Steve Jobs on new medical leave
A Non E Mouse
Here we go again.
Jim_Higgins
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
>
> Here we go again.
>
I wish him well.
AV3
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
>
> Here we go again.
>
I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
of dedication to Mac OS X?"
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
Erik Richard Sørensen
AV3 wrote:
> On Jan/17/2011 10:4904 AM, A Non E Mouse wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
>>
>> Here we go again.
>
> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought... Maybe the cancer, maybe
the diabetes - or a combination... My wife died of the complications
following to the diabetes, so I know that this is a real thread to
anyone's health... - When first one complication occours, it's often
followed by others.:-(
Regarding the further development of OS X. - I think Steve Jobs now has
gathered a so high-qualified staff that they will be able to continue,
even if he if forced to retire due to his illness.
Sure hope he'll gain health back so he will be able to continue as the
real leader of Apple, but with his kind of illness he maybe should
throttle down quite a lot and concentrate his work as the CEO and not
/all/ the main resorts...
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen
AV3 wrote:
> On Jan/17/2011 10:4904 AM, A Non E Mouse wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
>>
>> Here we go again.
>
> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought... Maybe the cancer, maybe
Jolly Roger
Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> AV3 wrote:
> > On Jan/17/2011 10:4904 AM, A Non E Mouse wrote:
> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
> >>
> >> Here we go again.
> >
> > I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> > him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> > of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>
> Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought...
Speak for yourself.
Those of us who have educated ourselves regarding recovery from islet
cell neuroendocrine tumors know that the immune system in survivors is
irreversibly compromised after surgery, and as such ups and downs are
quite typical. Things like the common cold or even allergic reactions to
simple things like pollen in the air - things most of us take for
granted - tend to be much more serious issues for people recovering from
this illness. So it's no surprise at all to me that Steve would need
occasional leaves to take the best care of himself possible.
Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his cancer is
back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities, right? I often
wonder how long it will take the general public to wake up and realize
today's media seems helplessly devoted to jumping straight to
sensationalist worst-case speculation for just about any and all "news".
I suppose it's human nature. In that case, I'm happy to buck the trend.
--
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
> Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his cancer is
> back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities, right?
Apple knew that such an announcement would cause Wall Street Casino
Analysts to overreact. So they chose a day with closed markets. And it
so happens that financial resulst are being announced today (the day
after) and they will likely razzle dazzle.
Because he's had cancer, you have to expect people to translate "medical
leave of absence" into "his cancer has returned, this time worse than
before".
If it had been a bruise on a finger with a band-aid on it, they wouldn't
have had to annouce a medical leave of absence. If it had been some
cosmetic surgery, they wouldn't have had to announce a leave of absence.
Lets face it, the fact that they had to announce this means it is serious.
Terminal ? Fixable ? I don't know. Is he waiting for another transplant?
This could take time.
Until they have high degree of confidence he will recover, they can't
really announce anything. he could die during some operation, die due to
rejection of the new organ etc etc. AAPL can't give false hopes.
The next announcement is likely either of his passing away, or that he's
had succesful treatment and should be returning to work in a month.
Until then, we'll only have uneducated speculation.
Tom Stiller
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his cancer is
> back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities, right? I often
> wonder how long it will take the general public to wake up and realize
> today's media seems helplessly devoted to jumping straight to
> sensationalist worst-case speculation for just about any and all "news".
> I suppose it's human nature. In that case, I'm happy to buck the trend.
I don't think the media response is human nature. I rather think that
with 24 hour "news and information" TV channels there is a need to
manufacture "news" when there is none. That means searching for and
picking at every little thread hoping to unravel something "big".
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Lyrik
> Jolly Roger wrote:
> Until then, we'll only have uneducated speculation.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wish him well. I should have liked to talk to him about an
observation that I have had in my experience as health worker. I have
encountered several vegetarians with liver disease. Yesterday the
danish paper B.T. had an article about a woman with poisoned liver.
The doctors had her carefully examined and the reason for her liver
disease was 5 cups of green tea she had drunk every day. The doctors
found out that too many anti oxidants could poison the liver.
Her disease declined dramatically as she stopped drinking the green
tea.
That makes sense to me having experienced several liver failures in
vegetarians.
Jens
Erik Richard Sørensen
Well JR... I wasn't even thinking of his cancer, - only of the diabetes.
With that illnes there's only one way and it's worse and worse by and
by. The only thing you can't say is /when/ it will get worse. This
totally depends of the type of diabetes, - and as you say it yourself.
This is an irreversible process... One thing is for sure - you /cannot/
cure diabetes yet!
Howard Brazee
<tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
>> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
>> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>
>Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought... Maybe the cancer, maybe
>the diabetes - or a combination... My wife died of the complications
>following to the diabetes, so I know that this is a real thread to
>anyone's health... - When first one complication occours, it's often
>followed by others.:-(
Probably. But it is possible that he decided to exaggerate things
with the goal of making a clean succession while he still can come
back. This would keep the stock market (and his assets) valuable,
preparing for his long term future.
--
"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
J Burns
> I don't think the media response is human nature. I rather think that
> with 24 hour "news and information" TV channels there is a need to
> manufacture "news" when there is none. That means searching for and
> picking at every little thread hoping to unravel something "big".
>
fatality within 100 miles, there may be several bulletins saying "One
person was killed in a DEADLY crash." Most fatal crashes aren't
mentioned because they have some other tidbit to shout about.
Per Rønne
Yes, to let predators like Homo sapiens, the strongest predator that has
ever lived on Planet Earth, to live on a vegerarian diet is simply
unhealthy.
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
AV3
> In article<ih2s0e$os9$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
>> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
>> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>
> dedication" to anything but investor returns.
>
> And that's by law.
>
> Steve himself would dump OS X in a minute--dump the whole damn
> Macintosh, for that matter, or sell it off as a separate company--if he
> thought it was the right path to higher investor returns for Apple Inc.
>
> He's sold you a bill of goods if you think he has *any* sense of
> dedication to anything else.
I thought the change of name to simply "Apple" indicated that
peripherals have become the central focus of the corporation. I realize
that peripherals are the most profitable corporate activity and I expect
a corporation to take that into account. Peripherals have recaptured the
market position that computers once had at Apple, and I don't expect
history to operate in reverse. The king is dead, long live the king!
I only hope that computers and the Mac OS X have some place in the
corporation, but I have no objection to a satellite computer corporation
arising. That is why I posed the question. I don't think I am more than
ordinarily deluded by corporate activity, but we loyal Mac users do
perceive qualities in Apple and Jobs not evident elsewhere. Even if that
is a delusion, I have not been unhappy in it.
George Kerby
On 1/17/11 11:28 PM, in article
jollyroger-113F0...@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <4d35024f$0$23764$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Erik Richard S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>
>> AV3 wrote:
>>> On Jan/17/2011 10:4904 AM, A Non E Mouse wrote:
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/17/steve_jobs_medical_leave_apple/>
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
>>> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
>>> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>>
>> Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought...
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> Those of us who have educated ourselves regarding recovery from islet
> cell neuroendocrine tumors know that the immune system in survivors is
> irreversibly compromised after surgery, and as such ups and downs are
> quite typical. Things like the common cold or even allergic reactions to
> simple things like pollen in the air - things most of us take for
> granted - tend to be much more serious issues for people recovering from
> this illness. So it's no surprise at all to me that Steve would need
> occasional leaves to take the best care of himself possible.
>
> Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his cancer is
> back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities, right? I often
> wonder how long it will take the general public to wake up and realize
> today's media seems helplessly devoted to jumping straight to
> sensationalist worst-case speculation for just about any and all "news".
> I suppose it's human nature. In that case, I'm happy to buck the trend.
The media are rabid mongrels without any conscience.
Excellent post, Jolly!
AV3
My presumption about his working conditions was that there was an
allowance for the demands of treatments to keep a liver transplant under
control as well as for the expected complications of his pancreatic
cancer. This seems to be something requiring notification to the
stockholders and the stock market, so it is beyond normal expectations.
I hope your information is correct and your bucking the trend is
justified, but I think the question is worth being raised. I hope I am
not indulging in rank sensationalism and you are not whistling in the dark.
Doc O'Leary
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <ih2s0e$os9$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> > him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> > of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>
> Neither Steve nor anyone else in his position has any "sense of
> dedication" to anything but investor returns.
You, of course, are wrong. Can you name one other CEO at a comparable
level that directly answers email from the general public?
> And that's by law.
The law can be satisfied by many different approaches to corporate
governance. Some sell cheap knock-offs at vanishingly small margins to
make a small profit from quarter to quarter. Others plan for long term
advances and target smarter customers who will pay for better quality.
> Steve himself would dump OS X in a minute--dump the whole damn
> Macintosh, for that matter, or sell it off as a separate company--if he
> thought it was the right path to higher investor returns for Apple Inc.
>
> He's sold you a bill of goods if you think he has *any* sense of
> dedication to anything else.
Some of us have a sense of history. You clearly don't.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, astraweb.com,
and probably your server, too.
bigdude
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:00:31 +0100, Erik Richard Sørensen
> <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>
> >> I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> >> him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> >> of dedication to Mac OS X?"
> >
> >Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought... Maybe the cancer, maybe
> >the diabetes - or a combination... My wife died of the complications
> >following to the diabetes, so I know that this is a real thread to
> >anyone's health... - When first one complication occours, it's often
> >followed by others.:-(
>
> Probably. But it is possible that he decided to exaggerate things
> with the goal of making a clean succession while he still can come
> back. This would keep the stock market (and his assets) valuable,
> preparing for his long term future.
--------------------
You're kidding, right? Or just in denial?
--
bigD
Howard Brazee
>> >Well, he's obviously more ill than we thought... Maybe the cancer, maybe
>> >the diabetes - or a combination... My wife died of the complications
>> >following to the diabetes, so I know that this is a real thread to
>> >anyone's health... - When first one complication occours, it's often
>> >followed by others.:-(
>>
>> Probably. But it is possible that he decided to exaggerate things
>> with the goal of making a clean succession while he still can come
>> back. This would keep the stock market (and his assets) valuable,
>> preparing for his long term future.
> --------------------
>
>You're kidding, right? Or just in denial?
You did read the first word in my reply, didn't you?
Wes Groleau
> One thing is for sure - you /cannot/ cure diabetes yet!
But contrary to the rest of your post, most diabetics CAN live long and
healthy lives. Many of those without medications.
--
Wes Groleau
A child’s funeral
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1583
Tim McNamara
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his
> > cancer is back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities,
> > right?
>
>
>
> Apple knew that such an announcement would cause Wall Street Casino
> Analysts to overreact. So they chose a day with closed markets. And
> it so happens that financial resulst are being announced today (the
> day after) and they will likely razzle dazzle.
>
>
> Because he's had cancer, you have to expect people to translate
> "medical leave of absence" into "his cancer has returned, this time
> worse than before".
The particular pancreatic cancer he had is considered quite treatable.
It is unfortunately the much rarer form of pancreatic cancer, the more
common form having a generally poor prognosis. It is not unusual to be
dead within weeks to months of diagnosis. That Jobs is still alive
argues that his cancer was cured and probably has not recurred. Of
course he could also be one of the unfortunate folks who survive one
type of cancer only to develop another. He would be on anti-rejection
medications for the liver transplant; these are immunosuppressants and
do increase the risk of developing other health problems (including
cancer).
However, as someone else accurately pointed out, he underwent a rather
extreme procedure that will have other consequences on his health. If I
had to offer "uneducated speculation" (what a great phrase) I would
guess that the health problem is related to his liver transplant or to
another consequence of his surgeries. He's had his innards re-plumbed
and there s a lot of scar tissue.
> If it had been a bruise on a finger with a band-aid on it, they
> wouldn't have had to annouce a medical leave of absence. If it had
> been some cosmetic surgery, they wouldn't have had to announce a
> leave of absence. Lets face it, the fact that they had to announce
> this means it is serious.
>
> Terminal ? Fixable ? I don't know. Is he waiting for another
> transplant? This could take time.
>
> Until they have high degree of confidence he will recover, they can't
> really announce anything. he could die during some operation, die due
> to rejection of the new organ etc etc. AAPL can't give false hopes.
>
> The next announcement is likely either of his passing away, or that
> he's had succesful treatment and should be returning to work in a
> month.
>
> Until then, we'll only have uneducated speculation.
'Bout the size of it. I've just added mine! In any event, I hope he
gets better. Being ill is usually an awful experience.
--
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who
are poorer or weaker than themselves." Samuel Adams
Doug Anderson
> In article <4d352ea4$0$19051$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> > > Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his
> > > cancer is back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities,
> > > right?
> >
> >
> >
> > Apple knew that such an announcement would cause Wall Street Casino
> > Analysts to overreact. So they chose a day with closed markets. And
> > it so happens that financial resulst are being announced today (the
> > day after) and they will likely razzle dazzle.
> >
> >
> > Because he's had cancer, you have to expect people to translate
> > "medical leave of absence" into "his cancer has returned, this time
> > worse than before".
>
> The particular pancreatic cancer he had is considered quite treatable.
> It is unfortunately the much rarer form of pancreatic cancer, the more
> common form having a generally poor prognosis. It is not unusual to be
> dead within weeks to months of diagnosis. That Jobs is still alive
> argues that his cancer was cured and probably has not recurred. Of
> course he could also be one of the unfortunate folks who survive one
> type of cancer only to develop another. He would be on anti-rejection
> medications for the liver transplant; these are immunosuppressants and
> do increase the risk of developing other health problems (including
> cancer).
It seems ghoulish to speculate too much, and I'm guessing none of us
are oncologists.
But, as you said, the type of pancreatic cancer he had is quite
treatable. That was the good news. On the other hand, the most
likely explanation for his liver transplant is that his pancreatic
cancer had metastasized there. Which means there could be cancer left
from his pancreatic cancer elsewhere that his doctors didn't find.
So his health problems could very easily be recurrence of his original
cancer. Or, as you say they could related to the consequences of
receiving a liver transplant. Or, they could be something completely
unrelated.
In any case, I wish him the best, whatever the current issue is.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 01-18-2011 09:29, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
>> One thing is for sure - you /cannot/ cure diabetes yet!
>
> But contrary to the rest of your post, most diabetics CAN live long and
> healthy lives. Many of those without medications.
Yes, as long it is a diabetes type 2, but not the type 1. You /can/ live
for many years with the type 1 as well and as long as you don't get any
additional complications such as kidney, liver or heart problems or even
rupures of the blood wellels in the legs. - The risk of getting
additional complications with a type 1 diabetes is more than 100:1. -
According to the medical specialists here apprx. 25% of all diabetics
will get more or less reduction in kidney funtionality...
Tim McNamara
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 01-18-2011 09:29, Erik Richard S�rensen wrote:
> > One thing is for sure - you /cannot/ cure diabetes yet!
>
> But contrary to the rest of your post, most diabetics CAN live long
> and healthy lives. Many of those without medications.
My Dad was a type I diabetic diagnosed in 1935 following a bout of
polio, at the age of 6. Insulin had been discovered not all that long
before. He lived to be 67, more than 25 years longer than he was told
to expect, and was in poor health for only about the last year or so.
Diabetes management is much more sophisticated than it was for almost
all of his life. His endocrinologist had never seen anyone be a type I
diabetic that long.
Jolly Roger
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Bullshit. Stock holders are entitled to know what Apple has told them,
and nothing more. We've had this discussion before.
Jolly Roger
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <ih2s0e$os9$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid with his cancer, the question is "Where do we go without
> > him?" Most importantly for me, "Will his successor have any real sense
> > of dedication to Mac OS X?"
>
> Neither Steve nor anyone else in his position has any "sense of
> dedication" to anything but investor returns.
>
> And that's by law.
>
> Steve himself would dump OS X in a minute--dump the whole damn
> Macintosh, for that matter, or sell it off as a separate company--if he
> thought it was the right path to higher investor returns for Apple Inc.
>
> He's sold you a bill of goods if you think he has *any* sense of
> dedication to anything else.
You're a complete fool if you believe that.
Jolly Roger
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Of course the media and blogosphere would have you believe his cancer is
> > back. It must be that, out of all other possibilities, right?
>
>
>
> Apple knew that such an announcement would cause Wall Street Casino
> Analysts to overreact. So they chose a day with closed markets. And it
> so happens that financial resulst are being announced today (the day
> after) and they will likely razzle dazzle.
>
>
> Because he's had cancer, you have to expect people to translate "medical
> leave of absence" into "his cancer has returned, this time worse than
> before".
No, I don't have to expect that people act like fools.
> If it had been a bruise on a finger with a band-aid on it, they wouldn't
> have had to annouce a medical leave of absence.
One can take medical leaves for many things. Cancer is just one out of
thousands. Th reason they have to announce medical leave of a CEO is
because it potentially effects share holders. But share holders in this
case want more than they are entitled to know.
> If it had been some
> cosmetic surgery, they wouldn't have had to announce a leave of absence.
> Lets face it, the fact that they had to announce this means it is serious.
Nope. It means he's on medical leave. The specific reasons and status of
his health are private information that the public is not entitled to
know. Period.
> Terminal ? Fixable ? I don't know. Is he waiting for another transplant?
> This could take time.
Or he may simply have a common cold. The fact is we can't know and
aren't entitled to know, as long as Apple communicates how the medical
leave affects company operations, which it has done.
> Until they have high degree of confidence he will recover, they can't
> really announce anything. he could die during some operation, die due to
> rejection of the new organ etc etc. AAPL can't give false hopes.
And they never have.
> The next announcement is likely either of his passing away, or that he's
> had succesful treatment and should be returning to work in a month.
>
> Until then, we'll only have uneducated speculation.
Along with continuous demand for more information that we aren't
entitled to know.
Jolly Roger
Put a human in a small cage with an ape or a lion and see who is the
stronger predator. : )
Tim McNamara
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <ih4c4m$tdh$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > My presumption about his working conditions was that there was an
> > allowance for the demands of treatments to keep a liver transplant
> > under control as well as for the expected complications of his
> > pancreatic cancer. This seems to be something requiring
> > notification to the stockholders and the stock market, so it is
> > beyond normal expectations.
>
> Bullshit. Stock holders are entitled to know what Apple has told
> them, and nothing more. We've had this discussion before.
The regulators appear to agree thus far.
Wes Groleau
> The risk of getting additional complications with a type 1 diabetes is
> more than 100:1. - According to the medical specialists here apprx. 25%
> of all diabetics will get more or less reduction in kidney funtionality...
This is the average risk for ALL type 1. The thirty percent or more
that follow the all-too-common BAD advice about lifestyle, and the
fifty percent that don't follow any bring the averages way down.
--
Wes Groleau
Amigos Falsos
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=108
Per Rønne
> In article <1jvas4e.p46jas38w8n0N%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
>
> > Lyrik <jenser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 18 Jan., 07:09, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Until then, we'll only have uneducated speculation.
> > > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > > I wish him well. I should have liked to talk to him about an
> > > observation that I have had in my experience as health worker. I have
> > > encountered several vegetarians with liver disease. Yesterday the
> > > danish paper B.T. had an article about a woman with poisoned liver.
> > > The doctors had her carefully examined and the reason for her liver
> > > disease was 5 cups of green tea she had drunk every day. The doctors
> > > found out that too many anti oxidants could poison the liver.
> > > Her disease declined dramatically as she stopped drinking the green
> > > tea.
> > > That makes sense to me having experienced several liver failures in
> > > vegetarians.
> >
> > Yes, to let predators like Homo sapiens, the strongest predator that has
> > ever lived on Planet Earth, to live on a vegerarian diet is simply
> > unhealthy.
>
> Put a human in a small cage with an ape or a lion and see who is the
> stronger predator. : )
Put a human in the wilderness with a gun [or just a bow or spear] with
an ape or a lion and see who is the stronger predator.
Our strength lies in our brains. And our ability to co-operate in the
hunt, just like wolves.
JF Mezei
> I'm pretty sure you can't bludgeon an ape or lion to death with nothing
> more than a gun. "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
If you've seen the documentary "Austin Powers in Goldmember", you will
recall that Austin's dad managed to convince the henchmen that in a
fight, he would win, so they should just just fall down , roll over and
play dead, which they did. He he didn't even need an empty gun to
achieve this.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Yes, to let predators like Homo sapiens, the strongest predator that has
>> ever lived on Planet Earth, to live on a vegerarian diet is simply
>> unhealthy.
>
>Put a human in a small cage with an ape or a lion and see who is the
>stronger predator. : )
I saw your smile.
But your statement is like asking which would win a fight, a tiger or
a shark. It depends on whose territory the fight is.
Humans tend to make sure they have the advantage before fighting - and
the results of the pudding are in the tasting - humans win most of
these battles.
AV3
> In article<ih4c4m$tdh$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
corporation. This is to prevent corporate insiders from trading stock on
the basis of privileged information. I don't recall discussing this with
you previously. I think I would remember your supercilious tone, which
is a barrier to further discussion. Please don't waste our time with
more petulance.
Apple and Steve Jobs himself have an interest in full disclosure,
because they know that he is considered a vital factor in Apple's
success. Taking indefinite leave after only a brief return to partial
duties will have its effect, no matter how well Apple has been managed
during his previous absences. I think it is right to presume that only a
major deterioration in his health would cause him to publicly abandon
indefinitely the flexible work schedule recently in force.
I can think of few company founders whose taste and discipline have so
influenced a significant enterprise over almost forty years. Louis
Comfort Tiffany comes to mind. I hope Apple survives as well as Tiffany,
but the public has a right to make its judgment on the value of its
stock, hopefully on the basis of accurate information. Lack of accurate
information will give rumor and panic full play. Public figures have
very limited rights to privacy when their health is a financial factor.
The public interest in a fairly operating stock market supersedes a
vital executive's taste for privacy and control.
Sandman
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
> corporation. This is to prevent corporate insiders from trading stock on
> the basis of privileged information.
Cool, I'll call Apple and ask about when the next version of the iPad
is being released, just so I can buy stock when it is the most
profitable for me.
Are you being serious or are you just trolling?
--
Sandman[.net]
George Kerby
On 1/19/11 12:34 AM, in article
shiv-C17F13.0...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com, "shiva das"
<sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1jvbz9g.19uxc06lus7zcN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
>
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1jvas4e.p46jas38w8n0N%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> I'm pretty sure you can't bludgeon an ape or lion to death with nothing
> more than a gun. "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
And a bow is pretty much useless without an _____ ...
AV3
> In article<4D370A6F...@earthlink.net>,
> AV3<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
>> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
>> corporation. This is to prevent corporate insiders from trading stock on
>> the basis of privileged information.
>
> Cool, I'll call Apple and ask about when the next version of the iPad
> is being released, just so I can buy stock when it is the most
> profitable for me.
Corporate information that would obviously affect the value of a
company's stock is legally required to be made public in an orderly
manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a board of directors decision
to split the stock, etc.
The release of a particular product is not in the same class. Nor is the
state of health of that product's department head. Of course, there is
information that might or might not be covered by legal requirements,
and you can be sure that lawsuits and/or investigations would ensue in a
doubtful case of vital information withheld.
>
> Are you being serious or are you just trolling?
>
>
I am serious. Are you trolling?
Alan Browne
>
> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
> corporation.
They are legally entitled to the information that is required by law. I
don't know the specifics of the law in the US and CA, however, it seems
that nobody has been able to launch a successful _legal_ attack on the
boards current disclosure policy about Jobs health. ( a SH vote on the
succession plan will occur in Feb. I believe - not sure if it is binding
to the board. Scan recent news ).
If you're not satisfied with the disclosures made to date, you can sell
your stock if you see the lack of disclosure and the health of Jobs as a
risk to your holdings.
The stock rose slightly on Monday, fell a bit yesterday and is rising
today ($4 by noon).
Light jitters. But not a run to the gate. If the issue you raised were
really that scary, the stock would be down 5% or more and falling.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
> On 2011.01.19 10:59 , AV3 wrote:
>
>>
>> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
>> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
>> corporation.
>
> They are legally entitled to the information that is required by law. I
> don't know the specifics of the law in the US and CA, however, it seems
> that nobody has been able to launch a successful _legal_ attack on the
> boards current disclosure policy about Jobs health. ( a SH vote on the
> succession plan will occur in Feb. I believe - not sure if it is binding
> to the board. Scan recent news ).
Clarification: some institutional SH's want to know what the succession
plan is - the board has not seen fit to reveal it as they want to avoid
both internal dissatisfaction and/or recruiting of talent named (and not
named (eager to leave)).
JF Mezei
> Light jitters. But not a run to the gate. If the issue you raised were
> really that scary, the stock would be down 5% or more and falling.
If the CEO is unable to do his job and the company is unwilling to find
another CEO, this becomes an issue for shareholders.
What percentage of Apple does Mr Jobs own ?
At the end of the day, if he, and his friends, own over 50% of Apple,
then they can essentually do as they please.
But if normal shareholders own over 50% of the company, he can't do as
he pleases.
You and me look at the odds of his return. However, AAPL will inform
shareholders of facts, not speculation. If Jobs has not stated when or
whether he will return, what is AAPL supposed to do ?
However, those are "excuses" to keep Jobs, problems private.
The board of any corporation is entrusted to make policy decisions to
ensure the long term success of the company. They are asked to make
educated decisions based on whatever informsation they have and use
their intelligence to project the effects of a problem or decision.
So while AAPL may not wish to release speculative information about the
odds of Jobs' return, the board is expected to make decisions to protect
the value of AAPL in case Jobs cannot return or is to be absent for so
long that the company can't run on autopilot during this time.
The AAPL board of directors:
http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html
Finding a replacement for Jobs falls upon the board. They would form a
committee to look into it. Hopefully, that committee will have people
with lots of clout to recruit the right person for the job. And the
definition of "right person for the job" is crucial here.
Sorry to be blunt here but:
Jobs might see this as his passion he wants to continue till the very
end. But shareholders see it as an investment. And there comes a point
where you can't have a part time CEO.
I have no problem with Jobs retaining the CEO title with part time or
remote telepresence as long as he uses much of that time to select/train
a replacement to ensure his legacy continues and to ensure that his
replacement will also have a "vision" rather than "accounting" role
within AAPL.
I have a problem with jobs keeping the CEO job and not being able to do
it and refusing to select a replacement.
In the case of Apple, I don't really trust a board of directors to find
the right person for the job because they kay go for the "accountant"
type (like Sculley). Jobs is rather unique in the industry. I think
Apple would benefit greatly if they found a new guy now and allowed Jobs
to groom him/her into the job to ensure continued success.
Also, by spending much time to groom the new guy, investors and the
press will get to know him and get to see his presentations and he will
then be able to provide some degree of confidence in his abilities to
continue where Jobs left off.
If Jobs abruptly leaves/dies, and the boards scrambles to find a new
CEO, chances are that they won't find someone of equal calibre and that
it will take a few years before the press gets to know what this new guy
is made of, during which the AAPL stock will be depressed due to
uncertainty.
And that last word is the most important. The market abhors UNCERTAINTY.
And Jobs'sunexplained medical leave with no return date in mind and no
guidance on a possible replacement creates a lot of uncertainty.
I have no problem with Jobs being given a "honorary CEO with right of
veto" title. But AAPL really needs to grapple with the issue of a part
time CEO who is going to be absent for lengthy periods of time.
can argue that they cannot take any action or make announcements based
on odds, they must act only on facts. And based on that, they could
state that they have no actionable information they could divulge since
Jobs's posiible retur is just specualtion.
It could very well be that Tim Cook and others know that Jobs is dying
in 3 weeks. But if Jobs has asked to keep this secret, what are they to do ?
Juan Anonly
>> Bullshit. Stock holders are entitled to know what Apple has told them,
>> and nothing more. We've had this discussion before.
>
> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
> corporation.
Legally entitled? Are we legally entitled to know which lobbyists they
pay to do their dirty work in congress too? I hope I hope I hope. And
how they stay anonymous from the 501c's they create to be anonymous?
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Light jitters. But not a run to the gate. If the issue you raised were
>> really that scary, the stock would be down 5% or more and falling.
>
> If the CEO is unable to do his job and the company is unwilling to find
> another CEO, this becomes an issue for shareholders.
>
> What percentage of Apple does Mr Jobs own ?
>
> At the end of the day, if he, and his friends, own over 50% of Apple,
> then they can essentually do as they please.
>
> But if normal shareholders own over 50% of the company, he can't do as
> he pleases.
You snipped away the relevant portion of my post which was:
1) AFAWK, Apple's board is operating within the law wrt to
what is divulged and not.
2) A shareholder who feels there is risk associated with the lack
of disclosure of other information is quite free to sell his stock.
bigdude
> Nope. It means he's on medical leave. The specific reasons and status of
> his health are private information that the public is not entitled to
> know. Period.
>
> > Terminal ? Fixable ? I don't know. Is he waiting for another transplant?
> > This could take time.
>
> Or he may simply have a common cold. The fact is we can't know and
> aren't entitled to know, as long as Apple communicates how the medical
> leave affects company operations, which it has done.
No-one takes indefinite 'medical leave' for a common cold.
We'd all like to think this is the problem but the guy keeps losing
weight so he's on a one-way ticket. Probably found new metastases
somewhere else, in the lungs for eg.
He can't take his billions with him so whats he gonna do?
Cryopreservation in a solid gold casket (with the Apple logo, of course)
may be an option. With matching gold iPhone to call us from the
after-life..
--
bigD
George Kerby
On 1/19/11 11:14 AM, in article
592dnfqLMqhwhqrQ...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2011.01.19 10:59 , AV3 wrote:
>
>>
>> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
>> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
>> corporation.
>
>
> The stock rose slightly on Monday, fell a bit yesterday and is rising
> today ($4 by noon).
>
If anything, Monday trading in Europe resulted in a ~7% decline.
Get it right, OK?
Howard Brazee
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>At the end of the day, if he, and his friends, own over 50% of Apple,
>then they can essentually do as they please.
I wonder how much difference that makes. Any stockholder can sue if
he thinks the company is being mismanaged. About the only thing that
the 50% does is make sure a majority owner wins all stockholder votes.
JF Mezei
> 1) AFAWK, Apple's board is operating within the law wrt to
> what is divulged and not.
I am pretty sure Apple's legal department made pretty sure that Apple
fulfilled its statuatory obligations.
The problem with Steve Jobs's departure is that it is somewhat of a time
bomb. This year's products have probably already benefited from his
midas touch, so the real impact won't be felt until next year.
By the time sales numbers start to reflect Job's departure, it will take
at least 2 years to ramp it back up with a new leader.
And this is exactly such a "black hole" period that the board should
avoid. Note the 12 year black hole period between 1985 and 1997.
Alan Browne
The only truth to history repeating itself is that it always does so in
different ways.
The business pages are chock full of declarations about how good a
management team Apple has in place. I would expect that they have a
product plan that goes well beyond a couple years even if, like all such
plans, it will have to adapt to the winds of change.
Apple is not the company it was in 1985. Or 2005 for that matter.
Apple has to continue w/o Jobs - now or later.
JF Mezei
> I wonder how much difference that makes. Any stockholder can sue if
> he thinks the company is being mismanaged. About the only thing that
> the 50% does is make sure a majority owner wins all stockholder votes.
Makes a difference at the board. He can influence how the board decides
to handle his medical leave.
For instance wth 50% of the votes, he can prevent the board from
divulging that the real reason for his medical leave is that his
digesting system collapsed when the expensive hollywood escort he had
hired undfressed to reveal it was not really a female and Jobs
regurgitated all the vegetables he ever ate and has suffered convulsions
ever since.
Things got worse when the escort asked Jobs to eat his meat.
Hey, if we can't find out what is really going on, might as well have a
little fun with the story.
At the end of the day, we can complain about lack of information, but
there isn't much we can do about it.
The real question is how long of a "medical leave" before the board
decides to announce that they have found a new CEO to take Job's job,
with Jobs retaining a honorary CEO position along with his seat on the
board.
Or perhaps they will create a Co-CEO position to work alongside Jobs.
This leave's Job,s job intact until his death, while allowing the
replacement to work to fill; the gap left by his extended medical leave.
JF Mezei
> Apple is not the company it was in 1985. Or 2005 for that matter.
>
> Apple has to continue w/o Jobs - now or later.
>
Without good leadership, any succesful company will be run to the ground
in no time at all.
Did you know that IBM was close to declaring bankrupcy protection in the
early 1990s until they found Lou Gerstner who managed an incredible turn
around ?
Did you know that Apple was faltering despite having great talent
because of bad leadership until Jobs returned to give a solid direction
to the company ?
If the new CEO tells Jonny Ives to focus on catering to female teenagers
and design a heart shaped pink iphone with many flashing lights, Ives
will comply and design such a phone. It woill be great industrial
design, but will that phone sell to businessmen and adult females ?
You can have an incredible pool of talent and great managers, but
without a good leader who gives good and clear direction to the company,
it will falter.
The "boring PC" market is already over crowded with HP and Dell. Apple
wouldn't survive making commodity machines without any solid innovation
to differentiate themselves.
HP is the perfect example of what good managemenet without vision can
achieve. Good excution building boring products. And consider HP's phone
history.
They bought Compaq in part because of the ipaQ. HP did very little with
it and basically abandonned the product. Now, they bought Palm. Will
they do anything to it, or will they do like they did with the iPaq ?
Two other examples where lack of vision caused great companies to fall
way back: Nokia and Sony. Both replaced their leadership when they
realised they lacked vision to get the company's blood flowing again.
Lou Gerstner was unique because he didn't have vision, but he knew to
listen to the troups and when he saw good ideas, he empowered people to
get it done. There are very few people like him. In fact, he was able to
change IBM's internal culture in a very dramatic way. But I am not sure
his type is what is needed at Apple. Apple still needs a visionary to
understand the market/social behaviour and know what product will not
only sell, but also impress.
Gerstner was about getting IBM to listen to enterprise customers to
serve them. Apple is now about creating an intense demand for its
consumer products.
Tim Cook can manage Apple's execution. But you really need someone to
give the company direction.
AV3
> On 2011.01.19 10:59 , AV3 wrote:
>
>>
>> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
>> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
>> corporation.
>
> They are legally entitled to the information that is required by law. I
> don't know the specifics of the law in the US and CA, however, it seems
> that nobody has been able to launch a successful _legal_ attack on the
> boards current disclosure policy about Jobs health. ( a SH vote on the
> succession plan will occur in Feb. I believe - not sure if it is binding
> to the board. Scan recent news ).
>
> If you're not satisfied with the disclosures made to date, you can sell
> your stock if you see the lack of disclosure and the health of Jobs as a
> risk to your holdings.
I am satisfied that Apple gave the legal minimum amount of information
required. Since a janitor could sell the information that Jobs was
absent from his office for a prolonged period, Apple had little choice.
The law, or more specifically FEC rules with the force of law, are aimed
at preventing unfair insider trading. Investors to whom this information
matters have probably already figured the long apparently precarious
state of Jobs's health into the current price of the stock.
>
> The stock rose slightly on Monday, fell a bit yesterday and is rising
> today ($4 by noon).
>
> Light jitters. But not a run to the gate. If the issue you raised were
> really that scary, the stock would be down 5% or more and falling.
>
It didn't trade in the U. S. on Monday, and it fell about 8 per cent on
foreign exchanges. Yesterday Apple announced spectacularly favorable
quarterly statistics, which muted the effect of Jobs's indefinite
absence, but its stock still fell almost 3 per cent on NASDAQ. I haven't
yet checked out today's figures.
I cannot answer the questions: Will Apple create more new, popular
products? Will Apple meet the challenge of other corporations' new,
popular products? The value of its stock depends on the answers to those
questions, and the character of its corporate and creative leadership
will almost certainly be a factor. My intention has been only to raise
these questions.
Wes Groleau
> Humans tend to make sure they have the advantage before fighting - and
> the results of the pudding are in the tasting - humans win most of
> these battles.
Then again, perhaps the data are selectively reported, i.e.,
the ones that don't win don't admit it (or can't).
--
Wes Groleau
There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.
Wes Groleau
> type (like Sculley). Jobs is rather unique in the industry. I think
> Apple would benefit greatly if they found a new guy now and allowed Jobs
> to groom him/her into the job to ensure continued success.
His uniqueness in the way he imagines products and manages a company
is no guarantee that he is capable of grooming someone else, nor that
he is even capable of recognize the right person.
If Steve Jobs leaves, Apple _will_ change. I hope the change will be
in a direction I like. But even more, I hope it's NOT in a direction
that disturbs the two-party system of Apple vs. Microsoft.
As much as I like Linux or BSD, they are like Nader and Perot
against Democrats and Republicans.
Take away Apple and Microsoft will go from dominant to tyrant.
Per Rønne
> On 01-19-2011 09:49, Howard Brazee wrote:
> > Humans tend to make sure they have the advantage before fighting - and
> > the results of the pudding are in the tasting - humans win most of
> > these battles.
>
> Then again, perhaps the data are selectively reported, i.e.,
> the ones that don't win don't admit it (or can't).
Which species seem most likely to exterminate the other? Lions to wipe
out humans, or humans to wipe out lions ?
I think this answers your question ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Kurt Ullman
shiva das <sh...@nataraja.invalid> wrote:
> In article <m9lej6hc4en1hom8t...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:48:30 -0500, JF Mezei
> > <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >At the end of the day, if he, and his friends, own over 50% of Apple,
> > >then they can essentually do as they please.
> >
> > I wonder how much difference that makes. Any stockholder can sue if
> > he thinks the company is being mismanaged. About the only thing that
> > the 50% does is make sure a majority owner wins all stockholder votes.
>
> In a company as large as Apple, "controlling interest" is often
> significantly below 50%:
>
> Investopedia explains Controlling Interest
>
> "For the majority of large public companies (such as those that belong
> to the S&P 500), a shareholder with much less than 50% of the
> outstanding shares can still cause a lot of shake-up at the company.
> Single shareholders with as little as 5-10% ownership can push for their
> own seats on the board, or enact changes at shareholder meetings by
> publicly lobbying for them."
>
> <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/controllinginterest.asp>
That is very dependent on the concentration of stock among the
shareholders. If there is a shareholder (or small group of shareholders)
that have over 50% of the voting stock, it is largely over even for the
10% owners. Look at places like NYT (family owns about 80% of the voting
stock) and others. Sure the minority may get ONE vote on the board to
shut them up, but seldom get a chance to make major changes and forget
about changes at shareholder meetings.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
Sandman
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the general public are
> >> legally entitled to as much information as is available inside a
> >> corporation. This is to prevent corporate insiders from trading stock on
> >> the basis of privileged information.
> >
> > Cool, I'll call Apple and ask about when the next version of the iPad
> > is being released, just so I can buy stock when it is the most
> > profitable for me.
>
> Corporate information that would obviously affect the value of a
> company's stock is legally required to be made public in an orderly
> manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a board of directors decision
> to split the stock, etc.
Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market, the
launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any info is
available to anyone in the company then.
--
Sandman[.net]
Howard Brazee
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> Humans tend to make sure they have the advantage before fighting - and
>> the results of the pudding are in the tasting - humans win most of
>> these battles.
>
>Then again, perhaps the data are selectively reported, i.e.,
>the ones that don't win don't admit it (or can't).
But looking at the results, we can see which species dominates.
Now, if we compare the human species with a influenza virus, things
aren't so clear.
Tom Stiller
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Maybe, if the goal of the company were to effect short term results in
the stock market. A long term view may dictate a different strategy.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
AV3
What effect was that? Facts and figures, please. Since no one knew the
public reaction to that product, I doubt that the success of the launch
was measurable until weeks afterward.
Only singular events such as those I mentioned previously could affect
the stock price immediately. Product launches, deciding to open
brick-and-mortar stores, etc., are just ordinary business practices,
whose success in the marketplace works out without requiring special
action to prevent insider stock trading.
>
>
>
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1038\cocoasubrtf290
{\fonttbl\f0\fmodern\fcharset238 Courier;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\margl1440\margr1440\vieww12620\viewh9000\viewkind0
\pard\tx560\tx1120\tx1680\tx2240\tx2800\tx3360\tx3920\tx4480\tx5040\tx5600\tx6160\tx6720\ql\qnatural
\f0\fs20 \cf0 -- \
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++\
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||\
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||\
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||\
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-po\uc0\u349 ta adreso por \u285
usta adreso || \
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++}
Erilar
M$ is uncomfortably close to that already 8-(
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Erilar
> On 01-19-2011 09:49, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> Humans tend to make sure they have the advantage before fighting - and
>> the results of the pudding are in the tasting - humans win most of
>> these battles.
>
> Then again, perhaps the data are selectively reported, i.e.,
> the ones that don't win don't admit it (or can't).
Yes, it would be difficult for those eaten.
Howard
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Apple is not the company it was in 1985. Or 2005 for that matter.
> >
> > Apple has to continue w/o Jobs - now or later.
> >
>
> Without good leadership, any succesful company will be run to the ground
> in no time at all.
Oh yes. VERY fast. And leadership is not competency.
> Did you know that Apple was faltering despite having great talent
> because of bad leadership until Jobs returned to give a solid direction
> to the company ?
They were within months of going bust. They had technically competent
people. Not good enough.
> HP is the perfect example of what good managemenet without vision can
> achieve. Good excution building boring products. And consider HP's phone
> history.
>
> They bought Compaq in part because of the ipaQ. HP did very little with
> it and basically abandonned the product. Now, they bought Palm. Will
> they do anything to it, or will they do like they did with the iPaq ?
>
> Two other examples where lack of vision caused great companies to fall
> way back: Nokia and Sony. Both replaced their leadership when they
> realised they lacked vision to get the company's blood flowing again.
>
>
> Lou Gerstner was unique because he didn't have vision, but he knew to
> listen to the troups and when he saw good ideas, he empowered people to
> get it done.
Leadership is a rare talent. In business even leadership is not enough.
It is also imperative that he have balls. Lots of big companies have
talented visionary people who come up with great ideas. But someone has
to have the balls to run into the unknown. To risk his reputation and
job. This is an even rarer thing than vision and leadership.
Jobs has it all. The ability to inspire vision within his company. The
awareness of the importance of design and vision. The ability to chose.
The balls to go with hi instincts and those of his talented people.
Howard
Howard
> 2) A shareholder who feels there is risk associated with the lack
> of disclosure of other information is quite free to sell his stock.
AND the shareholdes are free to fire him.
Considering there is no way they would ever fire him, and stockholders
are enjoying the ride upward, he basically can do what he wants, as long
as he covers all legal bases.
Howard
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> 2) A shareholder who feels there is risk associated with the lack
>> of disclosure of other information is quite free to sell his stock.
>
> AND the shareholdes are free to fire him.
That is the job of the board. It would take a lot to get a shareholder
vote to a point where it is binding and large enough.
> Considering there is no way they would ever fire him, and stockholders
> are enjoying the ride upward, he basically can do what he wants, as long
> as he covers all legal bases.
While this discussion has been one of absolutes, I think the more likely
outcome will be of him becoming a principle strategy and design leader
for the co., that allows him the freedom to attend to his health and
family while exercising strong influence on the direction of the company
and products. All that without the day to day issues of running the
company. Cook probably does a far better job of that in any case.
But, in the end, there is an end. And Apple has to learn to be Apple
without depending on the indispensable man.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Apple is not the company it was in 1985. Or 2005 for that matter.
>>
>> Apple has to continue w/o Jobs - now or later.
>>
>
> Without good leadership, any succesful company will be run to the ground
> in no time at all.
>
> Did you know that IBM was close to declaring bankrupcy protection in the
> early 1990s until they found Lou Gerstner who managed an incredible turn
> around ?
>
> Did you know that Apple was faltering despite having great talent
> because of bad leadership until Jobs returned to give a solid direction
> to the company ?
Old news. And so what?
Do you really think Jobs will be around forever?
Do you really think Apple has not learned from the past?
Do you really think the "deep bench" that Apple has in place is an accident?
Really, don't get too wound up about it.
Either Apple will survive and thrive because it does well. Or it won't.
But I can't see it crashing and burning any time in the next 10 years
even if Jobs disappeared in a puff of smoke right now.
JF Mezei
> Either Apple will survive and thrive because it does well. Or it won't.
> But I can't see it crashing and burning any time in the next 10 years
> even if Jobs disappeared in a puff of smoke right now.
Don't underestimate the power of an incompetent CEO to scuttle a company.
Digital, the world 2nd largest computer company went down fast and ended
up being bought by some new kid on the blco called Compaq. Compaq got
bad management and went down and got bought by HP.
Bad management abounds.
Don't underestimate the challenge of finding a replacement for Steve Jobs.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Either Apple will survive and thrive because it does well. Or it won't.
>> But I can't see it crashing and burning any time in the next 10 years
>> even if Jobs disappeared in a puff of smoke right now.
>
> Don't underestimate the power of an incompetent CEO to scuttle a company.
It's nice how you snip what was relevant in my last post about Apple's
ability to learn from the past.
Believe what you want - I don't really care.
I mean, really, everyone believes Ballmer and Gates are incompetent.
MSFT continues to rake in billions in profit annually. And grow (nearly
50% revenue and net income increase from 2006 to 2010). Not bad in any
industry if not as spectacular as Apple over the same period.
MSFT's Revenue was the same as AAPL's in the last annual filings,
while MSFT made nearly twice as much net profit. (Jul2010:MSFT;
Oct2010:Aapl). Really.
And that's with the least imaginative management in high tech at the
helm of MSFT. Really.
So with the talented people at Apple, I'm not in the near panic'd tizzy
that you are. And few others are either. Really.
If you're really that upset, dump your Aapl shares and switch to Windows
7 or Linux. Really.
Howard Brazee
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>Don't underestimate the power of an incompetent CEO to scuttle a company.
>
>Digital, the world 2nd largest computer company went down fast and ended
>up being bought by some new kid on the blco called Compaq. Compaq got
>bad management and went down and got bought by HP.
>
>Bad management abounds.
>
>Don't underestimate the challenge of finding a replacement for Steve Jobs.
This time, Steve found the replacement, watched him work, and will be
watching over his shoulders.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> If you're really that upset, dump your Aapl shares and switch to Windows
> 7 or Linux. Really.
The last time Jobs went on a medical leave, AAPL dropped to 80 the day
after the announcement. I bought shares then and it worked out
extremely well for me. The price nearly doubled *before* Jobs returned.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
Sandman
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And we know for sure whether Steve Jobs health will cause long or
short term affects to the stock?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Corporate information that would obviously affect the value of a
> >> company's stock is legally required to be made public in an orderly
> >> manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a board of directors decision
> >> to split the stock, etc.
> >
> > Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market, the
> > launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any info is
> > available to anyone in the company then.
>
> What effect was that? Facts and figures, please.
It went from 192 to 247 from reveal to launch.
> Since no one knew the public reaction to that product, I doubt that
> the success of the launch was measurable until weeks afterward.
Whatever that has to do with anything. They knew full well what the
public reaction was for the iPhone, it would be pretty logical to
extrapolate from that.
And your comment here presupposes that you know what the public
reaction would be on first hand news about Steve Jobs health. facts
and figures, please.
> Only singular events such as those I mentioned previously could affect
> the stock price immediately. Product launches, deciding to open
> brick-and-mortar stores, etc., are just ordinary business practices,
> whose success in the marketplace works out without requiring special
> action to prevent insider stock trading.
Empty words... Facts and figures, please.
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Browne
> On 11-01-20 7:32 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> If you're really that upset, dump your Aapl shares and switch to Windows
>> 7 or Linux. Really.
>
> The last time Jobs went on a medical leave, AAPL dropped to 80 the day
> after the announcement. I bought shares then and it worked out extremely
Dropped to 82 from about 169. It took about a month to slide that far.
In the current environment it has dropped 348 to 334. (As of opening
today). Not much panic happening. Another few weeks will measure it well.
> well for me. The price nearly doubled *before* Jobs returned.
I doubt you'll play that strategy again this time.
The current high price is based on support from the iPhone and iPad
sales (and pretty good Mac sales too) and a healthy dollop of optimism[1].
Back then people did not understand what kind of bench Apple had to run
the company, Cook et al. With Jobs out, shares _rose_ significantly
under Cook.
Now they understand it quite clearly so they won't be selling off in an
emotional panic.
As I said earlier, Apple is not the company it was in the late 80's and
through most of the 90's.
Or even 2005.
[1] As to share price, many consider the current price as well over
fundamentals. So it does have room to slide w/o the reality distortion
field generator on the job.
But current share price has little to do with the long term prospects of
the company w/o/w/o Jobs there.
AV3
> In article<ih9kmu$nvc$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Corporate information that would obviously affect the value of a
>>>> company's stock is legally required to be made public in an orderly
>>>> manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a board of directors decision
>>>> to split the stock, etc.
>>>
>>> Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market, the
>>> launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any info is
>>> available to anyone in the company then.
>>
>> What effect was that? Facts and figures, please.
>
> It went from 192 to 247 from reveal to launch.
The revealed iPad was hardly a factor in that advance. The success of
the iPod and the iPhone, Apple's growing network of stores, sales of
music and apps, and an increasing share of the computer market were much
more important.
>
>> Since no one knew the public reaction to that product, I doubt that
>> the success of the launch was measurable until weeks afterward.
>
> Whatever that has to do with anything. They knew full well what the
> public reaction was for the iPhone, it would be pretty logical to
> extrapolate from that.
>
Not at all. Any new product might be a dud. One first has to see how the
marketplace treats it. Within a year the iPod captured the market for
music players. Extrapolating from that success story, the iPhone would
be counted a failure, since it captured less than half the market for
smart phones. But judging by the prevailing circumstances, the iPhone
showed itself to be a strong competitor to Nokia and Blackberry phones,
which is success enough.
From reveal to launch and after, there was no guaranteed market for the
iPad's features at the price Apple set for it. Each new product has to
be judged by the prevailing circumstances. Of course, the stock market
hopes you will extrapolate and invest accordingly. That is how the
market is supposed to work.
> And your comment here presupposes that you know what the public
> reaction would be on first hand news about Steve Jobs health. facts
> and figures, please.
>
I don't know. Now that the public is more familiar with his health
setbacks, one can only suppose that there is less surprise this time.
>> Only singular events such as those I mentioned previously could affect
>> the stock price immediately. Product launches, deciding to open
>> brick-and-mortar stores, etc., are just ordinary business practices,
>> whose success in the marketplace works out without requiring special
>> action to prevent insider stock trading.
>
I don't have time to do research for you. My friends Google and
Wikipedia are at your disposal. I suggest you look at the SEC's rules
for reporting corporate information.
>
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
Tom Stiller
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
How does that relate to your statement about the launch of iPad 2?
JF Mezei
> Now they understand it quite clearly so they won't be selling off in an
> emotional panic.
Correct in a way. Last time, there was a greater element of surprise, as
well as Apple having hidden his medical condition.
The announcement we had last week is not really a surprise.
The "real" announcement will be the next one when they announce whether
Jobs will return to work or not. (and if so, in what capacity). And it
is that one where lack of succession planning may cause AAPL's stock to
be seriously affected.
The problem is that people close to Jobs know what that second
announcement might be and when it would be. So technically, any AAPL
stock trades they do would be considered insider trading.
> [1] As to share price, many consider the current price as well over
> fundamentals. So it does have room to slide w/o the reality distortion
> field generator on the job.
Exactly. Jobs is not only a great salesmen for his products, but also
for his company, Will whoever does keynote addresses from now one have
the capacity to cause potentiential investors to be really impressed and
have confidence in AAPL's continued success ?
Kurt Ullman
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The problem is that people close to Jobs know what that second
> announcement might be and when it would be. So technically, any AAPL
> stock trades they do would be considered insider trading.
Only if a decision had been made on SJ's future that had not been
announced. If they are getting no more information than the average
stockholder, than they can sell right now if they wanted to.
George Kerby
On 1/21/11 8:54 AM, in article
nqydnbuF6umgA6TQ...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
Keep you day job.
Tim McNamara
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, the ambiguous slam. Tell you what, George, if your expertise leads
you to "think different," have the nuts to show your work.
--
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who
are poorer or weaker than themselves." Samuel Adams
Tim McNamara
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan/21/2011 9:2926 AM, Sandman wrote:
> > In article<ih9kmu$nvc$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > AV3<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Corporate information that would obviously affect the value of a
> >>>> company's stock is legally required to be made public in an
> >>>> orderly manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a board of
> >>>> directors decision to split the stock, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market, the
> >>> launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any info is
> >>> available to anyone in the company then.
> >>
> >> What effect was that? Facts and figures, please.
> >
> > It went from 192 to 247 from reveal to launch.
>
>
> The revealed iPad was hardly a factor in that advance. The success of
> the iPod and the iPhone, Apple's growing network of stores, sales of
> music and apps, and an increasing share of the computer market were
> much more important.
Where were you hiding last April-June? The iPad launched hard and fast,
selling at a blistering pace and basically creating a new market-
several new markets- with Apple firmly entrenched as the leader. The
iPad has been a success in the consumer and the enterprise markets in a
way that no Apple product has done before. If you think that did not
drive Apple's stock value, you have need to read a bit more about how
stock prices work.
AV3
Nobody knew in advance how successful, if at all, the iPad would be. The
initial projection was that it would be a Kindle-killer, which didn't
happen. It found a previously unknown market niche. Its success, like
that of the iPod, iStores, and Apple brick-and-mortar stores, was
unpredictable and immeasurable until weeks after the launch.
Feel free to bet on any Apple upgrade or launch. That is what the stock
market is for. But there are no guarantees, and those launches and
upgrades are normal business activity. Steve Jobs's health, at least the
first crisis, is a unique factor in Apple's success, and had a
measurable impact on the stock price. Statistics on the launch of the
iPad are mixed into the other favorable statistics in Apple's currently
successful business plan, so its launch had no effect that is uniquely
measurable. Take off those rose-colored spectacles, iPad lover.
Sandman
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Double bullshit and arrogance. Stock holders and the
> > > > > >> general public are legally entitled to as much
> > > > > >> information as is available inside a corporation. This
> > > > > >> is to prevent corporate insiders from trading stock on
> > > > > >> the basis of privileged information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cool, I'll call Apple and ask about when the next version
> > > > > > of the iPad is being released, just so I can buy stock
> > > > > > when it is the most profitable for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Corporate information that would obviously affect the value
> > > > > of a company's stock is legally required to be made public
> > > > > in an orderly manner. That concerns Steve Job's health, a
> > > > > board of directors decision to split the stock, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market,
> > > > the launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any
> > > > info is available to anyone in the company then.
> > >
> > > Maybe, if the goal of the company were to effect short term
> > > results in the stock market. A long term view may dictate a
> > > different strategy.
> >
> > And we know for sure whether Steve Jobs health will cause long or
> > short term affects to the stock?
>
> How does that relate to your statement about the launch of iPad 2?
It doesn't. It relates to your speculation to which it followed.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> >> What effect was that? Facts and figures, please.
> >
> > It went from 192 to 247 from reveal to launch.
>
> The revealed iPad was hardly a factor in that advance.
Give me some facts and figures to substantiate that speculation,
please.
> > Whatever that has to do with anything. They knew full well what the
> > public reaction was for the iPhone, it would be pretty logical to
> > extrapolate from that.
>
> Not at all.
You have to provide something to back up your assertion that Apple
didn't "at all" assume that the iPad would be successful based on the
success they experienced with the iPhone.
> > And your comment here presupposes that you know what the public
> > reaction would be on first hand news about Steve Jobs health. facts
> > and figures, please.
>
> I don't know. Now that the public is more familiar with his health
> setbacks, one can only suppose that there is less surprise this time.
So remind me again why shareholders need to know everything about his
health status?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> The revealed iPad was hardly a factor in that advance. The success of
> >> the iPod and the iPhone, Apple's growing network of stores, sales of
> >> music and apps, and an increasing share of the computer market were
> >> much more important.
> >
> > Where were you hiding last April-June? The iPad launched hard and fast,
> > selling at a blistering pace and basically creating a new market-
> > several new markets- with Apple firmly entrenched as the leader. The
> > iPad has been a success in the consumer and the enterprise markets in a
> > way that no Apple product has done before. If you think that did not
> > drive Apple's stock value, you have need to read a bit more about how
> > stock prices work.
>
> Nobody knew in advance how successful, if at all, the iPad would be.
Non sequitur.
Nobody knows in advance how any report about Steve Jobs health would
affect the stock market, either.
Aren't you supposed to be telling us how premature knowledge about
Steve Jobs health is different to the stock market than premature
knowledge about (for instance) iPad 2?
--
Sandman[.net]
Jeffrey Goldberg
> On 2011.01.20 23:01 , Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>> The last time Jobs went on a medical leave, AAPL dropped to 80 the day
>> after the announcement. I bought shares then and it worked out extremely [well]
>
> Dropped to 82 from about 169. It took about a month to slide that far.
There was something like a 10% drop right after the announcement, even
though pretty much everyone who was paying attention saw it coming.
> In the current environment it has dropped 348 to 334. (As of opening
> today). Not much panic happening. Another few weeks will measure it well.
Yeah. Not nearly as dramatic a drop as last time around.
>> well for me. The price nearly doubled *before* Jobs returned.
>
> I doubt you'll play that strategy again this time.
That's true. At the time, I though AAPL was undervalued. Even with the
latest drop, I don't think it is.
> Back then people did not understand what kind of bench Apple had to run
> the company, Cook et al. With Jobs out, shares _rose_ significantly
> under Cook.
Exactly.
> Now they understand it quite clearly so they won't be selling off in an
> emotional panic.
Agreed.
> [1] As to share price, many consider the current price as well over
> fundamentals. So it does have room to slide w/o the reality distortion
> field generator on the job.
That is my feeling. I will probably be selling off what remains of my
purchase two years ago over the next few months.
Tom Stiller
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
So, it's just a diversion, rather than a clarification.
JF Mezei
> So remind me again why shareholders need to know everything about his
> health status?
If Steve Jobs is a key part to drive Apple's succesful future growth,
and Steve Jobs is not only out of commission, but not being replaced,
that at some point in time, his absence will become noticeable in
financials when competitors start to catch up to Apple.
Apple has to demonstrate that its "new" Jobs-less management is still
able to innovate and lead the market, or that it is seeking a
replacement for Jobs who will have the same qualities as Jobs.
Only time will tell if Apple is now effectively Jobs-less. I think that
when they announce the ipad2, they will hopefully provide some good idea
of what the "new" Jobs-less Apple will be like. If they become boding
like Microsoft-Balmer, then Apple may not impress.
Lets face it, a lot of Apple is due to its ability to impress people.
And of course, the most important question is whether Jobs has a
copyright on "one more thing..." or whether his successor will be able
to use the phrase. :-)
Tim McNamara
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Bullshit. The projections were that it was going to rock, and it did.
It surpassed almost every analyst's predictions.
> The initial projection was that it would be a Kindle-killer, which
> didn't happen.
That was not among the predictions I read, although it was expected to
hurt Kindle sales and it has. The Kindle is a one-trick pony and the
iPad does the same trick nearly as well and many others besides.
> It found a previously unknown market niche.
The niche already existed; the iPad fit it better than any product
preceding it and, thus far, following it.
> Its success, like that of the iPod, iStores, and Apple
> brick-and-mortar stores, was unpredictable and immeasurable until
> weeks after the launch.
More bullshit. The sales numbers were very well estimated from the
first day. Great success was predicted by nearly all analysts.
The iPod was possibly less well-predicted; I wasn't paying attention at
the time and don't remember. The iTunes store and the App Store
exceeded many expectations, I'd guess, but again I wasn't paying
attention to it and don't remember.
I've never been to the ITMS, don't have an iPod (although my wife has
two) or an iPhone (my wife has one), have not been to the App Store for
Macs, etc. Not really my cup of tea, I guess. I've not bought an iPad
or a Kindle because I want one that is A4 size and those will probably
never exist.
Apple's products increasingly are a hardware front end to their retail
stores. I'm not really very impressed with that for some reason, even
though it's brilliant from a business perspective.
> Feel free to bet on any Apple upgrade or launch. That is what the
> stock market is for. But there are no guarantees, and those launches
> and upgrades are normal business activity.
Given the iPod, iPhone, iPad and MacBook Air "bet" has not really been
an issue. The risk is low with all those products. The new AppleTV
might be a different story.
> Steve Jobs's health, at least the first crisis, is a unique factor in
> Apple's success, and had a measurable impact on the stock price.
Temporarily.
> Statistics on the launch of the iPad are mixed into the other
> favorable statistics in Apple's currently successful business plan,
> so its launch had no effect that is uniquely measurable. Take off
> those rose-colored spectacles, iPad lover.
As I said, I don't own one. And as for the effect of the iPad on
Apple's success, those numbers are certainly quantified in Apple's
bookkeeping. They should be in the investors' quarterly reports. I'm
not an Apple investor so I don't get those. Analysts are also very good
at estimating those numbers.
Maybe you need to get out more.
George Kerby
On 1/21/11 3:59 PM, in article
timmcn-AC2619....@news.iphouse.com, "Tim McNamara"
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Tim, if you knew anything about testicles, you most likely would be looking
for the dingle berries behind them to chew on.
Congrats for showing us all that you have a double-digit IQ!
George Kerby
On 1/21/11 8:51 PM, in article
timmcn-B46117....@news.iphouse.com, "Tim McNamara"
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe you need to get out more.
Take your own advice, asshole...
AV3
> In article<ihcaa7$mbo$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> What effect was that? Facts and figures, please.
>>>
>>> It went from 192 to 247 from reveal to launch.
>>
>> The revealed iPad was hardly a factor in that advance.
>
> Give me some facts and figures to substantiate that speculation,
> please.
>
>>> Whatever that has to do with anything. They knew full well what the
>>> public reaction was for the iPhone, it would be pretty logical to
>>> extrapolate from that.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> You have to provide something to back up your assertion that Apple
> didn't "at all" assume that the iPad would be successful based on the
> success they experienced with the iPhone.
>
I said that you couldn't _extrapolate "at all"_ from the success of the
iPhone, just as the success of the iPod provided no basis for
"extrapolating" the different kind of success that the iPhone had. Each
of those products had a different and unanticipated kind of success, i.
e., which couldn't be extrapolated from that of its predecessor.
>>> ...
>
> So remind me again why shareholders need to know everything about his
> health status?
>
Because Apple went into a tailspin after he was fired and only recovered
when he returned. His personal stamp was on everything from OS X to the
iPad. SEC rules require reporting on a key executive's health emergencies.
I originally pointed out that Louis Comfort Tiffany, a creative artist,
started a fine arts company based on his unique talent. After him, the
company became a more conventional jewelry store, but high end and with
notable integrity. Its name became a byword for high quality, even
without its founder. I hope Apple does something similar with his
i-products, even without Jobs himself.
Doug Anderson
> In article <ihd1p5$vhf$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Nobody knew in advance how successful, if at all, the iPad would be.
>
> Bullshit. The projections were that it was going to rock, and it did.
> It surpassed almost every analyst's predictions.
You're saying it is bullshit that no one knew how successful it would
be. And then in the same breath you are saying it surpassed every
analyst's prediction?
??
JF Mezei
> You're saying it is bullshit that no one knew how successful it would
> be. And then in the same breath you are saying it surpassed every
> analyst's prediction?
Analysts were not sure how much of a market for tablets there was.
And at the last presnetation I saw of Jobs, he merely stated they had
sold 2 million ipads and then quickly moved onto the tens of million
iphones, macs, ipods they had sold. I got the *impression* that Apple
didn't think the ipad numbers were worth bragging much about.
Sandman
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
> > So remind me again why shareholders need to know everything about his
> > health status?
>
> If Steve Jobs is a key part to drive Apple's succesful future growth,
> and Steve Jobs is not only out of commission, but not being replaced,
> that at some point in time, his absence will become noticeable in
> financials when competitors start to catch up to Apple.
And you substantiation for this speculation is what?
It's not a good sign when you start your sentence with an "If" :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > You have to provide something to back up your assertion that Apple
> > didn't "at all" assume that the iPad would be successful based on the
> > success they experienced with the iPhone.
>
> I said that you couldn't _extrapolate "at all"_ from the success of the
> iPhone
Yes, that is the assertion to which I am asking your to provide
substantiation.
> > So remind me again why shareholders need to know everything about his
> > health status?
>
> Because Apple went into a tailspin after he was fired and only recovered
> when he returned.
Perhaps you need to revisit history. Steve Jobs left Apple in 1985,
after which Apple launched several very successful products, such as
the PowerBook and System 7. The period between 89-91 was called the
Apple golden years.
Plus, the most successful product at the time from Apple was the Mac,
something that Steve Jobs didn't even believe in.
The downfall of Apple probably started with Gil Amelio even though
Spindler was involved in those stupid attempts at digital cameras and
Sculleys Newton division. But this was almost a decade after Steve
Jobs left Apple.
> His personal stamp was on everything from OS X to the iPad.
I have no doubt that the CEO of a company can and should be involved
in large parts of the business, but I don't like the downplay of all
the talented people at Apple that has made it what it is today.
Jonathan Ive is an extremely talented industrial designer and Scott
Forstall seems to be able to do nothing wrong with iOS.
And Steve Jobs was away from the company for six months in 2009 with
Tim Cook running the show, which worked very well, as it probably is
right now.
--
Sandman[.net]
nospam
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> Plus, the most successful product at the time from Apple was the Mac,
> something that Steve Jobs didn't even believe in.
oh yes he did.
Tom Stiller
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <tom_stiller-51FE...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <mr-C3A128.23...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <tom_stiller-32C1...@news.individual.net>,
> > > Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > > > > > > Given the impact that iPad 1 launch had on the stock market,
> > > > > > > the launch of iPad 2 should be fully disclosed as soon as any
> > > > > > > info is available to anyone in the company then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe, if the goal of the company were to effect short term
> > > > > > results in the stock market. A long term view may dictate a
> > > > > > different strategy.
> > > > >
> > > > > And we know for sure whether Steve Jobs health will cause long or
> > > > > short term affects to the stock?
> > > >
> > > > How does that relate to your statement about the launch of iPad 2?
> > >
> > > It doesn't. It relates to your speculation to which it followed.
> >
> > So, it's just a diversion, rather than a clarification.
>
> No.
<shrug>