Why not? Says who, you? He's a shareholder, so he has every right to be there, no matter how much you hate him. Oh right, you're all about "freedom" as long as someone isn't somewhere you don't want them to be, or does something you don't want them to do. If only every single one of your posts wasn't hypocritical to the core, I would give you a shred of credibility and ask you to elaborate on your non-sensical statement. But I won't, because I know the chance of you doing that is exactly zero.
So, he does have a shareholder's privilege to attend shareholder meetings. What he should NOT be given is a platform to spew his "white people are evil" or the "black lives matter more than others" nonsense.
People like Al Gore and Art Levinson have outlived their usefulness at this stage of Apple's life cycle. (Perhaps Andrea Jung could be added to that list). The company really needs to bring a younger, more global, financially-oriented (as Apple needs little or no board oversight with its product orientation) board. The recent appointment of Susan Wagner was excellent.
Many do not realize that Art Levinson (ex-CEO of Genentech) is Apple's current Chairman of the Board. Although his role was perhaps higher-key during the Jobs era (running interference about Jobs' medical condition, etc.) you can be sure that if the board does something useful, such as the appointment you mention, Dr. Levinson had something to do with it.
Other than that, I know through personal contact that Art is an extremely well-regarded technical leader in science, and his exposure to and knowledge of the engineering work at Apple would be nonpareil vis-a-vis any other board member. Aside: his son did some gnarly vectorizing work on ye olde G4/G5 Altivec for a scientific application. Further, Levison is very personable and engaging.
Actually, this year I though the comments/questions were fairly reasonable and well expressed. Jesse Jackson spoke well. The woman from the EFF was very supportive of Apple. Considering Apple's size, their behavior has an enormous effect on lots of people who don't own Apple products. It is reasonable for people to have concerns about Apple's public behavior.
Angela Ahrendts spoke a little in response to a question. I think that's the first time I've heard her talk at one of these meetings. As usual, there were not a lot of specifics, but she and Tim were fairly enthusiastic about improved Enterprise and small business activity.
Revenues in India are about $1.5B per year but Tim thinks this is the very early years and the investments they make now will pay off in large measures a decade from now. He said India now looks like China ten years ago.
Other tidbits:
Most iOS developers are now in China.
I may have misunderstood this but I think Tim said that four out of five smart phones sold in China last year were iPhones.
Apple has 116,000 employees around the world. 65,000 are retail employees.
One third of Apple revenue comes from emerging markets.
Tim Cook was supported for his position by over 99% of the shareholders voting. All board members got over 95%.
Tim Cook used an iPad Pro (space grey I believe) for his prepared comments.
Most shareholder proposals got well under 10%. The one proposal for Shareholder Proxy Access got about 33% support. It might pass in a few years.
Thanks for the summary neutrino23, I was there also and don't recall Tim noting that four out of five smart phones in China were iPhones. He did say that China revenue last year was $60B and growing double digits, and he noted that India is now about where China was 10 years ago (Apple did $1.5B in revenue in India last year), but that that country doesn't yet have LTE so it is difficult to sell smartphones. That said he expects Apple to invest in India.
I've seen TC speak at several events and I thought he looked a bit tired (others noted this also). I know he gets up early (health/fitness fanatic), but I couldn't help but think that this court order, as well as the market slump isn't weighing heavily on him these days.
Notes from a "greybeard":
I was also present, agreeing with neutrino23's comments, noting that Cook's mention of iPhone-in-China referred to 4-of-5 "top smartphone models" as iPhones, the 6S being #1. I interpreted this comment to reflect shipment numbers by rank, not overall sales units.
Further tidbits: Jackson (Jesse, not Lisa) and Gore traded humorous insider banter about college association (Fisk vs. North Carolina A&T). I came in expecting the Jackson "grand-standing" that others are wont to cite, but he was really understated and on-point.
Both Ahrendts and Cook addressed the relatively unheralded enterprise market well.
Cindy Cohn, esquire, (of EFF) had a great Q&A read regarding privacy/security, citing that much of this battle was fought years ago. (Many remember the Clipper chip fiasco, but it was she who spearheaded work work on Dan Bernstein's case [ITAR regulations]). Kudos to them, and also to John Gilmore as well as the "Room 641A" AT&T/NSA exposure, in this department.
The Board was not "unanimously" elected. I hold a few shares of Apple stock so I can vote NO on Al Gore every year to make sure of that. It's a disgrace he's there.
The Board was not "unanimously" elected. I hold a few shares of Apple stock so I can vote NO on Al Gore every year to make sure of that. It's a disgrace he's there.
Statistically, director Andrea Jung was the least popular with 6% no votes. Otherwise, curious about reasons for anti-Gore, imagining that the intersection of Apple, environmental values, and government lobby capability is a useful red-blooded capitalist-American thing to have, together with a Constitution-supported privacy stance.
People like Al Gore and Art Levinson have outlived their usefulness at this stage of Apple's life cycle. (Perhaps Andrea Jung could be added to that list). The company really needs to bring a younger, more global, financially-oriented (as Apple needs little or no board oversight with its product orientation) board. The recent appointment of Susan Wagner was excellent.
I like how the shareholder meeting has become just another venue for political lobbying. Diversity. Emissions. Human Rights. Can we talk business please? This is a company not a government.
It's the perfect place. Corporations need to show more social responsibility, not less. A shareholders meeting is one of the few venues where they can be held accountable. We need more of this.
Comments
So, he does have a shareholder's privilege to attend shareholder meetings. What he should NOT be given is a platform to spew his "white people are evil" or the "black lives matter more than others" nonsense.
higher-key during the Jobs era (running interference about Jobs' medical condition, etc.) you can be sure that if the board
does something useful, such as the appointment you mention, Dr. Levinson had something to do with it.
Other than that, I know through personal contact that Art is an extremely well-regarded technical leader in science,
and his exposure to and knowledge of the engineering work at Apple would be nonpareil vis-a-vis any other board member.
Aside: his son did some gnarly vectorizing work on ye olde G4/G5 Altivec for a scientific application. Further, Levison
is very personable and engaging.
Notes from a "greybeard":
I was also present, agreeing with neutrino23's comments, noting that Cook's mention of iPhone-in-China referred to 4-of-5
"top smartphone models" as iPhones, the 6S being #1. I interpreted this comment to reflect shipment numbers by rank, not
overall sales units.
Further tidbits:
Jackson (Jesse, not Lisa) and Gore traded humorous insider banter about college association (Fisk vs. North Carolina A&T).
I came in expecting the Jackson "grand-standing" that others are wont to cite, but he was really understated and on-point.
Both Ahrendts and Cook addressed the relatively unheralded enterprise market well.
Cindy Cohn, esquire, (of EFF) had a great Q&A read regarding privacy/security, citing that much of this battle
was fought years ago. (Many remember the Clipper chip fiasco, but it was she who spearheaded work
work on Dan Bernstein's case [ITAR regulations]). Kudos to them, and also to John Gilmore as well as
the "Room 641A" AT&T/NSA exposure, in this department.
imagining that the intersection of Apple, environmental values, and government lobby capability is a useful red-blooded
capitalist-American thing to have, together with a Constitution-supported privacy stance.