IMO, Tim is a better fit for public service or charity organization.
He just doesn't have the mean streak to be a successful CEO in times of crisis.
The stock price tells the whole story.
Nothing personal against Tim. He seems to be a VERY NICE GENUINE person. And that's a problem when you are a CEO of a company competing against the sharks at Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Verge, Bloomburg, NY Times, Digi Times, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Amazon, Tesla, ect. You need a CEO who will take of the kitty gloves and kick azz. You need a CEO who is not afraid of confrontation and willing to embarass anyone who spews lies about Apple.
The stock price is up by more than 2x since Steve Jobs died, and a lot more than that since Tim Cook began playing the CEO role with Steve out on medical leave (or whatever they called it). That's a good, solid ROI for a company that is this large. If you are hoping for another quick 3-bagger, then you are looking at the wrong company... and no CEO would do any better at attaining those expectations, not even Steve.
Looking at AAPL's chart in Yahoo over the entirety of its lifetime, a general linear trend has existed for about a decade, allowing for three temporary peaks and three temporary valleys along the way (two of which were on Steve's watch). The bottom line is that if you stop looking at things with such a narrow timeline (i.e. don't be so impatient and/or focused on the most recent valley) you will see that Tim has done just fine by the stock.
But the more important point is this: Even if offered, Tim would NEVER take that job. I believe that (1) he is far too smart to take on that powerless and thankless role, and (2) he is being honest when he says he loves what he is doing at Apple.
They just need a CEO who can defend the company and spew some BS vision about its future.
Look at companies like Amazon, Google, Tesla, ect. They are all in much worse shape than Apple, and far riskier. Yet their stock is valued at 200%-1000% higher than Apple. Its because their CEO knows how to spew BS and spin. Their CEO's also know how to chew out the media and Wall Street. Apple desperately needs a CEO who is NOT afraid of ruffling feathers and getting DIRTY.
One example is Ming Kuo (the well connected 'insider') the guy in the far east spewing crap about Apple. If Apple had a crafty CEO, Ming would be silent. A crafty CEO would send a dozen guys to Ming's office and home. You know the rest. Nothing illegal. But very persuasive. That's just one example.
Instead of spending $200 billion on buying back stock, Apple should have hired an entire PR arm, who's sole purpose is to aggressively combat the FUD and lies spread by the media. That would cost way less than $200 billion and the stock would be MUCH HIGHER if Apple aggressively fought back, even pushing legal action against these people.
One big difference between Apple and Amazon or Google is that Apple makes the majority of its $$$ off of consumer electronics products, and a lot of people don't understand the difference between Apple devices and other here-today-gone-tomorrow devices. These other people could be wrong, but it does't matter. As long as there are enough investors fearing that Apple can quickly fall from its lofty perch, that sentiment will be a damper on the stock. And no PR spins or BS vision from any CEO could defeat that.
With regard to Tesla, they have a relatively small market cap and relatively high headroom for growth, so BS has a chance of succeeding. Apple enjoys neither of those qualities.
In short, I don't subscribe to your notion that Tim Cook - or any other person, no matter how charismatic and glib - could talk their way into a higher multiple for AAPL. Maybe over short intervals, yes, but the stock is going to continue to get hammered down in PE multiple every time it seems like growth is failing.
IMO, Tim is a better fit for public service or charity organization.
He just doesn't have the mean streak to be a successful CEO in times of crisis.
The stock price tells the whole story.
Nothing personal against Tim. He seems to be a VERY NICE GENUINE person. And that's a problem when you are a CEO of a company competing against the sharks at Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Verge, Bloomburg, NY Times, Digi Times, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Amazon, Tesla, ect. You need a CEO who will take of the kitty gloves and kick azz. You need a CEO who is not afraid of confrontation and willing to embarass anyone who spews lies about Apple.
All about your damn stock price isn't it...
Yes and No.
Stock price is important because:
1. Some of the biggest Apple customers also are stockholders. When the stock is up they buy more Apple product. 2. Retain talent. Most of the top level employees get 90% of their compensation from stock options. If your stock sucks good luck holding on to premier talent. 3. Public relations. Not good for the image of a company if the stock is getting beaten down constantly 4. Higher stock price means more buying power for Apple Inc. They can use their stock to buy other companies. The higher the stock the more companies they can acquire all other variables are equal.
So yes, stock price IS IMPORTANT, even for non-shareholders.
Sigh...Apple can't go private fast enough...
They don't need to.
They just need a CEO who can defend the company and spew some BS vision about its future.
Look at companies like Amazon, Google, Tesla, ect. They are all in much worse shape than Apple, and far riskier. Yet their stock is valued at 200%-1000% higher than Apple. Its because their CEO knows how to spew BS and spin. Their CEO's also know how to chew out the media and Wall Street. Apple desperately needs a CEO who is NOT afraid of ruffling feathers and getting DIRTY.
One example is Ming Kuo (the well connected 'insider') the guy in the far east spewing crap about Apple. If Apple had a crafty CEO, Ming would be silent. A crafty CEO would send a dozen guys to Ming's office and home. You know the rest. Nothing illegal. But very persuasive. That's just one example.
Instead of spending $200 billion on buying back stock, Apple should have hired an entire PR arm, who's sole purpose is to aggressively combat the FUD and lies spread by the media. That would cost way less than $200 billion and the stock would be MUCH HIGHER if Apple aggressively fought back, even pushing legal action against these people.
No one in their rights minds would want most political jobs these days and so we get people who aren't in their right minds. And of course, at least as compared to major industry, the pay sucks, although Tim and people like him don't have money concerns. And you say, the VP isn't much of a job anyway, even if Clinton-Gore did have a semblance of a co-presidency and so did Bush-Cheney (some would argue that Cheney was really the President).
Mmm...
The political season and baseball season overlap -- wonder if there is anything in common:
You know, one day the great baseball manager Frankie Frisch sent a rookie out to play center field. The rookie promptly dropped the first fly ball that was hit to him. On the next play he let a grounder go between his feet and then threw the ball to the wrong base. Frankie stormed out of the dugout, took his glove away from him and said, "I'll show you how to play this position." And the next batter slammed a line drive right over second base. Frankie came in on it, missed it completely, fell down when he tried to chase it, threw down his glove, and yelled at the rookie, "You've got center field so screwed up nobody can play it."
Give me cycling break, Breitbarts guy runs the god damn Trump campaign and besides extreme xenophobia and misogyny and sucking the tit of every conspiracy, I don't see another side
Maybe you didn't hear, but she offered someone else the job.
I'll try to keep my politics out of this. I think a candidate from any party would be an incredible jackass to presume that someone like Cook, either Gates, Bloomberg, etc. should be their No.2 person. None of the candidates are anywhere near worthy of telling these people what to do, and believe me I don't love all the people on the list.
Maybe you didn't hear, but she offered someone else the job.
I'll try to keep my politics out of this. I think a candidate from any party would be an incredible jackass to presume that someone like Cook, either Gates, Bloomberg, etc. should be their No.2 person. None of the candidates are anywhere near worthy of telling these people what to do, and believe me I don't love all the people on the list.
Give me cycling break, Breitbarts guy runs the god damn Trump campaign and besides extreme xenophobia and misogyny and sucking the tit of every conspiracy, I don't see another side
apple ][ is on my ignore list and that is why I didn't see his post until you quoted it. BTW loved your response. However some of his points may be worth responding to.
extreme racism: Not really unless talking about the Democratic race of 2008. Yeah she used some pretty sleazy tactics against Barack Obama but I'd say that is politics as usual.
extreme support for terrorists: Well yeah, depends on who is terrorizing who. For example the "rebels" against the Syrian government. Other terrorists she hates, think Hezbollah or Hamas. Basically our terrorists versus their terrorists.
extreme anti-Americanism: Ehhhhh!!! WTF????
extreme pedophilia: OK, now we've really smoked some mushrooms and gone down that rabbit hole.
extreme racism: More proof about magic mushroom consumption.
extreme fraud, extreme deception: These two go together. But I would say it's politics as usual.
extreme corruption: Goes with Wall Street. So why not their lackey.
extreme sickness: Now he's just being mean. Same thing could've been said about the Gipper.
extreme voter fraud: Sure but that's the DNC making sure that the right candidate (her) makes it through and the the wrong one (Bernie) doesn't. As for the Donald, he's just low hanging fruit. No voter fraud necessary to defeat that.
extreme anti-second amendment: Just another wing nut thinking some lib'rul is gonna come and take aways me guns. Hillary is no liberal by any definition.
IMO, Tim is a better fit for public service or charity organization.
He just doesn't have the mean streak to be a successful CEO in times of crisis.
The stock price tells the whole story.
Nothing personal against Tim. He seems to be a VERY NICE GENUINE person. And that's a problem when you are a CEO of a company competing against the sharks at Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Verge, Bloomburg, NY Times, Digi Times, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Amazon, Tesla, ect. You need a CEO who will take of the kitty gloves and kick azz. You need a CEO who is not afraid of confrontation and willing to embarass anyone who spews lies about Apple.
IMO, Tim is a better fit for public service or charity organization.
He just doesn't have the mean streak to be a successful CEO in times of crisis.
The stock price tells the whole story.
Nothing personal against Tim. He seems to be a VERY NICE GENUINE person. And that's a problem when you are a CEO of a company competing against the sharks at Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Verge, Bloomburg, NY Times, Digi Times, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Amazon, Tesla, ect. You need a CEO who will take of the kitty gloves and kick azz. You need a CEO who is not afraid of confrontation and willing to embarass anyone who spews lies about Apple.
Being a CEO of even the most valued company in the world has nothing to do with understanding how a government works. You are only responsible for your shareholders no one else.
Governments do not exist to make a profit but to govern, establish laws, services, protect human rights, distribute funds after a natural disaster, fund projects which benefit the country and its citizens. After a quick glance at that list Bloomberg is the only business person with a record in government. As a New Yorker my opinion of his time as mayor was terrible to all but the extremely rich and tourists.
Tim Cook for VP? what did he do as a CEO bur oversseing the failure to diversify (appleWatch subpar), failure in major software projects (iCloud, Maps, Siri), failure in investments for future (Titan).
He's a hell of a COO, but he certainly isn't a CEO
Tim Cook for VP? what did he do as a CEO bur oversseing the failure to diversify (appleWatch subpar), failure in major software projects (iCloud, Maps, Siri), failure in investments for future (Titan).
He's a hell of a COO, but he certainly isn't a CEO
appleWatch subpar --> Yeah only the most successful smartwatch in the industry. What a failure. Maps --> Getting better and as good as Google in many major markets. Siri --> Personal assistants in general haven't caught on. Alexa is US only. I don't know about US cities but this summer in Athens and Zurich, I didn't see anybody going around talking to their personal assistants. Up here in Montreal or Toronto, I don't see many people talking to their phones personal assistants either.
You forgot Apple Pay. --> More than half of where I shop, it's accepted. And mostly iPhones are responsible for mobile traffic. I wouldn't call that a failure either.
Today is 18 Oct 2016, right? Sorry to interrupt the dream but the DNC accepted Clinton's VP pick Tim Kaine at the end of July. They may have passed on Tim Cook for a couple reasons: they don't need him to win California and given how the campaign has been going it seems unlikely the country is ready for a ticket comprised of a woman and a gay man.
Look, this was just a brainstorming list from a dude who, judging from the leaked emails, is your typical, slimy, valueless, full of himself backroom political enabler. An enabler for a candidate who will demonstrate yanks are just as susceptible to royal dynasties as your average European. I look forward to the Chelsea candidacy in 16 years or so. i doubt Cook would of been interested. On the other hand, he might get replaced at Apple with someone who is interested in the Mac
They'd be like orange juice and toothpaste together.
For those who like to hear both sides of a story, go to www.breitbart.com on a regular basis to find out why.
Give me cycling break, Breitbarts guy runs the god damn Trump campaign and besides extreme xenophobia and misogyny and sucking the tit of every conspiracy, I don't see another side
I can understand your reluctance to review the content of the site, especially considering much of the evidence provided.
It's always difficult realising that beliefs you hold may be based on bad data and incorrect and it's not a comfortable feeling realising that you may have been deceived.
I'm in awe of propaganda. The ability to convince people who are victimized by the very system to support the system and see it as a good.
Give me cycling break, Breitbarts guy runs the god damn Trump campaign and besides extreme xenophobia and misogyny and sucking the tit of every conspiracy, I don't see another side
What about Santa Claus? Why is he missing from the list?
He's not from a southern state and not to the right of Clinton on the political spectrum. Establishment Democrats do everything by the book.
Cook is a capitalist, he is not a marxist. The democrats will never support him. If he had these ambitions he would be a great candidate on the Republican Ticket. An end to the religious right dominance (which is on the way out) and help move republicans to libertarianism.
This list was just a BS list- having Bill Gates on there makes no sense, etc.
Tim is a Libertarian. Don't assume that just because he's gay, he's a leftist. I'm not a leftist. (Sorry guys, and I'm into women.)
Comments
The stock price is up by more than 2x since Steve Jobs died, and a lot more than that since Tim Cook began playing the CEO role with Steve out on medical leave (or whatever they called it). That's a good, solid ROI for a company that is this large. If you are hoping for another quick 3-bagger, then you are looking at the wrong company... and no CEO would do any better at attaining those expectations, not even Steve.
Looking at AAPL's chart in Yahoo over the entirety of its lifetime, a general linear trend has existed for about a decade, allowing for three temporary peaks and three temporary valleys along the way (two of which were on Steve's watch). The bottom line is that if you stop looking at things with such a narrow timeline (i.e. don't be so impatient and/or focused on the most recent valley) you will see that Tim has done just fine by the stock.
But the more important point is this: Even if offered, Tim would NEVER take that job. I believe that (1) he is far too smart to take on that powerless and thankless role, and (2) he is being honest when he says he loves what he is doing at Apple.
One big difference between Apple and Amazon or Google is that Apple makes the majority of its $$$ off of consumer electronics products, and a lot of people don't understand the difference between Apple devices and other here-today-gone-tomorrow devices. These other people could be wrong, but it does't matter. As long as there are enough investors fearing that Apple can quickly fall from its lofty perch, that sentiment will be a damper on the stock. And no PR spins or BS vision from any CEO could defeat that.
With regard to Tesla, they have a relatively small market cap and relatively high headroom for growth, so BS has a chance of succeeding. Apple enjoys neither of those qualities.
In short, I don't subscribe to your notion that Tim Cook - or any other person, no matter how charismatic and glib - could talk their way into a higher multiple for AAPL. Maybe over short intervals, yes, but the stock is going to continue to get hammered down in PE multiple every time it seems like growth is failing.
Mmm...
The political season and baseball season overlap -- wonder if there is anything in common:
Maybe you didn't hear, but she offered someone else the job.
I'll try to keep my politics out of this. I think a candidate from any party would be an incredible jackass to presume that someone like Cook, either Gates, Bloomberg, etc. should be their No.2 person. None of the candidates are anywhere near worthy of telling these people what to do, and believe me I don't love all the people on the list.
Yeah... WWSJD?
Governments do not exist to make a profit but to govern, establish laws, services, protect human rights, distribute funds after a natural disaster, fund projects which benefit the country and its citizens. After a quick glance at that list Bloomberg is the only business person with a record in government. As a New Yorker my opinion of his time as mayor was terrible to all but the extremely rich and tourists.
what did he do as a CEO bur oversseing the failure to diversify (appleWatch subpar), failure in major software projects (iCloud, Maps, Siri), failure in investments for future (Titan).
He's a hell of a COO, but he certainly isn't a CEO
Maps --> Getting better and as good as Google in many major markets.
Siri --> Personal assistants in general haven't caught on. Alexa is US only. I don't know about US cities but this summer in Athens and Zurich, I didn't see anybody going around talking to their personal assistants. Up here in Montreal or Toronto, I don't see many people talking to their phones personal assistants either.
You forgot Apple Pay. --> More than half of where I shop, it's accepted. And mostly iPhones are responsible for mobile traffic. I wouldn't call that a failure either.
i doubt Cook would of been interested. On the other hand, he might get replaced at Apple with someone who is interested in the Mac
I'm in awe of propaganda. The ability to convince people who are victimized by the very system to support the system and see it as a good.
Step 2 - Take 6 dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms
Step 3 - Reboot you ego to 2.0
This list was just a BS list- having Bill Gates on there makes no sense, etc.
Tim is a Libertarian. Don't assume that just because he's gay, he's a leftist. I'm not a leftist. (Sorry guys, and I'm into women.)