Not crazy about the BlackRock bit, but I suppose at this level these kinds of industry connections are unavoidable. I understand BlackRock is one of the largest holders of AAPL stock. I have a feeling this will cause more hesitancy/risk avoidance in the board.
This sounds like bad news to me. This is someone who will act for investors regardless of the benefit to the company. This is exactly what the likes of Icahn and others will be after:
They've done this before. When they don't get their way, they push for changes to the board. They'll recommend candidates in the finance industry, then they get the board to pass decisions in their favor until they get their profit and they bail.
"In a world that is shifting and changing faster than ever before, investors who want answers that unlock opportunity and uncover risk entrust their assets to BlackRock.
As of December 31, 2012, BlackRock's assets under management total US$3.792 trillion across equity, fixed income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate and advisory strategies."
They even have a registered trademark called iShares. This is like the iPref thing Einhorn came up with.
The experience in dealing with so many assets will probably be useful but her job has been to look after investors, not the health of companies. They always use these euphemisms like "unlock opportunity" or "unlock value", which basically means finding ways to milk companies for all their cash.
Hopefully, they'll limit the number of people from the finance industry so they don't get a majority vote in what Apple does with its cash.
Bill Campbell should have been shown the door years ago. How he could continue to sit on the board considering his company's terrible Mac product line year after year is beyond me.
I am not gay, but at least they look better than any picture of that investment fund lady - she looks terrible and should get a new haircut.
That style of opening statement never ends well.
There are nicer looking pictures of Susan Wagner:
but she's an evil finance person like Icahn so it's a good idea to use the worst pictures of them whenever possible. Like this one where Icahn looks like he's just had a lobotomy and his nurse is telling him that his family has come to visit but he doesn't know what that means so he just smiles inanely:
People always have a set of nice pictures with good lighting, good posture but with some people they're harder to get than others. Angela Ahrendts for example likes to use the following picture a lot:
That's the one on Apple's PR page. If you look in Google for sizes, it's been used online at least 60 times. In everyday settings, she kinda has funny eyebrows and is a bit cock-eyed:
None of them are models so they'd probably rather avoid being judged on appearance but it's the first thing people typically judge anyone on as it's the first piece of information you get so it's unavoidable. This happens in talent auditions e.g:
[VIDEO]
The audience clearly assumed that this person was unattractive so can't possibly be a good singer. They really misjudged that one. Unattractive people sure have it rough in this world. Attractive people on the other hand can get away with a lot of things:
[VIDEO]
There was a prank video I can't find where a cute girl dropped something into a disgusting toilet and she asked guys to reach in to get it. Most guys obliged. Women are a bit less tolerant though:
[VIDEO]
There was another video that showed attractiveness might not be all that some girls are after:
[VIDEO]
Although recently there was a mugshot from a criminal that women started sharing around the social networks:
Arrested for gang weapons charges and robbery but some women clearly willing to look the other way on that. Same goes for this attractive female mugshot:
It's just built-in that people make that instant judgement. Even people who say that looks don't matter, they'll judge a goth or skinhead by their appearance before their character.
edit: the other thing to keep in mind is the difference between makeup and no makeup photos. Guys don't wear makeup so it comes as a bit of a shock when you see the two side by side:
I appreciate the page-long reply; but my point was just to say that she looked TERRIBLE in that photo. Whatever she did in BlackRock doesn't help either, as I am not too fond of investment bankers. But I am glad you found better pictures of her.
As for my opening statement of "not being gay", it was just to make sure that people don't start assuming I have a different sexual preference than women.
That's why women say they need to put their face on when they go to apply makeup, they're actually putting someone else's face on. In the following images, there's no photoshopping:
[VIDEO]
That's just a compilation of photos taken in poor lighting, hair not done with no makeup and not posed vs red carpet events with full makeup and good lighting. Here's one showing the process:
[VIDEO]
Here's a video showing a dramatic difference with an important change being the angles of the camera and face on top of the makeup:
[VIDEO]
0:12 and 0:16 (shown in the poster frame) are the same girl but her chin is up so no double chin and the camera points down.
It's the same deal with clothing in a way. Every day people get up and cover up 90% of their bodies with some sort of fashionable items. Nobody knows what's underneath. Same deal with personality too, people are always hiding things they don't want other people to see. The truth is, we don't want to know the truth all of the time:
The acquisitions will not be IBM. It has to do with international acquisitions. Apple got all that cash in foreign accounts. It is time they start spending that and that is what Tim is referring.
Comments
As if innocuous is a goal? Let’s not even begin to delve into the rest of the sentence.
I ignored that part; the rest is the point.IBM would be quite the head turner!
Block list fodder.
And if you look closely you can see the Force lightning coming off the fingertips.
This sounds like bad news to me. This is someone who will act for investors regardless of the benefit to the company. This is exactly what the likes of Icahn and others will be after:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/28/5250052/apple-urges-shareholders-vote-against-icahns-buyback-proposal
http://www.cnet.com/news/icahn-disses-apple-board-for-not-boosting-stock-buyback/
They've done this before. When they don't get their way, they push for changes to the board. They'll recommend candidates in the finance industry, then they get the board to pass decisions in their favor until they get their profit and they bail.
http://www.blackrock.co.uk/individual/about-blackrock
"In a world that is shifting and changing faster than ever before, investors who want answers that unlock opportunity and uncover risk entrust their assets to BlackRock.
As of December 31, 2012, BlackRock's assets under management total US$3.792 trillion across equity, fixed income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate and advisory strategies."
They even have a registered trademark called iShares. This is like the iPref thing Einhorn came up with.
The experience in dealing with so many assets will probably be useful but her job has been to look after investors, not the health of companies. They always use these euphemisms like "unlock opportunity" or "unlock value", which basically means finding ways to milk companies for all their cash.
Hopefully, they'll limit the number of people from the finance industry so they don't get a majority vote in what Apple does with its cash.
Bill Campbell should have been shown the door years ago. How he could continue to sit on the board considering his company's terrible Mac product line year after year is beyond me.
RE>>>>Wagner is the second woman to be appointed to Apple's board of directors behind Andrea Jung, who was selected in 2008.
Do they really need 2 photos of Bill Campbell?
EDIT...they fixed it.
I am not gay, but at least they look better than any picture of that investment fund lady - she looks terrible and should get a new haircut.
Susan Wagner adds competence.
That style of opening statement never ends well.
There are nicer looking pictures of Susan Wagner:
but she's an evil finance person like Icahn so it's a good idea to use the worst pictures of them whenever possible. Like this one where Icahn looks like he's just had a lobotomy and his nurse is telling him that his family has come to visit but he doesn't know what that means so he just smiles inanely:
People always have a set of nice pictures with good lighting, good posture but with some people they're harder to get than others. Angela Ahrendts for example likes to use the following picture a lot:
That's the one on Apple's PR page. If you look in Google for sizes, it's been used online at least 60 times. In everyday settings, she kinda has funny eyebrows and is a bit cock-eyed:
None of them are models so they'd probably rather avoid being judged on appearance but it's the first thing people typically judge anyone on as it's the first piece of information you get so it's unavoidable. This happens in talent auditions e.g:
[VIDEO]
The audience clearly assumed that this person was unattractive so can't possibly be a good singer. They really misjudged that one. Unattractive people sure have it rough in this world. Attractive people on the other hand can get away with a lot of things:
[VIDEO]
There was a prank video I can't find where a cute girl dropped something into a disgusting toilet and she asked guys to reach in to get it. Most guys obliged. Women are a bit less tolerant though:
[VIDEO]
There was another video that showed attractiveness might not be all that some girls are after:
[VIDEO]
Although recently there was a mugshot from a criminal that women started sharing around the social networks:
http://abc13.com/news/too-sexy-for-jail/124934/
Arrested for gang weapons charges and robbery but some women clearly willing to look the other way on that. Same goes for this attractive female mugshot:
http://www.kgw.com/news/national/cute-convict-meagan-simmons-instatcheckmate-248406291.html
It's just built-in that people make that instant judgement. Even people who say that looks don't matter, they'll judge a goth or skinhead by their appearance before their character.
edit: the other thing to keep in mind is the difference between makeup and no makeup photos. Guys don't wear makeup so it comes as a bit of a shock when you see the two side by side:
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/11/30-shocking-photos-of-hot-celebrities-without-makeup-or-photoshop/jennifer-love-hewitt
That stuff's like paint (
I appreciate the page-long reply; but my point was just to say that she looked TERRIBLE in that photo. Whatever she did in BlackRock doesn't help either, as I am not too fond of investment bankers. But I am glad you found better pictures of her.
As for my opening statement of "not being gay", it was just to make sure that people don't start assuming I have a different sexual preference than women.
Clear now? Because it's as simple as that.
There might be some photoshopping but makeup and lighting have a dramatic effect:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/16/before-and-after-make-up-transformation-vadim-andreev_n_4106732.html
That's why women say they need to put their face on when they go to apply makeup, they're actually putting someone else's face on. In the following images, there's no photoshopping:
[VIDEO]
That's just a compilation of photos taken in poor lighting, hair not done with no makeup and not posed vs red carpet events with full makeup and good lighting. Here's one showing the process:
[VIDEO]
Here's a video showing a dramatic difference with an important change being the angles of the camera and face on top of the makeup:
[VIDEO]
0:12 and 0:16 (shown in the poster frame) are the same girl but her chin is up so no double chin and the camera points down.
It's the same deal with clothing in a way. Every day people get up and cover up 90% of their bodies with some sort of fashionable items. Nobody knows what's underneath. Same deal with personality too, people are always hiding things they don't want other people to see. The truth is, we don't want to know the truth all of the time:
The acquisitions will not be IBM. It has to do with international acquisitions. Apple got all that cash in foreign accounts. It is time they start spending that and that is what Tim is referring.