The trouble with Steve Jobs

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't think a CEO is ever absolutely critical to the success of any company, myself... it is quite possible Apple would succeed without Jobs. Heck, they failed with him the first time, didn't they?

No, they've always been quite successful under Jobs. They failed in the 12 years after he was kicked out.

His plan this time around worked, and worked very well. There's no reason someone else couldn't do the same thing, though, now that the plan is made clear - heck, I could go in and randomly reject everything with a button on it In some ways it might be better to, at some point, get new blood into the office - there are certainly things they could do much better, after all, and following one plan for too long is not good business anyhow.

I think most Apple followers and investors would strongly disagree. An Apple without Steve Jobs is a different company completely. As we have seen.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher


1) Do you think that Steve Jobs is absolutely critical to the success of Apple?
2) Do you think the shareholders have a right to know when the pillar of the company is in serious health trouble and refused to seek treatment for it for months?

Why are you defending corporate interests?

It said in your article that two different lawyers said that Apple didn't have a legal responsibility to inform their shareholders. Also, I think disclosure mostly relates to financial information, not information on the health of key personel.

And why would I be defending shareholder interests over corporate interests?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It said in your article that two different lawyers said that Apple didn't have a legal responsibility to inform their shareholders.

It also shows that Jobs' contemporaries -- like Warren Buffett -- disclosed similar situations. It also shows the head of the SEC said Jobs should have come forward. It also paints a picture of overall poor business governance on behalf of Jobs, who was involved with the backdating scandal in the past as well.

And why would I be defending shareholder interests over corporate interests?

I'm just curious why you're advocating companies be able to disclose less information to the public.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
It also shows that Jobs' contemporaries -- like Warren Buffett -- disclosed similar situations. It also shows the head of the SEC said Jobs should have come forward. It also paints a picture of overall poor business governance on behalf of Jobs, who was involved with the backdating scandal in the past as well.

You can make an argument that ethically they should have disclosed it, but I don't think it's necessarily bad governance. Also, I don't know what that has to do with him being a Buddhist and all that.

I'm just curious why you're advocating companies be able to disclose less information to the public.

I generally believe in disclosure, but I don't think this is a big deal. It's not a scandal or anything.

[snoopy369]

It's different to say, "Apple has failed with other CEOs in the past", and to say, "Apple will fail with any other CEO". Perhaps they made bad CEO choices in the past, but there's nothing to say a new CEO would necessarily fail.

The fact that Apple supporters would miss Jobs is not necessarily a selling point for you, is it?

[David Floyd]

Asher, I'd have to say the only people more insufferable than Steve Jobs are people who own Apples. I mean, my God, I get it - you want to be different, and that's the reason you bought a Mac. Not because you like it, or even have that much of a problem with PCs - you just bought it because you think it makes you cool. Then you saw the Apple commercials, and decided you wanted to be just like the guy plugging for Apple. So you learn everything you can about your computer, and memorize lists about why Apple is so much better than PC. I get to deal with these morons all the time at work.

I just have two questions, Mr. Mac Lover - why is the Mac operating system the most non-user friendly, non-intuitive, piece of **** on the market, and why does Apple continue to have almost no market share (and no software developed for them)?

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I just have two questions, Mr. Mac Lover - why is the Mac operating system the most non-user friendly, non-intuitive, piece of **** on the market, and why does Apple continue to have almost no market share (and no software developed for them)?

Who is this directed at?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You can make an argument that ethically they should have disclosed it, but I don't think it's necessarily bad governance. Also, I don't know what that has to do with him being a Buddhist and all that.

It doesn't have to do with being Buddhist, I just found it amusing. Every tech Buddhist I've known has been smackable: Blake, Jobs, and a coworker of mine.

I generally believe in disclosure, but I don't think this is a big deal. It's not a scandal or anything.

I don't think it's a scandal, no, but I do see a troubling history in Jobs that I wouldn't trust as an investor.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It's different to say, "Apple has failed with other CEOs in the past", and to say, "Apple will fail with any other CEO". Perhaps they made bad CEO choices in the past, but there's nothing to say a new CEO would necessarily fail.

The fact that Apple supporters would miss Jobs is not necessarily a selling point for you, is it?

Let me ask you this: How would Apple shares respond on the news that Jobs has unexpectedly died?

Now do you see why investors should care and know? It's got a direct and measurable impact on their investment. Withholding information that the man behind everything that is popular about the company has cancer and was refusing treatment is on par with cooking the books to hide losses. It's knowledge the board and executives have that they are intentionally hiding from investors to protect their share price.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Who is this directed at?

Mr Mac Lover, of course! He looks sort of like the Hamburgler but with an iMac (daisy edition of course!) instead of a hamburger

[David Floyd]

Who is this directed at?

Not you, I know you aren't pro-Apple. It's just a random diatribe against holier-than-thou Mac users.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher


Let me ask you this: How would Apple shares respond on the news that Jobs has unexpectedly died?

Now do you see why investors should care and know? It's got a direct and measurable impact on their investment. Withholding information that the man behind everything that is popular about the company has cancer and was refusing treatment is on par with cooking the books to hide losses. It's knowledge the board and executives have that they are intentionally hiding from investors to protect their share price.

In the short term they would probably go down. In the long run, as in 1 year +, it's certainly possible they could go up if a competent CEO with a good plan is found.

It's no different from if he were to retire after all ... there's no reason he would have to announce that way in advance. Often it is announced, but it's not a requirement. Personal health information is legally privileged, and certainly does not have to be released.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369


In the short term they would probably go down. In the long run, as in 1 year +, it's certainly possible they could go up if a competent CEO with a good plan is found.

It's no different from if he were to retire after all ... there's no reason he would have to announce that way in advance. Often it is announced, but it's not a requirement. Personal health information is legally privileged, and certainly does not have to be released.

Retirement is one comparison. So let's look to his contemporary.

Did Bill Gates announce he retired immediately?

[snoopy369]

As I said, he certainly could announce it, and many do, but it is not required by law (though a succession plan I believe is required, or at least essentially required, but he should have that in place regardless of health or retirement issues - it's just good management).

Health information, in any event, is legally privileged by HIPAA and other laws.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't think it's a scandal, no, but I do see a troubling history in Jobs that I wouldn't trust as an investor.

He probably helps investor confidence more than he hurts it.