The bizarre campaign against Apple's Tim Cook

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 220

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    And that's the only reason for the stock to go down?





    In the end... yes.


     


    [but then... I'm looking at a span of at least 10 years. You're not one of those damn day traders, are you?]

  • Reply 162 of 220
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

    In the end... yes.


     


    So explain why it's down now while the company IS being run effectively.

  • Reply 163 of 220

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So explain why it's down now while the company IS being run effectively.





    Is it being run effectively for long term viability? Stock price is a view down the tunnel.


     


    That is a question that will be answered over the coming years.


     


    I look at Microsoft and its hefty p/e during the bubble years... and over the last 13 years MSFT has grown into its p/e.


     


    If you wait long enough maybe Apple will grow into its p/e as well... slowly rising as the profits shrink.


     


    Or, investors could be wrong and Apple still has another decade of glory years to come.


     


    We'll see.

  • Reply 164 of 220
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Installing Tim Cook as CEO of Apple is the equivalent of handing a newborn infant the keys to a 2000cc Harley and telling him to compete in a Motocross! He's a bean counter, not a leader. Apple's Fall 2012 product dump under Cook's auspices confused the public by eclipsing Apple products with other Apple products. All steak and no sizzle, it was the most boring, amateurish, and insipid Apple product intro in history! Apple was $705 at that moment in time and 6 months later it's now almost half. The numbers tell the story! How is Tim Cook not responsible for destroying Apple's value?

    To equate Tim Cook with Steve Jobs is a sick joke. Steve's aura had more creativity than Cook's entire being. The least Cook could have done, if he were a businessman of any skill, was give Wall Street the special dividend "investor friendly" company's were issuing in droves last December. But Cook didn't have the smarts or antennae for that either. Tim Cook is a tool!

    Lastly, this quote unquote "Dilger editorial" reads like a defense of Tim Cook written by his mommy.
  • Reply 165 of 220
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post



    Installing Tim Cook as CEO of Apple is the equivalent of handing a newborn infant the keys to a 2000cc Harley and telling him to compete in a Motocross! He's a bean counter, not a leader. Apple's Fall 2012 product dump under Cook's auspices confused the public by eclipsing Apple products with other Apple products. All steak and no sizzle, it was the most boring, amateurish, and insipid Apple product intro in history! Apple was $705 at that moment in time and 6 months later it's now almost half. The numbers tell the story! How is Tim Cook not responsible for destroying Apple's value?



    To equate Tim Cook with Steve Jobs is a sick joke. Steve's aura had more creativity than Cook's entire being. The least Cook could have done, if he were a businessman of any skill, was give Wall Street the special dividend "investor friendly" company's were issuing in droves last December. But Cook didn't have the smarts or antennae for that either. Tim Cook is a tool!



    Lastly, this quote unquote "Dilger editorial" reads like a defense of Tim Cook written by his mommy.


     


    I think this whole idea of having fanboi propaganda (as in "Dilger editorial") on what many look at as a rumor site is quite misguided.

  • Reply 166 of 220
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post


     


    I think this whole idea of having fanboi propaganda (as in "Dilger editorial") on what many look at as a rumor site is quite misguided.



    Agree 100%... And because we recognize Cook's weakness as CEO and call it as we see it doesn't mean we love Apple less than the blind AppleInsider fanbois, it means we love Apple more. 

  • Reply 167 of 220
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    Who the f*ck is talking about day to day or week to week. You talk as if $700 to $400 happened overnight.

    If the company is not run effectively then the stock goes down... just as the stock will go up if the company is run properly.

    Of course the CEO is responsible for the stock price. Many a CEO has received a boot in the ass for losing shareholder value.

    Right now shareholders don't seem to have faith in the long term picture for Apple.

    We're talking about a short period of time here despite Apple increasing YoY revenue and profits. As Cook stated, he can't respond to ever rumour out there or he wouldn't be able to get anything else done so if analysts want to jump on a DigiTimes rumour about suppliers saying Apple is cutting back orders that is not Cook's fault. There is nothing Cook can do about these "Sky is falling" Chicken Littles that keep forecasting the demise of Apple. With so much mindshare they get all the media attention. The more negative it is the more attention they get.

    You seem to think this is something new; as if none of this happened under Jobs. The stock fell more rapidly and more often and farther under Jobs. People said that Apple's time at the top was over. Clearly it wasn't. Eventually it will be but so far there is nothing to say that Apple is doomed. This is a short period and Apple still has the highest revenue, profits, mindshare, and market cap of any tech company. Only Exxon has a higher market cap, and not by much.

    The real question is why you are falling for it. You people remind me of a toddlers at the beach running toward the water when it recedes from the beach and then running away screaming when it rolls back in... but at least they are enjoying themselves.
  • Reply 168 of 220

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    We're talking about a short period of time here despite Apple increasing YoY revenue and profits. As Cook stated, he can't respond to ever rumour out there or he wouldn't be able to get anything else done so if analysts want to jump on a DigiTimes rumour about suppliers saying Apple is cutting back orders that is not Cook's fault. There is nothing Cook can do about these "Sky is falling" Chicken Littles that keep forecasting the demise of Apple. With so much mindshare they get all the media attention. The more negative it is the more attention they get.



    You seem to think this is something new; as if none of this happened under Jobs. The stock fell more rapidly and more often and farther under Jobs. People said that Apple's time at the top was over. Clearly it wasn't. Eventually it will be but so far there is nothing to say that Apple is doomed. This is a short period and Apple still has the highest revenue, profits, mindshare, and market cap of any tech company. Only Exxon has a higher market cap, and not by much.



    The real question is why you are falling for it. You people remind me of a toddlers at the beach running toward the water when it recedes from the beach and then running away screaming when it rolls back in... but at least they are enjoying themselves.




    Your comprehension level seems to be dropping, Solipsism.


     


    I have nothing but time to see if these investors are correct.


     


    You may be the one who is falling for it.

  • Reply 169 of 220
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    You seem to think this is something new; as if none of this happened under Jobs. The stock fell more rapidly and more often and farther under Jobs. 


    I don't understand this faulty comparison people keep making? Steve Jobs was an acknowledged genius. No one would ever claim Tim Cook is genius. Apple replaced a genius with a supply chain guy. Cook might have worked well with Steve as leader. But as a leader Cook is a pure failure.

  • Reply 170 of 220
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Your comprehension level seems to be dropping, Solipsism.

    Certainly possible... or my comments about stocks going up and down is accurate.
    I have nothing but time to see if these investors are correct.

    which investors? The ones shorting Apple? The ones calling for Cook to be fired? The ones ignore Cook has made Apple more profitable than every before?
    You may be the one who is falling for it.

    Then call me crazy for thinking stocks fluctuate due to people making irrational, emotional decisions but you'll have a hard time proving that doesn't happen in the stock market.
  • Reply 171 of 220
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mj web wrote: »
    I don't understand this faulty comparison people keep making? Steve Jobs was an acknowledged genius. No one would ever claim Tim Cook is genius. Apple replaced a genius with a supply chain guy. Cook might have worked well with Steve as leader. But as a leader Cook is a pure failure.

    So you're argument is that it was OK for the stock to crash repeatedly under Jobs because he's a genius but it's not allowed under Cook because he's not a genius? Fucking brilliant¡
  • Reply 172 of 220

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Certainly possible... or my comments about stocks going up and down is accurate.

     


     


    ... or that you got emotional and made this argument about Cook specifically.


     


    My argument was that CEOs are responsible for stock price. If investors do not trust a CEO's abilities then the stock goes down. Stock price is the view down the tunnel.


     


    My statements weren't about Cook specifically.


     


    I think you are losing your rationality. Me? I'm waiting to see if they are correct. I couldn't care one way or the other. I no longer have a dog in this fight but that could change if Cook pulls a rabbit out of the hat... like Jobs in 2003 and 2007 and 2010.

  • Reply 173 of 220
    Who the f*ck is talking about day to day or week to week. You talk as if $700 to $400 happened overnight.

    If the company is not run effectively then the stock goes down... just as the stock will go up if the company is run properly.

    Of course the CEO is responsible for the stock price. Many a CEO has received a boot in the ass for losing shareholder value.

    Right now shareholders don't seem to have faith in the long term picture for Apple.

    I'd say Apple is run pretty effectively. They makes billions of dollars every month. They sell close to half a million iPhones every day. They have incredible customer satisfaction. They make developers happy.

    And yet the stock goes down. Seems like a company's stock price isn't always tied to their performance.

    Apple is currently the #2 smartphone manufacturer by unit sales. And it should be noted that Samsung is #1 but Samsung also sells a lot of smartphones in the $100-150 range across the globe. Apple only sells mid-range to high-end smartphones... phones that start at $450... so their sales are even more impressive when you consider that.

    If people don't have faith in the long term picture for Apple... what would be a better company to invest their money into? What other mobile device and computer company is more suitable for investment?

    Should people pull their money out of Apple and put it into HP or Dell? Or just avoid tech companies altogether?
  • Reply 174 of 220
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    So you're argument is that it was OK for the stock to crash repeatedly under Jobs because he's a genius but it's not allowed under Cook because he's not a genius? Fucking brilliant¡


    No. There was always a sliver of hope, a promise if you will that Steve would conjure up "one more thing". We could always depend on a next act with Steve Jobs at Apple's helm. Apple under Tim Cook feels like the last season of The Sopranos. I have a sinking feeling under Tim Cook's guidance there will be no next act -- no "one more thing" -- for Apple.

  • Reply 175 of 220
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

    There was always a sliver of hope, a promise if you will that Steve would conjure up "one more thing".


     


    That means absolutely nothing.






    Apple under Tim Cook feels like the last season of The Sopranos.



     


    So sell your stock, give up your interest, and leave the boat before it sinks. Rid us of this nonsense.

  • Reply 176 of 220
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    That means absolutely nothing.


     


    So sell your stock, give up your interest, and leave the boat before it sinks. Rid us of this nonsense.



    Who is this "us"?

  • Reply 177 of 220
    igriv wrote: »
    Bzzzt! Wrong. Tim Cook works for the board, which represents the owners of the company -- the shareholders.

    Again, once the record profits & revenue stop flowing in THEN I say he has something to be beholden to the board over but for now he's making them money hand over fist and has nothing to answer for.
  • Reply 178 of 220
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by igriv View Post

    Who is this "us"?


     


    Everyone but you.

  • Reply 179 of 220
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... there was still another company on earth selling lots of smartphones (and attempting to sell tablets): Samsung.


     


    Bingo.  If anyone out there thinks Samsung isn't behind the mindless anti-Cook campaign, then let us all know.  And try to explain your reasoning. Should make for quite a few laughs.

  • Reply 180 of 220
    gtbuzzgtbuzz Posts: 129member


    There is nothing wrong with Tim Cook now that Steve Jobs is gone.  He was there long before and did an excellent job then and now.  Investors are responsible for running the stock price up, as well as down.  Just how many iterations of an iPhone do we really need ?  When it needs to be revised, it will be, not before.


     


    Wil the stock hit 700$ again soon, I don't know.  If buyers run it up, then it will.  Corporations do not directly influence the price of the stock - demand does.

Sign In or Register to comment.