[mashabox]

Yes Buddhism is lame and too quiet, but maybe you should pick on someone your own size. It is a LITTLE KNOWN FACT that Bill Gates was in the boy scouts and did drugs before Steve Ballmer set him straight. And Alberto Gonzales has nothing on Gates, the perjurer extraordinaire who probably lies himself to sleep every night:

Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance were directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of e-mail Gates both sent and received.[31] Get out of bed and go to work, I have ended your dreams

[bxxasxxa]

It's actually a very good article, has anyone read it?

[fluistulkn]

Originally posted by Asher
It's actually a very good article, has anyone read it? No. Will you read it to us then post a link to your audio file?

[Auzuigcx]

Originally posted by Asher


Did you think it was stupid because the words are too big, or because it's from Fortune? Because you've actually found another person, a writer for Fortune magizine who shares your love-hate obsession with Steve Gates. Who cares if he's a Buddhist or whatever. Buddhists are saner than most religionists.

[Hmwmzian]

Originally posted by Asher


So I take it you just read my summary then. No, but your summary isn't very good either, btw.

[TheLucyLee]

Originally posted by Asher
That's because it wasn't a real summary.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were Buddhist. No, I'm not.

And about the article. Blah, blah blah about how Steve Jobs is a nut and it's hurting the stock price. I think it's bologny.

[echocassidyde]

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?

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.

[jeaccatty]

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.

[mesZibeds]

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.

[sbgctsa]

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?

[Machater]

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?

[Vezazvqw]

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.

[Draftcasino.com]

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.

[MrGunjMan_]

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.

[SQiTmhuY]

Originally posted by 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). You do know Bill Gates has already retired from his hands-on duties...and he announced it well in advance. Because it's responsible governance. Which is the point.

[Elissetecausa]

Originally posted by 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)? It's very user-friendly and intuitive and the system looks sexy. It is not my fault you like ugly big boxes, you are the egoist here, perhaps you should draw a self portrait with the engraving, Here stands David Floyd, the only man not influenced by advertisements or looking cool or a usable operating system. BITE ONE

[Stappipsy]

You mean it has a learning curve for you, not that it's not user friendly.

In general, the learning curve for Mac OS X is pretty low compared to the PC learning curve. The people most interesting on this scale are the folks who don't really know how to use windows either; folks who know how to use windows can pick up OS X fine, just as they picked up Windows. However, the folks who don't have the mindset or technical comfort level to pick up any OS easily can generally pick up OS X somewhat easier.