SpotOn, seriously cut back on the sugar, the caffeine and post political responses where they belong - not in these threads please. There. See? Polite, civil discourse, not diatribe and name-calling. So honor the effort made with one of your own and let it drop. Or edit, make it a def tongue-in-cheek msg to disarm the obvious political slant. Be creative!
I am fairly certain he squirms when he sees this type of thing.
I seriously doubt that. Most successful CEOs are egomaniacs. I doubt Jobs is much different. Not that it's a bad thing - I think you have to be somewhat an egomaniac to be that successful.
I agree that many of the posts on this thread are off-topic, but I have to say (and I hate to generalize), but Americans routinely mix up definitions of Socialism.
They talk about European health care plans and business, for example, and say, 'We don't want any of that European Socialism!"
And in saying that, they are talking about Soviet models of Socialism... when in reality, today most European economic models (and that is what we're talking about, Economic Models), are a form of Market Socialism (combining co-operative and state ownership models with free market exchange).
Modern social democrats are all about 'selective' nationalisation of 'key' national industries in mixed economies, while 'keeping' private ownership of capital and 'private business'.
In essence, Steve Jobs could be a 'Socialist' (read: modern social democrat) and still have 'created that $40 billion.'
Okay, so back to the topic at hand... how wonderful Jobs is as a CEO. Yay!
I seriously doubt that. Most successful CEOs are egomaniacs. I doubt Jobs is much different. Not that it's a bad thing - I think you have to be somewhat an egomaniac to be that successful.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
AAPL should be considered as a possible component of a diversified investment strategy, not an "if you have a few extra bucks, buy AAPL" approach.
That said, I am quite satisfied with my ROI of AAPL. I bought in early 2005.
I do not expect this stock to perform the next five years as it has the previous five, but frankly, I don't see it underperforming the S&P 500 or Russell 2000.
It is not a bad place to squirrel away some dough.
Back on topic, I am getting a little concerned about all this adulation. Not that SJ asks for it. Indeed, I am fairly certain he squirms when he sees this type of thing.
Steve Jobs long ago stopped paying attention to the dozens of articles a month that get printed, one way or another. In the end he knows the more talk about him & Apple is just more free publicity.
To put it another way, what if Your Business received as many online and print articles EVERY MONTH. You would be absolutely jumping for joy.
I'm not worried that Steve will wind up like my departed relatives, because the people and methods he installed at Apple on his return have been instilled into the thousands of top design people in software, hardware and marketing.
A new forceful leader in pursuit of excellence will carry it onward.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
Cringely also likened Bill Gates to the Emir of Kuwait and Steve Jobs to Saddam Hussein: "Gates wants to run his particular subculture with an iron hand, dispensing flawed justice as he sees fit, and generally keeping the bucks flowing in, not out. Jobs wants to control the world. He ... wants to attack, to bring death to the infidels. By the usual standards of Silicon Valley CEOs, where job satisfaction is measured in dollars ... Steve Jobs is crazy." (From "Accidental Empires")
All witten nearly 20 years ago, so check current realities for continued accuracy.
Also, FWIW, Jobs has not made a political contribution in over five years. When he did make them, they were to Democratic candidates, and the DNC.
Nobody knows for sure what party line Steve supports in the voting booth, but I tell you this though, there are a lot of company leaders that play in public whatever party is popular as to avoid losing leadership, but in private they vote what affects their bottom line.
Steve is obviously a opportunist capitalist and not a socialist, or else that $40 billion wouldn't have been created in the first place.
If the government decided that taking over Apple was in the best interests of the country, I'm sure he raise bloody hell.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
to use "robert x. cringely ("Mark Stephens was born in 1953, in Apple Creek, Ohio.[1][2] He is married to Mary Alyce.[3] Stephens was the third author to contribute to Infoworld under the Cringely pseudonym" as a resource says a lot about how serious to take any feedback credited to the (?) man....
... "In 1998, it was revealed[6][7][8] that Stephens had falsely claimed to have received a Ph.D. from Stanford University and to have been employed as a professor there. Stanford's administration stated that while Stephens had been a teaching assistant and had pursued course work toward a doctoral degree, he had never held a professorship nor had he been awarded the degree...Asked about the resulting controversy, Stephens told a reporter: "[A] new fact has now become painfully clear to me: you don't say you have the Ph.D unless you really have the Ph.D."[9]........ DUH
...and although I assume your post is a vote for mr J., i'm not sure "elitist prick" describes a man who has devoted his life to his passion, as a few sports greats/acting greats/corporate greats have also done, protecting their vision from dilution by snipers of all brands who can call names, ridicule decisions, spin results in service of????? maybe in denial of their own lack of achievement on any scale...frosts my whatevers to keep hearing cheap shots from the peanut gallery, a spirit discouraged by our entrepreneurial prof but observed in almost every forum our assignments take us. sad, sad, sad.
It all has to do with greed in the Corporate environment. Just look what happened last week when all the executives at Apple received their stock options:
Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, who was recently awarded $17 million in stock options, sold 300,000 shares for $240 per share. Each was worth $72.01 when granted, generating $68.8 million, $32 million of which will be set aside for taxes.
Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and Senior Vice President of Retail Ron Johnson each sold 200,000 shares for $46 million, and Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller sold 150,000 shares for $34.5 million.
Senior Vice Presidents Bertrand Serlet, Robert Mansfield, and Scott Forstall also exercised their options, but only to cover their tax dues.
Where is their belief in the company? Nowhere they cashed it all in when they got it as if they were only paid $1 a year like Steve. Whereas Serlet, Mansfield, and Forestall only sold enough to pay the taxes. I won't vote for Board Members who receive options as payment for services and Cash them all in immediately upon receipt again no faith in the company they are supposed to be governing.
Another great example is an Executive at once dominant computer Company Unisys who wishes to get 1st class passage to Washington for he and his wife to be paid for by the Corporation so they can see the Cherry Blossoms, or the executives who took bonuses of the bailout monies supplied by congress - Greed - Pure Greed
Doesn't surprise me that SJ gave to Democrats in the past. Many of the very wealthy are quite liberal. Then there's a huge chunk of conservatives that run small businesses and want govt. to set the rules and get out of the way.
I don't think government would interest a perfectionist like SJ. He certainly wouldn't run the govt. like the party he contributed to. I'm not even sure the skill sets transpose. SJ is so results oriented and you can see his stamp on every single product that comes out of Cupertino.
It's interesting that most of the books on early Apple showcase his flaws. You can see the brilliance, but his personality traits often created negative unintended consequences. But a couple decades later, those same traits turned out to be the 'correct' ones that propelled Apple into the stratosphere. We've gone from the common knowledge of Apple should open up their hardware and/or sell only software to Apple's competitive advantage arises from controlling both.
Comments
SpotOn, seriously cut back on the sugar, the caffeine and post political responses where they belong - not in these threads please. There. See? Polite, civil discourse, not diatribe and name-calling. So honor the effort made with one of your own and let it drop. Or edit, make it a def tongue-in-cheek msg to disarm the obvious political slant. Be creative!
Ditto.
I am fairly certain he squirms when he sees this type of thing.
I seriously doubt that. Most successful CEOs are egomaniacs. I doubt Jobs is much different. Not that it's a bad thing - I think you have to be somewhat an egomaniac to be that successful.
They talk about European health care plans and business, for example, and say, 'We don't want any of that European Socialism!"
And in saying that, they are talking about Soviet models of Socialism... when in reality, today most European economic models (and that is what we're talking about, Economic Models), are a form of Market Socialism (combining co-operative and state ownership models with free market exchange).
Modern social democrats are all about 'selective' nationalisation of 'key' national industries in mixed economies, while 'keeping' private ownership of capital and 'private business'.
In essence, Steve Jobs could be a 'Socialist' (read: modern social democrat) and still have 'created that $40 billion.'
Okay, so back to the topic at hand... how wonderful Jobs is as a CEO. Yay!
I seriously doubt that. Most successful CEOs are egomaniacs. I doubt Jobs is much different. Not that it's a bad thing - I think you have to be somewhat an egomaniac to be that successful.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
If you have any extra liquidity, invest in Apple.
AAPL should be considered as a possible component of a diversified investment strategy, not an "if you have a few extra bucks, buy AAPL" approach.
That said, I am quite satisfied with my ROI of AAPL. I bought in early 2005.
I do not expect this stock to perform the next five years as it has the previous five, but frankly, I don't see it underperforming the S&P 500 or Russell 2000.
It is not a bad place to squirrel away some dough.
IF Steve Jobs was running the country, we would have cash surplus of 40 trillion!!
If Steve Jobs was running the country, we'd all be driving Ford Model T's @ $100K/piece
Back on topic, I am getting a little concerned about all this adulation. Not that SJ asks for it. Indeed, I am fairly certain he squirms when he sees this type of thing.
Steve Jobs long ago stopped paying attention to the dozens of articles a month that get printed, one way or another. In the end he knows the more talk about him & Apple is just more free publicity.
To put it another way, what if Your Business received as many online and print articles EVERY MONTH. You would be absolutely jumping for joy.
I'm not worried that Steve will wind up like my departed relatives, because the people and methods he installed at Apple on his return have been instilled into the thousands of top design people in software, hardware and marketing.
A new forceful leader in pursuit of excellence will carry it onward.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
Cringely also likened Bill Gates to the Emir of Kuwait and Steve Jobs to Saddam Hussein: "Gates wants to run his particular subculture with an iron hand, dispensing flawed justice as he sees fit, and generally keeping the bucks flowing in, not out. Jobs wants to control the world. He ... wants to attack, to bring death to the infidels. By the usual standards of Silicon Valley CEOs, where job satisfaction is measured in dollars ... Steve Jobs is crazy." (From "Accidental Empires")
All witten nearly 20 years ago, so check current realities for continued accuracy.
Also, FWIW, Jobs has not made a political contribution in over five years. When he did make them, they were to Democratic candidates, and the DNC.
1. Limited capital to enable a 'next breakthrough' (they attempted a 'next copy' which is not good enough.
2. No Jonathan Ives type designer on board
3. No wide-scope CEO to have 'future vision'
4. Competitors on all sides, iPhone at the high end, Moto/Samsung/Nokia on low priced models, etc.
Nobody knows for sure what party line Steve supports in the voting booth, but I tell you this though, there are a lot of company leaders that play in public whatever party is popular as to avoid losing leadership, but in private they vote what affects their bottom line.
Steve is obviously a opportunist capitalist and not a socialist, or else that $40 billion wouldn't have been created in the first place.
If the government decided that taking over Apple was in the best interests of the country, I'm sure he raise bloody hell.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-companies.jpg
By the way, you don't need to quote my whole post in your response you know.
Steve is a Zen Buddhist (therefore unlikely to be Republican, at least in the United States of God and Jesus and Jerry Falwell) . . . and:
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_...Steve_Jobs.php
Democrat. At one time he even thought about becoming a candidate.
Robert X. Cringely once "called Bill Gates a megalomaniac and Steve Jobs a sociopath, comparing them - vis-Ã*-vis each other's managerial auras - to Stalin versus Hitler."
I can't disagree with that, but I'd say that Jobs is also a megalomaniac. What makes him a great CEO of Apple and visionary (including Pixar) is also what makes him a complete ass. Personally, I don't want a CEO of anything to be relatable to the common person. I want them to be an elitist prick that has confidence that they can get things done because they are they smarter than most of us.
to use "robert x. cringely ("Mark Stephens was born in 1953, in Apple Creek, Ohio.[1][2] He is married to Mary Alyce.[3] Stephens was the third author to contribute to Infoworld under the Cringely pseudonym" as a resource says a lot about how serious to take any feedback credited to the (?) man....
... "In 1998, it was revealed[6][7][8] that Stephens had falsely claimed to have received a Ph.D. from Stanford University and to have been employed as a professor there. Stanford's administration stated that while Stephens had been a teaching assistant and had pursued course work toward a doctoral degree, he had never held a professorship nor had he been awarded the degree...Asked about the resulting controversy, Stephens told a reporter: "[A] new fact has now become painfully clear to me: you don't say you have the Ph.D unless you really have the Ph.D."[9]........ DUH
...and although I assume your post is a vote for mr J., i'm not sure "elitist prick" describes a man who has devoted his life to his passion, as a few sports greats/acting greats/corporate greats have also done, protecting their vision from dilution by snipers of all brands who can call names, ridicule decisions, spin results in service of????? maybe in denial of their own lack of achievement on any scale...frosts my whatevers to keep hearing cheap shots from the peanut gallery, a spirit discouraged by our entrepreneurial prof but observed in almost every forum our assignments take us. sad, sad, sad.
Yeah, it's TechTurd alright. (I think that is the correct name but with so many aliases deleted it's hard to keep track).
IP or your guess?
to use "robert x. Cringely....
wtf??
He can't be that valuable of a CEO if he was only paid a $1 last year.
The measurement is not based on how much he makes or what his net worth is.
Yes Palm is gone because:
1. Limited capital to enable a 'next breakthrough' (they attempted a 'next copy' which is not good enough.
2. No Jonathan Ives type designer on board
3. No wide-scope CEO to have 'future vision'
4. Competitors on all sides, iPhone at the high end, Moto/Samsung/Nokia on low priced models, etc.
May be time for a hostile take over or being bought up by a larger company?
Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, who was recently awarded $17 million in stock options, sold 300,000 shares for $240 per share. Each was worth $72.01 when granted, generating $68.8 million, $32 million of which will be set aside for taxes.
Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and Senior Vice President of Retail Ron Johnson each sold 200,000 shares for $46 million, and Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller sold 150,000 shares for $34.5 million.
Senior Vice Presidents Bertrand Serlet, Robert Mansfield, and Scott Forstall also exercised their options, but only to cover their tax dues.
Where is their belief in the company? Nowhere they cashed it all in when they got it as if they were only paid $1 a year like Steve. Whereas Serlet, Mansfield, and Forestall only sold enough to pay the taxes. I won't vote for Board Members who receive options as payment for services and Cash them all in immediately upon receipt again no faith in the company they are supposed to be governing.
Another great example is an Executive at once dominant computer Company Unisys who wishes to get 1st class passage to Washington for he and his wife to be paid for by the Corporation so they can see the Cherry Blossoms, or the executives who took bonuses of the bailout monies supplied by congress - Greed - Pure Greed
this news never gets old..
.....and neither can Steve.
Right.
Steve's done great things but he does not walk on water and he is a mere mortal.
IP or your guess?
He's been using it since last year.
The measurement is not based on how much he makes or what his net worth is.
icyfog is making a joke, a funny joke at that.
Right.
image: http://www.techpluto.com/wp-content/...teve-jobs1.jpg
Steve's done great things but he does not walk on water and he is a mere mortal.
Man that Now pic is awful on so many levels. Has it been doctored at all because he's one step from looking like Lord Voldemort there.
I don't think government would interest a perfectionist like SJ. He certainly wouldn't run the govt. like the party he contributed to. I'm not even sure the skill sets transpose. SJ is so results oriented and you can see his stamp on every single product that comes out of Cupertino.
It's interesting that most of the books on early Apple showcase his flaws. You can see the brilliance, but his personality traits often created negative unintended consequences. But a couple decades later, those same traits turned out to be the 'correct' ones that propelled Apple into the stratosphere. We've gone from the common knowledge of Apple should open up their hardware and/or sell only software to Apple's competitive advantage arises from controlling both.
It's nice to see SJ exonerated in a big way.