Re: The Steve Jobs Resignation FAQ (from tidbits.com)
AJL
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>[From] http://tidbits.com/article/12447?rss
>Q: Is Steve Jobs’s health suddenly dire?
>A: We don’t know, and frankly, extensive speculation by anyone other than
>Jobs’s family and doctors is irresponsible.
Speculation on Steve's health is certainly not irresponsible for
investors. Steve himself once said that Apple was only a few quarters
away from bankruptcy in 1996. Today it's the most valuable tech
company on the planet, with more than $76 billion in the bank. You
can't blame investors for wondering where Apple will go without his
leadership.
For example it was not that long ago that Palm (of PDA fame) had the
lead in touch screen sales and was an up and coming tech company but
it ultimately failed for lack of leadership in bringing out new and
innovative products. I still remember the complaints in the Palm
Usenet groups (also now dead) of not that much new in either hardware
or software as the new models came out...
JF Mezei
> Speculation on Steve's health is certainly not irresponsible for
> investors.
This was true in the past. Now that Jobs is officially "out of the loop"
from an operations point of view, his health is less of matter because
it is Tim Cook's health that matters.
We just have to get used to Apple being without Jobs.
It is unlikely his health is improving. And if it is deteriorating,
chances are his involvement with Apple will decrease.
So we really need to get used to Apple being runned by Tim Cook. Shiller
Ives and others remain below Cook, so it should be business as usual.
With regards to the next announcement, my suggestion would be for Jobs
to sit in the audience, perhaps get a standing ovation, but Cook and the
others make the presentation with Jobs staying in the audience.
Cook has to show the world he is in charge now, and they must let go of
Jobs.
JF Mezei
> It certainly is, and moreso even if he were still CEO. Since those
> speculating on his health don't know anything about his health other than
> what has been made public, actions taken based on those speculations are
> irresponsible.
While Jobs was CEO, concerns about his health were perfectly valid.
Concerns about transition were valid.
Now that he is no longer CEO, those concerns are no longer valid.
Concerns should focus on Tim Cook's abilities to steer Apple.
Howard Brazee
based upon Steve Job's health, and their belief that he has to be
running things to keep current growth.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
AJL
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <ln1g575o6mbilve4u...@4ax.com>,
> AJL <128945...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> >[From] http://tidbits.com/article/12447?rss
>>
>> >Q: Is Steve Jobs’s health suddenly dire?
>> >A: We don’t know, and frankly, extensive speculation by anyone other than
>> >Jobs’s family and doctors is irresponsible.
>>
>> Speculation on Steve's health is certainly not irresponsible for
>> investors.
>Since those speculating on his health don't know anything about his health
> other than what has been made public, actions taken based on those
>speculations are irresponsible.
Those making investment decisions are often called 'speculators'
because they make speculative decisions about how management changes
might affect a company's future. That's SOP in the investment
business, nothing irresponsible (or immoral) about it. In fact it
would be irresponsible for an investment company not to take such
things into consideration before investing a clients money.
JF Mezei
> Don't confuse "concerns" with "speculation
If one is concerned about something, and there is very little hard
information about that "something", then one speculates based on any/all
tidbits they can find.
So by not releasing information in health condition back in january but
staying on as CEO, it did lead to cencerns which lead to speculation.
Now, he is out of the loop, there is no longer a need to speculate or be
concerned (from the point of view of AAPL governance). One can still be
concerned about a fine human being, but that is different. And at that
level, I find the "eulogies" a bit premature.
AJL
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>AJL wrote:
>
>> Speculation on Steve's health is certainly not irresponsible for
>> investors.
>
>This was true in the past. Now that Jobs is officially "out of the loop"
>from an operations point of view, his health is less of matter because
>it is Tim Cook's health that matters.
IMO the question is can Apple continue to be innovative as it has
under Jobs. His creative ideas always seemed to be ahead of the pack.
Was that his gift alone or can new management continue the success?
Judging from recent stock moves it is currently an open question to
many investors.
D.H. Nortic
> In article<hhgg57dv3meo1tu99...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> Some people have been recommending selling Apple Stock for some time -
>> based upon Steve Job's health, and their belief that he has to be
>> running things to keep current growth.
>
Michelle, I couldn't agree more. This Cookie guy will rip Apple users
much better than Jobs. Look at this mean face!
Mac users will no doubt continue to rejoice about Apple having the
highest market cap in the world.
> The stock is at its highest for the week. It went up $9.68 (2.64%) today.
And will keep going up for ever and ever. Amen.
JF Mezei
> IMO the question is can Apple continue to be innovative as it has
> under Jobs.
Correct. But this question is not related to Jobs' health anymore. Jobs
has effectively killed the speculation not only because he is out of the
loop at Apple, but also because he effectively admitted he isn't getting
any better.
JF Mezei
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/2/
##
This picture of Steve Jobs was taken today -- two days after he resigned
as the head honcho of Apple.
##
Compression artifacts prevents me from seeing obvious photoshop
artifacts. So there is no real way to know if this is fake. If it is
fake, it is in bad taste. If not fake, OUCH.
Todd Allcock
> In article <hhgg57dv3meo1tu99...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > based upon Steve Job's health, and their belief that he has to be
> > running things to keep current growth.
>
right?
>
today.
Possibly buoyed by the umpteen "why Jobs resignation won't matter"
articles in the press.
I wonder if that sleazy photo TMZ posted today will make anyone on Wall
Street nervous when the markets reopen.
JF Mezei
> I wonder if that sleazy photo TMZ posted today will make anyone on Wall
> Street nervous when the markets reopen.
I think the Wall Street Casino Analysts have already witten off Steve
Jobs from Apple. And when Apple releases the new iPhone, they'll see
that Apple can continue without Jobs. (which is why I think Jobs should
be in the audience and not on stage that day).
Your Name
<128945...@none.com> wrote:
Although Steve Jobs did come up with some ideas himself (and will continue
to do so) and did have the final "yes" or "no" on projects, he is far from
the only creative or innovative person at Apple.
The real question is does Tim Cook, or anyone else, have the same vision
and ability to "know what consumers want before they even know themselves"
(as one reporter put it) as Steve Jobs - THAT is his real talent.
Or, to quote a couple of the articles re-printed in local newspapers here
in New Zealand ...
"In a creative cauldron like Apple, ideas are rarely in
short supply. But the skill of choosing the right ones
to focus on at the right time is rare. Jobs has it.
Apple's shareholders will have to hope that Cook does
too."
- The Economist Newspaper Ltd
"'Steve Jobs is an extremely strong leader and clearly
has made Apple a leading consumer electronics company
and one of the most innovative companies ion the world,'
said Shannon Cross, an analyst at Cross Research.
'However, he didn't do it alone.'"
- Associated Press
Steve Jobs' talents aren't only in the electronics arena either. His name
is on a number of patents as the "inventor", including the iconic Apple
Store glass staircase.
Even way back at the start, Steve Jobs alone couldn't have started Apple.
He had to have help with the techincal talents of Steve Wozniack ... and
vice-versa.
*BUT*
That's really all future speculation. Nothing has changed yet. Steve Jobs
has now officially stepped down as day-to-day CEO, but he is still at
Apple and helping steer the company in the right directions. This is the
same situation that Apple has been in for the last six months or more
during his sick leave absences.
Your Name
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I wonder if that sleazy photo TMZ posted today will make anyone on Wall
> Street nervous when the markets reopen.
I haven't seen that photo, but the photo of Tim Cook in the local
newspaper here in New Zealand yesterday is far more worrying ... he looked
like an exact clone of Bill Gates!! :-O
Your Name
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
Not really relevant. Steve Jobs has had a hand in deisning the "iPhone 5"
(whether it is released this year or next) as well as many other products
that won't see the public light of day for the next couple of years
(assuming Tim Cook doesn't cancel them). It's at least a couple of years
away before any cracks MIGHT start to appear.
JF Mezei
> has now officially stepped down as day-to-day CEO, but he is still at
> Apple and helping steer the company in the right directions. This is the
> same situation that Apple has been in for the last six months or more
> during his sick leave absences.
From my point of view, Jobs' involvement ended last january. He may have
been there to oversea and provide comments to captain Cook, but he
wasn't steering the ship.
If the TMZ photos are real, I'd say Apple is busy making contigency
plans for its upcoming product launches so that they do not impact nor
are impacted by Jobs' passing away.
If whatever he has is terminal, Jobs may choose to not get IV for
rehydration or gastric feeding for food. No point in prologing pain.
Not sure how much pain he has. But lack of food eventually becomes
painful when the body starts to eat away at your organs.
I would have rather not seen that picture now that I think of it.
JF Mezei
> Not really relevant. Steve Jobs has had a hand in deisning the "iPhone 5"
> (whether it is released this year or next) as well as many other products
> that won't see the public light of day for the next couple of years
> (assuming Tim Cook doesn't cancel them). It's at least a couple of years
> away before any cracks MIGHT start to appear.
Captain Cook would have handeld the day to day management, supply chain
contracts etc. I think Jobs may have had general direction input last
year on what the products should be like this year. But Cook is the one
that would have OKed plans for products being developped now for release
next year.
So next year, we will see the result of Apple under Captain Cook's helm
without much/any influence from Jobs.
JF Mezei
> You think he had nothing to do with the new iPhone? He's probably had
> influence in products that may be years from release.
By choosing the major team players within Apple, Jobs's philosophy will
live on for a long time. So yes, Jobs' ifluence will continue indirectly.
Frakly, we can't know how much influence he's had on products coming out
now. Sure, he has seen them at prototype level and has had comments. But
not sure how much say he had at the early stages. If he OKed the
redesign of the iphone case, then Jonathan Ives would have gone back to
his team and told them to come up with new designs for the iphone. I
doubt Jobs would have told him what should be done at the design level.
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <yourname-270...@203-118-185-186.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > Although Steve Jobs did come up with some ideas himself (and will
> > continue to do so) and did have the final "yes" or "no" on projects, he
> > is far from the only creative or innovative person at Apple.
>
> He's listed on 310 of the 11,112 patents issued to Apple (plus 3 from
> NeXT), and is the lead on more than 200 of them.
Here we go again. :-\
Yes, as I said above, Steve Jobs did come up with SOME ideas himself.
Please read messages before you post stuff simply to prove how (un)clever
you are.
Your Name
Not according to many reports. Steve Jobs handed over day-to-day control,
but was still involved in product development, including working from
home.
*Hemidactylus*
> In article<j39n24$7i5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Todd Allcock<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Some people have been recommending selling Apple Stock for some time
>>>> - based upon Steve Job's health, and their belief that he has to be
>>>> running things to keep current growth.
>>>
>>> That's the reason the stock has increased in price the past two days,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> The stock is at its highest for the week. It went up $9.68 (2.64%)
>>> today.
>>
>> Possibly buoyed by the umpteen "why Jobs resignation won't matter"
>> articles in the press.
>
> press.
>
>> I wonder if that sleazy photo TMZ posted today will make anyone on Wall
>> Street nervous when the markets reopen.
>
It's a painful photo to view for anyone who is a caring, compassionate
person. Who cares what it does to Apple stock if it's a legit pic. All I
can think of is Patrick Swayze or anyone else who has dealt with a very
serious type cancer or any other possibly terminal health issue. I think
people often focus on the wrong things.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Tim McNamara
You mean Apple's stock doing better than the rest of the sector? Looks
like the investors are not so worried. After all, Apple had one of its
hottest quarters ever under Cook as acting CEO.
--
We are buried beneath the weight of information,
which is being confused with knowledge;
quantity is being confused with abundance and
wealth with happiness. -Tom Waits
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <yourname-270...@203-118-185-186.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > Yes, as I said above, Steve Jobs did come up with SOME ideas himself.
>
> Three hundred patents, 200+ of which he was the lead, is only *some*?????
>
> Bill Gates has only nine patents. Larry Page and Sergey Brin have only a
> dozen.
>
> > Please read messages before you post stuff simply to prove how
> > (un)clever you are.
>
> How typical of you; whenever you're wrong, or even challenged, you resort
> to personal invective. Must suck to be as insecure as you are.
I said "some" and I meant"some" ... I wasn't "wrong". For God's sake, stop
trying to prove how (un)clever! You are said "He's listed on 310 of the
11,112 patents issued to Apple" ... so yes, 310 out of 11,112 *IS* "some"
... now go away and and come back when you've grown up and learnt how to
read! :-\
JF Mezei
> Why do you believe that, Tinkerbell? Do you really believe that Apple's
> development cycle is that short, and that they don't have long-range
> planning?
Some aspect of product are on a 1 year cycle. Consider the case of the
iphone. They would have begin the process of redesigning it only after
the "antenna gate" debacle last august. Some aspects may be multi year.
For other aspect, it may be multi year, but it doesn't mean that Apple
is working on it for multi year. Consider retina display as a
theoretical example. It is possible that a manufacturer told Apple in
2008 that it was working on a high definition display. Apple may have
said "great, we might be interested, we'll be back".
A year later, Apple comes back and asks if this new display could be
availabe in qualtities by april 2010. If yes, then Apple commits to it
and gets its engineers to plan for that display and then gets
programmers to consider the impacts on the OS and applications. That
part isn't multi year.
Where it is multi year is the chip. But Apple will get fairly precise
specs of what to expect with each iteration. So they can plan for
whatever chip will be ready that year.
Since you can't commit until you are sure a new chip/component is to be
available in quaktities for your product's launch, very often decisions
to incorporate a new tech in this year's model is taken 1 year or less
before launch. Otherwise Apple would be producting antique phones that
are not leading edge in terms of tech.
And BTW, this is one area where Tim Cook is said to be excellent
(managing supply chain.
George Kerby
On 8/26/11 9:46 PM, in article
4e585a86$0$25018$c3e8da3$14a0...@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
It's a FAKE. "TMZ" says it all...
George Kerby
On 8/27/11 9:30 AM, in article
michelle-B225F1...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <CA7E635B.764C2%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a FAKE. "TMZ" says it all...
>
> But Matt Drudge says it's real.
Cute, real cute...
jcdill
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> It certainly is, and moreso even if he were still CEO. Since those
>> speculating on his health don't know anything about his health other than
>> what has been made public, actions taken based on those speculations are
>> irresponsible.
>
> While Jobs was CEO, concerns about his health were perfectly valid.
> Concerns about transition were valid.
>
> Now that he is no longer CEO, those concerns are no longer valid.
He is no longer CEO, but he's still an employee, and on the board. He
still plays a role in Apple, and it's valid to consider how much of a
role, and if his health issues will keep him from being able to make the
meaningful contributions he has been making in product decisions.
> Concerns should focus on Tim Cook's abilities to steer Apple.
I don't think anyone doubts Tim Cook's abilities to steer Apple. But
every pilot of a large vessel needs a navigator, and clearly Jobs was
the navigator at Apple.
jc
JF Mezei
> Based upon my experience in the computer industry, I'm sure that they
> started work on the successor to the iPhone 4 way before the iPhone 4 was
> released.
Correct. But plans had to be changed after the 4 was released to cope
with the failed antenna design. So for the casing and probably internal
component placement, we're looking at less than a year.
It all depende on when internal components become available and their
specs frozen.
Consider HDR in the Camera app. This came as a software upgrade because
Apple either didn't have the time to incorporate it in the first iphone
4 software, or didn't realise that fancy new camera produced too harsh a
contrast in brighly lighted scenes and then got its engineers to concuct
some solution.
When you want your phone to be state of the art, you don't want to use 2
year old components in it, you want the latest and greatest, and that
measn pressure to make final component selection as late as possible to
use the latest ones.
Consider LTE. If Apple chose LTE coponents that are 2 year old while HTC
gets a brand spanking new LTE chip that uses 50% less power, then
Apple's product will be lagging very fast.
So yes, they map out the next iphone 2-3 years in advance. But it is
only in the final year that the real work gets done.
JF Mezei
> He is no longer CEO, but he's still an employee, and on the board. He
> still plays a role in Apple, and it's valid to consider how much of a
> role, and if his health issues will keep him from being able to make the
> meaningful contributions he has been making in product decisions.
My guess is that his role will diminish rapidly to "nil". Whether we'll
notice it or not is a different question. I the case of the iphone, most
of the restrictions are imposed by Apple's customers (the mobile
networks) so this may not change.
For computers, Apple has more freedom so the management style may have
an impact there. Big rumour is whether Apple will move its laptops to
the ARM architecture and use Apple's own chips. Only time will tell.
Apple without Jobs is fully capable of making such a decision.
In his resignation letter, Jobs admitted there was a transition plan.
The silence after his leave of absence was likely designed into that
plan so that we don't really know what his day to day involvement would
be and more importantly, not notice how his involvement is
changing/diminishing.
So we really do not know how much Jobs has been involved or influenced
products currently being developped at Apple. (stuff that will come out
next year and the year after). And as markets change, Apple will adapt
and such plans may be fine tuned as time goes on.
Since we can't know how much involvement Jobs has had in the past 8
months, we can't judge how much involvement he will continue to have.
If the TMZ pictures are real, I can tell you that it won't last long. If
he has a cancer in his digestive system, he will litterally starve to
death before the cancer kills him. And that is what the picture looks like.
> I don't think anyone doubts Tim Cook's abilities to steer Apple.
Correct. But he is now the guy who makes the decisions. So the focus is
on him, not on Jobs.
> But
> every pilot of a large vessel needs a navigator, and clearly Jobs was
> the navigator at Apple.
Jobs has set a course that works. The captain will likely continue on
this proven-to-work course at least until market changes force a course
correction.
JF Mezei
> Apple's board of directors has a lot of faith in him. He's going to get
> half a million shares of Apple stock in five years if he's still CEO, and
> another half million five years after that if he's CEO then.
The company/board
wouldn't have nominated Cook as CEO unless they had confidence in him.
So the sign of confidence comes from his nomination itself, not his
salary/perks.
The board has a duty to shareholders (they represent us at the company)
to ensure that we, the shareholders, are happy with our investment in
AAPL. So the board is confident Cook can continue to steer Apple in a
way that makes us happy.
AJL
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>In article <3djg57lbcbv0rp83j...@4ax.com>,
> AJL <128945...@none.com> wrote:
>> IMO the question is can Apple continue to be innovative as it has
>> under Jobs. His creative ideas always seemed to be ahead of the pack.
>> Was that his gift alone or can new management continue the success?
>> Judging from recent stock moves it is currently an open question to
>> many investors.
>
>You mean Apple's stock doing better than the rest of the sector? Looks
>like the investors are not so worried.
The stock took a nose dive after the 'announcement', then recovered
with a collective "whew" after the information was absorbed that Jobs
was not leaving and would still have a say in operations. Clearly
investors put a lot of stock (pun intended) in Jobs. What they will do
when he finally departs (word chosen carefully) is an open question.
>After all, Apple had one of its
>hottest quarters ever under Cook as acting CEO.
Palm failed after several hot quarters of being on top. Most put the
blame on management and lack of innovation. It will take some years to
see if the new management arrangement at Apple can continue the
momentum...
JF Mezei
>> >> It's a FAKE. "TMZ" says it all...
>> >
>> > But Matt Drudge says it's real.
>>
>> Cute, real cute...
>
The drudge report merely has a link to the TMZ web site. No commentary
that I could see about the veracity of the image. Does the fact that
Drudge publishes it mean that they have done verification to ensure this
was real ?
JF Mezei
> "Antennagate" turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.
You are undestarting the problem. It wasn't a show stopper. But it still
showed that the iphone4's case design was flawed. Whether Apple fine
tuned the case afterwards, I do't know. But the rumours are that Apple
is returning to the previous philosophy in the case design (metal back)
> That has nothing to do with the design of the camera.
>
> Oh, and Apple didn't invent HDR; it's a photographic technique that goes
> back to the very earliest days of photography.
Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era. In case your didnt know, the
"earliest days of photography" didn't involve digital cameras, it
involved film with some silver nitrate coating that was senstive to
light and lots of chemicals to develop it.
In the old days, multiple exposures was done purely for special effects.
And you had control over the exposire much more than on the iphone.
About the only time HDR might be used would be for perfectly still
settings on tripid and you would take 2 totally separate pictures at
different settings and then combine them in the darkroom. You couldn't
do that for dynamic scenes.
Jolly Roger
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
Talking out of your ass again, I see.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
JF Mezei
> "Admitted"??? Do you really mean that he had been hiding the plan from the
> board of directors until then?
Not to the board, but to shareholders and the public. Remember that some
shareholders had tried a motion to force Apple to release details of a
transition plan and this was refused. Apple did not wish to admit there
was a transition plan.
With Jobs' resignation, it admitted there has been a transition plan all
along.
> The silence was so that his personal life and privacy could remain that.
Silence about his health condition is "personal". Silence about
corporate transition plans is corporate, it isn't personnal.
> Other than that Apple had said that he was very involved, you mean?
This is spin. You should know how good Apple is at spin. The truth is
that we realy do not know how many hours/time Jobs was able to spend at
apple each of the 8 months since his leave of absence began, and whether
the number of hours went down as months progressed or if it was stable.
We simply don't know, so you can't state that he remained very involved,
and I can't state that he had no involvement at all. We just don't know
his level of involvement.
Jolly Roger
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> > "Admitted"??? Do you really mean that he had been hiding the plan from the
> > board of directors until then?
>
> Not to the board, but to shareholders and the public. Remember that some
> shareholders had tried a motion to force Apple to release details of a
> transition plan and this was refused. Apple did not wish to admit there
> was a transition plan.
>
> With Jobs' resignation, it admitted there has been a transition plan all
> along.
Bullshit. You just love to try to rewrite history, don't you, silly man?
What actually happened is shareholders tried to force Apple to disclose
details about the existing transition plan. The absence of details about
the plan does not equate to an absence of a plan. Apple's response,
verbatim:
"Adopting Proposal No. 5 would give the Company�s competitors an unfair
advantage. Proposal No. 5 would publicize the Company�s confidential
objectives and plans. Giving competitors access to this information is
not in the best interest of the Company or its shareholders.
Proposal No. 5 would also undermine the Company�s efforts to recruit and
retain executives. The Board believes that the Company�s success depends
on attracting and retaining a superior executive team, including the
CEO. Proposal No. 5 requires a report identifying the candidates being
considered for CEO, as well as the criteria used to evaluate each
candidate. By publicly naming these potential successors, Proposal No. 5
invites competitors to recruit high-value executives away from Apple.
Furthermore, executives who are not identified as potential successors
may choose to voluntarily leave the Company. Proposal No. 5 attempts to
micro-manage and constrain the actions of the Board�"
For the record, slightly more than 400 million shareholders voted
*against* Apple disclosing the plan.
> > The silence was so that his personal life and privacy could remain that.
>
> Silence about his health condition is "personal". Silence about
> corporate transition plans is corporate, it isn't personnal.
Virtually no large corporations in the business disclose their
succession plans.
JF Mezei
> Virtually no large corporations in the business disclose their
> succession plans.
Details are not divulged. But often and a succesful CEO like Gerstner
retires, there is a succession plan announced and there is time when bth
the old and new CEOs work together to ensure smooth transition.
This is not the case when a CEO is fired or forced to resign (as in the
last 2 CEOs at HP, actually, LaCarly was fired bit same process to seek
out a replacement - and normally, in cases of abrupt ends, the board
shoudl have been seeking out a replacement before the firing/resignation
is announced).
In the case of Apple, not only did they not want to disclose details of
a a succession plan, they did not wish to admit there was one. Doing so
would be tantamount to admitting Jobs was never coming back and that
would go against the privacy of his own disease.
This is why the resignation letter is significant in that they admit
there was a transition plan in place and that they continue to execute
it. No details are released but we know they have one, and we obviously
know who is officially taking over from Jobs.
Consider that there is a possibility that Cook was interim CEO because
the board were looking at possible outside candidates to replace Jobs
and they eventually decided Cook was the man. And now he's got the job
officially. we don't know what really happens behind closed door.
There would normally be a committee formed by the board to seek out a
replacement CEO in such circumstances. It is quite possible also that
such committee quickly focused on Cook and never bothere with an outside
search, but could not reveal that Cook was to be Jobs replacement
because that was tantamount to admitting Jobs was not coming back from
leave of absence.
Steve Hix
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> Some people have been recommending selling Apple Stock for some time -
> based upon Steve Job's health, and their belief that he has to be
> running things to keep current growth.
People have been wrong about investment advice since the days of the Chaldeans.
Your Name
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> > Why do you believe that, Tinkerbell? Do you really believe that Apple's
> > development cycle is that short, and that they don't have long-range
> > planning?
>
> Some aspect of product are on a 1 year cycle. Consider the case of the
> iphone. They would have begin the process of redesigning it only after
> the "antenna gate" debacle last august. Some aspects may be multi year.
The "iPhone 5" would have already been well into the early development by
the time of the "antenna gate" silliness (as no doubt were very early
stages of "iPhone 6"). The minor redesign of the iPhone 4 wouldn't have
needed a CEO's constant day-to-day approval.
Your Name
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> But the rumours are that Apple is returning to the previous philosophy in
> the case design (metal back)
I only had time for a very quick look at the images on MacRumor.com
yesterday, but the latest "leaked" images seem to show basically the same
design for the next iPhone release ... of course whether those images are
real, of the "iPhone 4s", or of the "iPhone 5" are different questions.
:-)
As a side note, a few places here in New Zealand Vodafone is advertising
discounted pricing on the iPhone 3GS, so it looks like they're wanting to
get rid of stock before the new models are released.
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-4D0A3...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > About the only time HDR might be used would be for perfectly still
> > > settings on tripid and you would take 2 totally separate pictures at
> > > different settings and then combine them in the darkroom. You couldn't
> > > do that for dynamic scenes.
> >
> > Talking out of your ass again, I see.
>
> At least he didn't misspell "separate". I've seen it spelled "seperate"
> all too often lately.
The resident nit-picking moron is at it again. :-\
Thomas R. Kettler
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <4e5947e8$0$2223$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > In the case of Apple, not only did they not want to disclose details of
> > a a succession plan, they did not wish to admit there was one.
>
> The fact that they did say there was one completely escapes you.
>
> > Doing so would be tantamount to admitting Jobs was never coming back and
> > that would go against the privacy of his own disease.
>
> No, it is tantamount to acknowledging that he is not immortal.
Are you saying Steve Jobs is not Duncan MacLeod? Now, you tell me. I'm
so bummed.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnJt9p-sHho>
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Jolly Roger
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Virtually no large corporations in the business disclose their
> > succession plans.
>
> In the case of Apple, not only did they not want to disclose details of
> a a succession plan, they did not wish to admit there was one.
Citation, or I call bullshit.
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <yourname-280...@203-118-184-192.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > > > About the only time HDR might be used would be for perfectly still
> > > > > settings on tripid and you would take 2 totally separate pictures at
> > > > > different settings and then combine them in the darkroom. You
couldn't
> > > > > do that for dynamic scenes.
> > > >
> > > > Talking out of your ass again, I see.
> > >
> > > At least he didn't misspell "separate". I've seen it spelled "seperate"
> > > all too often lately.
> >
> > The resident nit-picking moron is at it again. :-\
>
> Get a sense of humour, jackass.
>
> You, Mezei, and Peter are three of a kind: none of you can ever admit when
> you're wrong about anything, no matter how trivial.
Look in a mirror before you cast stones ... on second thoughts, don't
you'll break it and we'll all be stuck with seven more years of your
blatant stupidty. :-(
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <yourname-280...@203-118-185-192.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > You, Mezei, and Peter are three of a kind: none of you can ever admit
> > > when you're wrong about anything, no matter how trivial.
> >
> > Look in a mirror before you cast stones ... on second thoughts, don't
> > you'll break it and we'll all be stuck with seven more years of your
> > blatant stupidty. :-(
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
Believe whatever utter garbage that makes your tiny little brain feel
superior. :-\
Alan Browne
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> "Antennagate" turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.
>
> You are undestarting the problem. It wasn't a show stopper. But it still
> showed that the iphone4's case design was flawed. Whether Apple fine
> tuned the case afterwards, I do't know. But the rumours are that Apple
> is returning to the previous philosophy in the case design (metal back)
>
>
>> That has nothing to do with the design of the camera.
>>
>> Oh, and Apple didn't invent HDR; it's a photographic technique that goes
>> back to the very earliest days of photography.
>
> Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era.
Horseshit. Esp. with reversal film ("slide") with its narrow dynamic
range, multiple exposure HDR processing has been going on since about WW
II. In the darkroom it means making masks (photographically) and
printing (or making a transfer negative (or positive). Tedious.
During the 80's/90's this was done with film scans and the first digital
approaches.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
George Kerby
On 8/27/11 1:17 PM, in article
4e5934cf$0$12447$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>> It's a FAKE. "TMZ" says it all...
>>>>
>>>> But Matt Drudge says it's real.
>>>
>>> Cute, real cute...
>>
>> But true.
>
>
> The drudge report merely has a link to the TMZ web site. No commentary
> that I could see about the veracity of the image. Does the fact that
> Drudge publishes it mean that they have done verification to ensure this
> was real ?
Do *facts* have to get in the way?!?
Aw... SHUCKS!
George Kerby
On 8/27/11 1:24 PM, in article
4e59364b$0$29566$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> "Antennagate" turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.
>
> You are undestarting the problem. It wasn't a show stopper. But it still
> showed that the iphone4's case design was flawed. Whether Apple fine
> tuned the case afterwards, I do't know. But the rumours are that Apple
> is returning to the previous philosophy in the case design (metal back)
>
>
>> That has nothing to do with the design of the camera.
>>
>> Oh, and Apple didn't invent HDR; it's a photographic technique that goes
>> back to the very earliest days of photography.
>
> Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era.
Sorry, but that is wrong. Cibachrome was popular in the late 70's and just
about all labs would make a contrast mask to deal with it's vivid but
extreme narrow latitude. That was a form of HDR and there were others in
earlier times.
George Kerby
On 8/28/11 8:00 AM, in article
timstreater-F210...@news.individual.net, "Tim Streater"
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <WKOdnQ1swdXVp8fT...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-08-27 14:24 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Antennagate" turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.
>>>
>>> You are undestarting the problem. It wasn't a show stopper. But it still
>>> showed that the iphone4's case design was flawed. Whether Apple fine
>>> tuned the case afterwards, I do't know. But the rumours are that Apple
>>> is returning to the previous philosophy in the case design (metal back)
>
>>>> That has nothing to do with the design of the camera.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and Apple didn't invent HDR; it's a photographic technique that goes
>>>> back to the very earliest days of photography.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era.
>>
>> Horseshit. Esp. with reversal film ("slide") with its narrow dynamic
>> range, multiple exposure HDR processing has been going on since about WW
>> II. In the darkroom it means making masks (photographically) and
>> printing (or making a transfer negative (or positive). Tedious.
>
> Not sure why you are characterising slide film as "narrow dynamic
> range". I would have said it had a much higher range than paper.
Transparency film is known for having a narrower contrast range than
negative film. Therefore when printing to paper, a larger 'dynamic range' is
achieved. To do this with prints from 'slide' film, a masking of shadows
and/or highlights must be done to keep from blowing out (highlights) and/or
losing detail in the shadows. Essentially, you and Browne are saying the
same thing...
Alan Browne
> In article <WKOdnQ1swdXVp8fT...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Antennagate" turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.
>> >
>> > You are undestarting the problem. It wasn't a show stopper. But it
>> still
>> > showed that the iphone4's case design was flawed. Whether Apple fine
>> > tuned the case afterwards, I do't know. But the rumours are that Apple
>> > is returning to the previous philosophy in the case design (metal back)
>
>> >> That has nothing to do with the design of the camera.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and Apple didn't invent HDR; it's a photographic technique that
>> goes
>> >> back to the very earliest days of photography.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era.
>>
>> Horseshit. Esp. with reversal film ("slide") with its narrow dynamic
>> range, multiple exposure HDR processing has been going on since about
>> WW II. In the darkroom it means making masks (photographically) and
>> printing (or making a transfer negative (or positive). Tedious.
>
> range". I would have said it had a much higher range than paper.
True, but much narrower than B&W or color negative film.
IOW: it's not important what you print - it's important what you capture.
Which is why one would do such processes with slide, but not needed as
much with negative. Negative also has more room above middle grey than
slide film.
Digital, esp. with raw, has more DR than slide, but the highlight max is
at about the same (2 - 2.5 stops over middle grey) as slide.
jcdill
> The stock took a nose dive after the 'announcement', then recovered
The stock market reacts like this to almost any unexpected major
announcement that appears, at first glance, to be "bad news".
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/cannonsandtrumpets.asp
jc
Patty Winter
In article <uP-dnd6i7J-8z8fT...@giganews.com>,
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2011-08-28 09:00 , Tim Streater wrote:
[snip]
>> Not sure why you are characterising slide film as "narrow dynamic
>> range". I would have said it had a much higher range than paper.
>
>True, but much narrower than B&W or color negative film.
I had the opportunity to photograph the STS-9 astronauts as they
came out of a building into the alleyway where a special van was
waiting to take them to the launch pad. The walkout would be taking
place not long after dawn, and as I said, in an alleyway. Too bright
to need flash, but not full daylight. A professional photographer
friend suggested that I switch from my normal slide film to negative
film in order to maximize my chances of getting a well exposed photo,
and it worked great.
Patty
Alan Browne
Exactly.
AJL
wrote:
>On 27/08/11 11:16 AM, AJL wrote:
>
>> The stock took a nose dive after the 'announcement', then recovered
>
>The stock market reacts like this to almost any unexpected major
>announcement that appears, at first glance, to be "bad news".
Of course ( I resisted 'Well Duh!') since the market rarely goes up on
perceived bad news. But I'm not sure what your point is. I was
responding (in the quote you snipped) to a poster who thought the
investors were *not* worried...
JF Mezei
> Horseshit. Esp. with reversal film ("slide") with its narrow dynamic
> range, multiple exposure HDR processing has been going on since about WW
> II.
Funny, none of my analogue cameras have an HDR button. And if you didn't
have a tripid with a fixed scene, you couldn't take multiple exposures
of the same scene. You couldn't do HDR on a moving train for instance.
Yes, you could play a lot of tricks, but they were done in the darkroom,
not in the camera. Camera just two two totally separate exposures with
you fiddling with the exposure in between.
JF Mezei
different types of slide films and different brands, each with their own
characteristics. Kodachrome was not the same as Ektachrome or Fujichrome
for instance. So you can't generalise. Same with negative films.
Secondly, with modern cameras, just as different films had different
characteristics, different CCD sensors have different characteristics.
If you take the sensor for a Nikon high end SLR, you won't get the same
image, contrast, etc as if you take the sensor from an iPhone.
So it is perfectly valid to say that the sensor used for the iPhone is
more likely to require some "HDR" technique to get good images than the
sensor of a real camera. This isn't digital vs analogue because even
within the digital realm, there are use differences between sensors.
And I suspect the camera assembly for the next iPhone will result in
even better pictures than on the 4, and if HDR is still needed, perhaps
the shots will be taken closer to each other to minimise the ghosting
that appears in moving scenes.
Alan Browne
You said (and snipped above):
"Sorry, but HDR is purely a digital era."
Dynamic range is a property of a measurement. It has nothing to do with
how the measurement is made. If it is made with film, then it is
subject to the limits of the particular film.
The problem with narrow dynamic range films (esp. reversal) have plagued
such photographers for decades - and been solved in the darkroom.
As to digital, whether a scanned image or taken in camera, HDR REQUIRES
more than one image. The "HDR" button on a digital camera DOES NOT
IMPROVE THE DR of the CAMERA. It can't. Physics and all that. The
camera f/w may artificially boost the shadow areas and/or attenuate the
highlights but this results in increased noise and color channel
blocking respectively.
An exceptional digital camera for HDR condition shooting is the
FujiFinePix S3 and S5 which couple a low gain sensor pixel with each
high gain pixel thereby extending the highlights by a couple stops (with
the low gain sensors). However this camera line has 'contained' itself
to about 6 Mpixels while newer conventional sensors have improved DR
while providing both higher res and full frame. Still does not match
HDR technique with multiple images. These cameras were popular for
wedding photography - it is germane to note that most wedding
photography is done with color negative films (Portra 160/400 and the
Fujifilm equivalents which of course have a wide DR than conventional
digital cameras. But this is by ADDING a sensor.
Alan Browne
> Another thing. Slide vs negative is way oo general. There were
> different types of slide films and different brands, each with their own
> characteristics. Kodachrome was not the same as Ektachrome or Fujichrome
> for instance. So you can't generalise. Same with negative films.
You certainly can generalize. Where there are minor variations within
each class (eg: slide, negative, etc.) between each class the difference
is enormous.
Slide: about -2 to +2.5 stops (from middle grey)
Color neg: about -4 to +3 / 3.5 stops.
B&W: about -5 to +4 stops
> Secondly, with modern cameras, just as different films had different
> characteristics, different CCD sensors have different characteristics.
> If you take the sensor for a Nikon high end SLR, you won't get the same
> image, contrast, etc as if you take the sensor from an iPhone.
Just about all digital cameras max out at +2.5 stops over middle grey.
(The Fujifinepix S3/S5 extended that to about +4 by adding low gain
"sensels" to each standard sensel.)
Where the latest and greatest digitals have improved is by extending the
shadow sensitivity (without too much noise increase). But breaking the
highlights is the bane of digital sensors.
> So it is perfectly valid to say that the sensor used for the iPhone is
> more likely to require some "HDR" technique to get good images than the
> sensor of a real camera. This isn't digital vs analogue because even
> within the digital realm, there are use differences between sensors.
The pixel density in the iPhone is extremely high compared to a full
frame DSLR (> 2 orders of magnitude) giving the iPhone camera all sorts
of disadvantages on the noise side making 1 shot "artificial HDR"
techniques even more shoddy than on a larger sensor camera.
> And I suspect the camera assembly for the next iPhone will result in
> even better pictures than on the 4, and if HDR is still needed, perhaps
> the shots will be taken closer to each other to minimise the ghosting
> that appears in moving scenes.
Bzzzzzzzt
George Kerby
On 8/28/11 12:17 PM, in article
4e5a7812$0$12431$c3e8da3$4db3...@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
Auto bracketing was a feature on high-end SLR cameras, as I recall.
Your Name
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <yourname-280...@203-118-184-38.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > > > You, Mezei, and Peter are three of a kind: none of you can ever
> > > > > admit when you're wrong about anything, no matter how trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Look in a mirror before you cast stones ... on second thoughts,
> > > > don't you'll break it and we'll all be stuck with seven more years
> > > > of your blatant stupidty. :-(
> > >
> > > Thank you for proving my point.
> >
> > Believe whatever utter garbage that makes your tiny little brain feel
> > superior. :-\
>
> Nah, I'll leave that to you; you're a master at it. I'll stick to facts
> and logic.
You're a complete brainless waste of space, no better than the anti-Apple
nutters ... I'm done.
Your Name
Investors weren't worried. It's the greedy speculators trying to make a
fast buck, constantly trading at a moment's notice that were worried.
Erilar
Are you referring to fancy automatic ones? I only used NON-automatic SLR
cameras and chose my own settings 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Steve Hix
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Horseshit. Esp. with reversal film ("slide") with its narrow dynamic
> > range, multiple exposure HDR processing has been going on since about WW
> > II.
>
> Funny, none of my analogue cameras have an HDR button.
Most digital cameras don't have "an HDR button", for that matter.
And with a rollfilm camera, you can't change ISO rating from exposure to exposure
as you can with a digital camera, either. (You can with a sheetfilm camera, and
we did it all the time.)
There are a lot differences in UI and control function between digital and film
cameras; nevertheless things like HDR effects have been possible with film for a
very long time.
They're just easier to do now with digital gear.
Which doesn't refute his claim about HDR processing predating digital sensors.
> And if you didn't have a tripid with a fixed scene, you couldn't take multiple exposures
> of the same scene.
Of course you could. Just as you can now with a digital SLR off-tripod. It's
just that the registration and alignment is harder. Come to think on it, you
could enjoy some of the benefits of digital imaging by scanning your
negative/slide, and get the computer to do some of the niggly work for you.
It's just a whole lot less convenient.
> You couldn't do HDR on a moving train for instance.
Depends on how far away the subject is, and how cluttered the foreground.
You normally won't do decent HDR work in digital on a moving train, either.
> Yes, you could play a lot of tricks, but they were done in the darkroom,
> not in the camera.
So what; you could still do the tricks. We've just moved some of the darkroom
into the camera, if not all of it.
> Camera just two two totally separate exposures with you fiddling with the exposure in between.
Or three, etc. You can't always get good results from just two exposures
digitally, either. It turns out that film's wider latitude makes catching the
entire brightness range a little easier.
Steve Hix
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Auto bracketing was a feature on high-end SLR cameras, as I recall.
Roughly contemporaneous with autofocus systems, yes.
George Kerby
On 8/28/11 6:25 PM, in article j3eip5$asc$2...@dont-email.me, "Erilar"
<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
I am referring to the Canon F-1N which I used professionally for several
years. Auto exposure was not an option with incident metering, and due to
variations in E4 and E6 processing, 1/3 stop bracketing was a necessity for
making acceptable color separations for publications. The Nikon F series was
similar, but as we all know, Nikon sucks.
George Kerby
On 8/28/11 6:58 PM, in article
sehix-519405....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com, "Steve Hix"
<se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
Autofocus: The beginning of the end, LOL!
Wes Groleau
> When important Apple news bubbles up to the mainstream media, it’s often
> distorted — or flat-out incorrect — by the time it pops out at the surface.
Let's tell the whole truth:
When important news bubbles up to the mainstream media, it’s usually
distorted — or flat-out incorrect — by the time it pops out at the surface.
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157
Wes Groleau
> Not to the board, but to shareholders and the public. Remember that some
> shareholders had tried a motion to force Apple to release details of a
> transition plan and this was refused. Apple did not wish to admit there
> was a transition plan.
Pretending there is no transition plan is not the same thing as
refusing to reveal what the plan is. So which did Apple actually do?
(Pretending there is no transition plan is also stupid, since anyone
with half-a-clue knows they have a plan.)