companies is ridiculous. As somebody else elegantly pointed out: Bob who?
Totally disagree, the point was that Apple caused bigger drama with Steve illness, then what was required and this could have been handled much better. As shareholder, I was dismayed at THE lack of information and secrecy behind his illness.
Btw:Lazard is BIG investment firm that handles a LOT of money for private investors and Bruce Wasserstein (he is one of the LEADER in investment industry http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...6/b4048007.htm) is main driver of the investment decisions. By telling the investors of his illness and that it maybe serious, but he is stable, it stops panic and people pulling their funds from the firm.
Steve has to be more upfront with his illness, especially since he is driving force of Apple and it is BUSINESS!
Apple need to have heir-apprant in wings that can take over, if anything happens to Steve. That Cook guy did very well, but not sure if he has the same innovation qualities as Steve.
P.S. Steve will know Bruce Wasserstein very well and vice versa, they both Billionaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Wasserstein) and very succcessful business men!
With all due respect to your knowledge of this guy, I still agree that it is Apples and Oranges in terms of global recognition of Bruce and Steve.
The comparison would be more apt if it was Warren Buffet with a disease, any disease, that had a low survival ratio. Other people in the investment or finance world don't have the same kind of name recognition.
I am an Apple investor. I have been since the stock price was back at 14 a share. I also have no problem with the way Apple handled Jobs illness. As a stockholder I am not entitled to know every little detail of Jobs life. That is why there is a Board of Directors at Apple. Jobs is required to report to the B.O.D. any pertinent information. It is required to make sure Apple is being run well. The B.O.D. told me when Jobs wouldn't running the ship and that it was for health reasons. I am not entitled to know anything else.
True, but the illness wasn't a small detail, it was possibly of life or death concern. That's why there is this kind of disagreement.