I suppose we could speak with vehemence about a company's "fiduciary responsibility to maximize value and usefulness for it's customers." [No reason it couldn't be a company goal.]
Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.
Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means? Apple is not a bank or trust company. They sell gadgets. They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.
Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...
Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense. I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.
Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense. I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.
Apple's cables are notoriously bad. I'm on the third cable for my iPhone and concerned about the power cable for my MBA. Never had any issue with Thinkpads...
First, how about a reference to the Supreme Court case you're citing? I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than what you're saying.
In any event, "make as much money as possible" is a very vague statement for a number of reasons:
1. It doesn't mention time frame. If I can invest $1 M to earn $ 5 M over a few years, by your logic, I couldn't do that since it would reduce the amount of money I make this year. Obviously, that's not the case.
2. It doesn't consider that shareholders have the right to do what they want with their money. For example, Ben and Jerry's sets aside a significant percentage of profits for charity - with the shareholder's assent. That's perfectly legitimate. In fact, the shareholders could agree to give 100% of income to charity if they wished and the SEC would not be able to stop it.
3. Most importantly, management has very broad discretion in defining how to maximize shareholder return. For example, many companies make donations to charities of various types. The perception is that by being charitable, they will attract enough customers to pay for the contribution. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.
In the end, though, Apple has taken a very high level position that their shareholders are best served by focusing on manufacturing insanely great products. Essentially, they built a business plan based on a relentless focus on meeting customer needs and not allowing day to day profit concerns to interfere with that focus. In their opinion, that is the way to maximize shareholder returns rather than making every decision a purely financial decision. Their plan involves focusing on the product, the customer, and the supply chain - and the profits will flow. Their results for the past 15 years affirm the success of their business plan.
Ives' statement is completely consistent with that. He never said that Apple doesn't care about profits. That would be a stupid statement. He said that from an operational perspective, their motivation is making great products and executing their supply chain well - and the profits will result. That's a very reasonable and justifiable position to take.
I basically agree with all you say, so I believe you misunderstand what I was trying to say, which boils down to "this report is quite inaccurately worded"+some considerations on economy that you've expanded on
About Ben&Jerry's, I did not know that. Yaye, good reason to buy ice cream
Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.
Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means? Apple is not a bank or trust company. They sell gadgets. They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.
You just don't get it. If that duty is added to the corporate bylaws, then the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that since the Board's fiduciary responsibility applies to following the Corporate Bylaws. So, if that is an express goal, by inclusion into the bylaws, then a fiduciary responsibility applies.
[edit: If, It... they mean roughly the same thing]
United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.
I look forward to seeing your link to that ruling.
A corporation's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to stakeholders (not just stockholders) to act in their interests and within the guidelines laid out in the articles of incorporation and the law. This would prevent them from acting fraudulently but they do have great latitude in the strategy they pursue. Shareholders get to vote their stock, toss out the board members if they like them, sue them, etc. Despite the theory, stakeholders and stockholders often get screwed just the same.
Considering Apple's Heavy Interest in Design through all of it's products(Anyone remember them telling Google to go fix the Yellow in their Logo?), I can side with Apple on this statement. While Money certainly has an influence in decision, the designers must have some sort of enjoyment in being part of a legacy, which easily has greater value than money itself.
Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.
Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means? Apple is not a bank or trust company. They sell gadgets. They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.
As usual, you're blathering about things you don't understand.
For example, Apple carries a warranty for the products. That creates a fiduciary responsibility. There's also a warranty of mercantability which would add a fiduciary responsibility. And, then, of course, there's the responsibility to handle products properly and so on.
Human beings need food and water to survive. If you don't have that you die. Does that mean a human beings sole reason for existence is to intake food and water? Of course not. Same with companies. Would be near impossible to stay in business without generating profits but is that why someone starts a business? It's not because they have a passion for something, it's because they want to make sh*tloads of money? I call BS on that. Of course I'm not suggesting that people don't want to be well compensated for what they do but notion that money and profit is the sole motivation of the human race is ridiculous.
1. Personal attacks against Shaun earlier in the thread have been removed.
2. Slurpy, I like your post but not the last sentence or two. There's nothing in mcrs's post that warrants being banned, or even given an infraction. It is an expression of an opinion. Not one that I agree with in any way. But without contrary opinions a forum would be a dull place.
3. For the love of God people, "it's" doesn't mean "belonging to it". You want "its".
Let me understand this, you have a problem with my last sentence or two, which to most people points out the obvious, but absolutely no problem with his post, which you define as merely and 'opinion', including this piece:
Shouldn't you use the interest to better the lifes of your slaves working in [as most f4anbois refer to] the third world. Wait, as some f4nbois pointed out, Apple is not under any obligations to do any of this.
ut, hey..., It's SJ, and he is God. He has his own fruity religion with devout followers who ready to part with their money for his designer's off-springs at a moment's notice. You have to have this kind of mentality to make Apple the company it is today after being on life support before His second coming.
Not only is the basis of his post slander and innuendo based on something Jobs may have done 30 years ago, he consistently and regularly defines someone who 1. Likes Apple, or 2. purchases something from Apple in the terms above- which I assume would be most people on this forum and visiting this site, not to mention knowingly spreading debunked lies referring to Apple's 'slavery', the goal of which can only be to get a rise and nothing else. So using terms such as 'f4anbois', 'SJ is God', 'fruity religion' to define people here, not to mention provocative lies, etc constitutes someone who's intention is to have a real discussion, is 'opinion', and doesn't warrant even infraction? Really? I'd like you to clarify how you reconcile this, because I think to me and anyone else it's pretty black and white what this poster is and his intentions on this forum. Insulting everyone on this forum repeatedly, by denigration and mockery, and constantly showing extreme hatred towards this site and everything it stands for is not 'opinion' last time I checked. It's people like him that have turned this place to shit the past little while, before which it was one of the only bastions I can find online where one can have a reasoned, intelligent discussion regarding Apple without an ultra-high troll infestation that sidetrack the discussion with pure garbage like the above, like everywhere else online.
Some more gems..oh, I mean opinion!
Quote:
'It's sad to think that these Apple f4nbois and Ish33ps fail to see that the engines used inside their Porsches and Ferraries are actually a Civic engines used by the masses, ARM chips.'
Apple users you are so proud of apparently are "illiterates"
This is so very funny and sad too. So, now I know who bought a bunch of Apple's products: a bunch of illiterates.
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly
It goes to show how "innovative" Apple really is. Or, if you prefer you can fill in the blank below.
Apple is "innovative" in .............[my personal favorite is: bastardizing other people's products]
This place used to have higher standards for posting. Sad that's not the case anymore and it now openly welcomes those who make it clear what their agenda is.
Slurpy, perhaps you have a point. I used to be a lot more active in moderating the forums and went to great lengths to ensure that discussion stayed on topic and to make sure that out-and-out trolls with no intention in engaging in reasoned debate were banned.
However, I am at a stage in my life where I simply cannot afford to freely give the time required to do that job properly. I asked the site's owners if they would be able to remunerate me but I never received a reply so now all moderation-related emails from this site go straight into my bin without me reading them.
Before yesterday, I hadn't performed any moderation at AI since the switch to the new board platform. I now regret getting involved because it's reminded me how much of my time it sucks up! If you have issues you need to talk to other moderators, sorry.
Comments
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...
Thanks for not reading the thread at all and bringing up something so hilariously wrong.
@ mstone, ClemyNX, Rogifan and Mr H
Thanks for your comments above.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I can't wait until you get banned. It's annoying having to deal with your idiocy.
Just put me on ignore. Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
I suppose we could speak with vehemence about a company's "fiduciary responsibility to maximize value and usefulness for it's customers." [No reason it couldn't be a company goal.]
Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.
Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means? Apple is not a bank or trust company. They sell gadgets. They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...
Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense. I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
you have an axe to grind, and are devoid of even a shred of truth,
your toxic sludge of ignorance,
you're an incredibly unhappy, insecure person
God knows how someone like you hasn't been banned, every single post of yours is nothing but hate
Mods, where the hell are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense. I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.
Apple's cables are notoriously bad. I'm on the third cable for my iPhone and concerned about the power cable for my MBA. Never had any issue with Thinkpads...
If anyone knows of a good third party supplier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's misleading.
First, how about a reference to the Supreme Court case you're citing? I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than what you're saying.
In any event, "make as much money as possible" is a very vague statement for a number of reasons:
1. It doesn't mention time frame. If I can invest $1 M to earn $ 5 M over a few years, by your logic, I couldn't do that since it would reduce the amount of money I make this year. Obviously, that's not the case.
2. It doesn't consider that shareholders have the right to do what they want with their money. For example, Ben and Jerry's sets aside a significant percentage of profits for charity - with the shareholder's assent. That's perfectly legitimate. In fact, the shareholders could agree to give 100% of income to charity if they wished and the SEC would not be able to stop it.
3. Most importantly, management has very broad discretion in defining how to maximize shareholder return. For example, many companies make donations to charities of various types. The perception is that by being charitable, they will attract enough customers to pay for the contribution. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.
In the end, though, Apple has taken a very high level position that their shareholders are best served by focusing on manufacturing insanely great products. Essentially, they built a business plan based on a relentless focus on meeting customer needs and not allowing day to day profit concerns to interfere with that focus. In their opinion, that is the way to maximize shareholder returns rather than making every decision a purely financial decision. Their plan involves focusing on the product, the customer, and the supply chain - and the profits will flow. Their results for the past 15 years affirm the success of their business plan.
Ives' statement is completely consistent with that. He never said that Apple doesn't care about profits. That would be a stupid statement. He said that from an operational perspective, their motivation is making great products and executing their supply chain well - and the profits will result. That's a very reasonable and justifiable position to take.
I basically agree with all you say, so I believe you misunderstand what I was trying to say, which boils down to "this report is quite inaccurately worded"+some considerations on economy that you've expanded on
About Ben&Jerry's, I did not know that. Yaye, good reason to buy ice cream
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.
Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means? Apple is not a bank or trust company. They sell gadgets. They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.
You just don't get it. If that duty is added to the corporate bylaws, then the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that since the Board's fiduciary responsibility applies to following the Corporate Bylaws. So, if that is an express goal, by inclusion into the bylaws, then a fiduciary responsibility applies.
[edit: If, It... they mean roughly the same thing]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He could be at the Olympics scoping out the talent for all we know.
BTW, Thanks for making me aware of Michelle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.
I look forward to seeing your link to that ruling.
A corporation's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to stakeholders (not just stockholders) to act in their interests and within the guidelines laid out in the articles of incorporation and the law. This would prevent them from acting fraudulently but they do have great latitude in the strategy they pursue. Shareholders get to vote their stock, toss out the board members if they like them, sue them, etc. Despite the theory, stakeholders and stockholders often get screwed just the same.
Considering Apple's Heavy Interest in Design through all of it's products(Anyone remember them telling Google to go fix the Yellow in their Logo?), I can side with Apple on this statement. While Money certainly has an influence in decision, the designers must have some sort of enjoyment in being part of a legacy, which easily has greater value than money itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15
... I would presume . . .
I'll agree with you there.
It's no more complicated than the following.
Apple could cut corners and use cheaper parts, reduce their prices, offer less customer service and make more profit.
But they don't.
As usual, you're blathering about things you don't understand.
Apple most certainly does have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers.
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/fiduciary.htm
For example, Apple carries a warranty for the products. That creates a fiduciary responsibility. There's also a warranty of mercantability which would add a fiduciary responsibility. And, then, of course, there's the responsibility to handle products properly and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
It's no more complicated than the following.
Apple could cut corners and use cheaper parts, reduce their prices, offer less customer service and make more profit.
But they don't.
Bullshit, if Apple were to use cheaper parts, reduce their prices or offer less customer service, they would make LESS profits.
Now explain to us how companies that sell shit products are doing it because they are altruistic.
Human beings need food and water to survive. If you don't have that you die. Does that mean a human beings sole reason for existence is to intake food and water? Of course not. Same with companies. Would be near impossible to stay in business without generating profits but is that why someone starts a business? It's not because they have a passion for something, it's because they want to make sh*tloads of money? I call BS on that. Of course I'm not suggesting that people don't want to be well compensated for what they do but notion that money and profit is the sole motivation of the human race is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
1. Personal attacks against Shaun earlier in the thread have been removed.
2. Slurpy, I like your post but not the last sentence or two. There's nothing in mcrs's post that warrants being banned, or even given an infraction. It is an expression of an opinion. Not one that I agree with in any way. But without contrary opinions a forum would be a dull place.
3. For the love of God people, "it's" doesn't mean "belonging to it". You want "its".
Let me understand this, you have a problem with my last sentence or two, which to most people points out the obvious, but absolutely no problem with his post, which you define as merely and 'opinion', including this piece:
Shouldn't you use the interest to better the lifes of your slaves working in [as most f4anbois refer to] the third world. Wait, as some f4nbois pointed out, Apple is not under any obligations to do any of this.
ut, hey..., It's SJ, and he is God. He has his own fruity religion with devout followers who ready to part with their money for his designer's off-springs at a moment's notice. You have to have this kind of mentality to make Apple the company it is today after being on life support before His second coming.
Not only is the basis of his post slander and innuendo based on something Jobs may have done 30 years ago, he consistently and regularly defines someone who 1. Likes Apple, or 2. purchases something from Apple in the terms above- which I assume would be most people on this forum and visiting this site, not to mention knowingly spreading debunked lies referring to Apple's 'slavery', the goal of which can only be to get a rise and nothing else. So using terms such as 'f4anbois', 'SJ is God', 'fruity religion' to define people here, not to mention provocative lies, etc constitutes someone who's intention is to have a real discussion, is 'opinion', and doesn't warrant even infraction? Really? I'd like you to clarify how you reconcile this, because I think to me and anyone else it's pretty black and white what this poster is and his intentions on this forum. Insulting everyone on this forum repeatedly, by denigration and mockery, and constantly showing extreme hatred towards this site and everything it stands for is not 'opinion' last time I checked. It's people like him that have turned this place to shit the past little while, before which it was one of the only bastions I can find online where one can have a reasoned, intelligent discussion regarding Apple without an ultra-high troll infestation that sidetrack the discussion with pure garbage like the above, like everywhere else online.
Some more gems..oh, I mean opinion!
Quote:
'It's sad to think that these Apple f4nbois and Ish33ps fail to see that the engines used inside their Porsches and Ferraries are actually a Civic engines used by the masses, ARM chips.'
Apple users you are so proud of apparently are "illiterates"
This is so very funny and sad too. So, now I know who bought a bunch of Apple's products: a bunch of illiterates.
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly
It goes to show how "innovative" Apple really is. Or, if you prefer you can fill in the blank below.
Apple is "innovative" in .............[my personal favorite is: bastardizing other people's products]
This place used to have higher standards for posting. Sad that's not the case anymore and it now openly welcomes those who make it clear what their agenda is.
However, I am at a stage in my life where I simply cannot afford to freely give the time required to do that job properly. I asked the site's owners if they would be able to remunerate me but I never received a reply so now all moderation-related emails from this site go straight into my bin without me reading them.
Before yesterday, I hadn't performed any moderation at AI since the switch to the new board platform. I now regret getting involved because it's reminded me how much of my time it sucks up! If you have issues you need to talk to other moderators, sorry.