Apple's Tim Cook: Business isn’t just about making a profit

j-mac said:

You brought up things like "history between them"... so it is what you were saying, only now shift because you f'ed up in your excuse making.

Click to expand...

I thought you would see there was history between our president and the board member, so the president dressed him down in public. The point you're dancing around is that could be any number if reasons for this that we are not aware of. So I could shift several directions and still be within the context of my claim, but here I gave an example this is nearly exactly to what I was talking about concerning history. And it was about spending capital on good deeds.

Anthony60 said:

I think if I was an investor, I would have a wait and see approach with this guy, but the leash definitely got shorter. If he does what Jobs did, fine. And do remember, Jobs, even as a liberal, had harsh criticism for Obama's terrible economic policies.

His job, without dispute, is to maximize shareholder wealth. If you don't agree with that or don't know what it means, then leave the argument and educate yourself, because you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Legally speaking, this is absolutely his job. The only time this is not the case is when he would have to break some regulatory or other law in order to do so. It is funny how conservatives are the ones pointing the former out in this thread, however. But, in another sense it is unsurprising.

Modern liberal minded people have been sold a bill of goods. They have been told that the main solution to the shortcomings of free market capitalism (environment, social, etc) is "good corporate citizenship". What a load of bull crap. "Good corporate citizenship" only works when it aligns with a corporation's enlightened self interest. When it does not, the fiduciary duty of the CEO remains to maximize profit, and to do so over the interests of any community (inside of the law, of course). A corporation's enlightened self interest shifts as public awareness waxes and wanes. And thus, dependence on "Good Corporate Citizenship" is really just a race to the bottom, albeit perhaps slower than it would have been otherwise.

The only way to force corporations to further the interests of the community, and make no mistake sometimes they need to be forced, is to make laws that force them to. To beat a dead horse, unless the law forces them to treat the community well, the law often forces them to do the opposite and pursue profit over society.

Boo Radley said:

I thought you would see there was history between our president and the board member, so the president dressed him down in public. The point you're dancing around is that could be any number if reasons for this that we are not aware of. So I could shift several directions and still be within the context of my claim, but here I gave an example this is nearly exactly to what I was talking about concerning history. And it was about spending capital on good deeds.

Click to expand...

You're playing semantic games, but I'm the one "dancing"... yeah, Ok Joe, whatever...:roll:

j-mac said:

You're playing semantic games, but I'm the one "dancing"... yeah, Ok Joe, whatever...:roll:

Click to expand...

J, why do you do this nonsense. I've had one clear point all along. There is likely something you don't know. Why is that difficult for you? S

Boo Radley said:

J, why do you do this nonsense. I've had one clear point all along. There is likely something you don't know. Why is that difficult for you? S

Click to expand...

You're condescending stance aside, you run with that...have fun.

j-mac said:

You're condescending stance aside, you run with that...have fun.

Click to expand...

This your diversion tactic number 2. Again, what don't you understand about the point made? That there is likely something we don't know?

Boo Radley said:

This your diversion tactic number 2. Again, what don't you understand about the point made? That there is likely something we don't know?

Click to expand...

I think we have a pretty complete picture

j-mac said:

I think we have a pretty complete picture

Click to expand...

So, it's impossible that there is nothing you wouldn't know. For clarity, is that your position?

j-mac said:

What? Gore sits on the board, and Obama former EPA thug just hired. Of course it's political.

Click to expand...

You've continually applied a point of view which is almost entirely irrelevant to the situation. There wasn't much politics here. Continue to ignore all of the facts, stand on your mountain made of ant hills, and trumpet the call to profit all you want. However, you have continually ignored all of the following:

1) Apple has done incredibly well for its stockholders and remains a juggernaut in the industry.

2) Apple has rebuilt its company image on being more green-friendly for years after being trashed in the past by not doing so. Since then, Apple's image has remained strong (not without problems stemming from patent lawsuits and overseas accounts, but positive enough) and the stock has done incredibly well.

3) Apple's problem as of late has not been the misapplication of money, but perhaps, rather, the lack of spending money.

4) The proposal was rejected by over 97%. Almost all involved agreed that a profit-only proposal was bonkers

To summarize: what on earth are you actually complaining about?

Robbie Loucks said:

The word "just" (Which is absent from the quote but present in the title) is really important here.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could enlighten us exactly what Apple is doing that is so important besides making a profit?

Boo Radley said:

J, why do you do this nonsense. I've had one clear point all along. There is likely something you don't know. Why is that difficult for you? S

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but my best guess is that he is mad that Cook and Apple doesn't have anything enticing on the table, so Cook is lashing out defensively, trying to change the conversation.

ReformCollege said:

Perhaps, but my best guess is that he is mad that Cook and Apple doesn't have anything enticing on the table, so Cook is lashing out defensively, trying to change the conversation.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But we you don't really know. Do we?

Fiddytree said:

You've continually applied a point of view which is almost entirely irrelevant to the situation. There wasn't much politics here. Continue to ignore all of the facts, stand on your mountain made of ant hills, and trumpet the call to profit all you want. However, you have continually ignored all of the following:

1) Apple has done incredibly well for its stockholders and remains a juggernaut in the industry.

2) Apple has rebuilt its company image on being more green-friendly for years after being trashed in the past by not doing so. Since then, Apple's image has remained strong (not without problems stemming from patent lawsuits and overseas accounts, but positive enough) and the stock has done incredibly well.

3) Apple's problem as of late has not been the misapplication of money, but perhaps, rather, the lack of spending money.

4) The proposal was rejected by over 97%. Almost all involved agreed that a profit-only proposal was bonkers

To summarize: what on earth are you actually complaining about?

Click to expand...

1. It really hasn't done that well as of lately. Its still down almost $200 from its high.

2. How do you define "incredibly" well?

3. And a lack of innovation with their products that has allowed Google's Andriod a foot in the door.

4. It was to send a message.

Boo Radley said:

Maybe. But we you don't really know. Do we?

Click to expand...

Well in that case we don't really know if you're right anyways?

ReformCollege said:

Perhaps you could enlighten us exactly what Apple is doing that is so important besides making a profit?

Click to expand...

According to Tim Cook: "A lot of things". I don't study what Apple does outside of earning profit. All I know is that Apple puts money into "green projects". If you want more information, ask Apple what they do.

ReformCollege said:

Well in that case we don't really know if you're right anyways?

Click to expand...

True. So other should do like you and allow for the possibility of being wrong. Not defend a guess as if it were the gospel.

ReformCollege said:

Perhaps you could enlighten us exactly what Apple is doing that is so important besides making a profit?

Click to expand...

From the post above this one:

You've continually applied a point of view which is almost entirely irrelevant to the situation. There wasn't much politics here. Continue to ignore all of the facts, stand on your mountain made of ant hills, and trumpet the call to profit all you want. However, you have continually ignored all of the following:

1) Apple has done incredibly well for its stockholders and remains a juggernaut in the industry.

2) Apple has rebuilt its company image on being more green-friendly for years after being trashed in the past by not doing so. Since then, Apple's image has remained strong (not without problems stemming from patent lawsuits and overseas accounts, but positive enough) and the stock has done incredibly well.

3) Apple's problem as of late has not been the misapplication of money, but perhaps, rather, the lack of spending money.

4) The proposal was rejected by over 97%. Almost all involved agreed that a profit-only proposal was bonkers

To summarize: what on earth are you actually complaining about?

Boo Radley said:

True. So other should do like you and allow for the possibility of being wrong. Not defend a guess as if it were the gospel.

Click to expand...

I always allow for the possibility of being wrong. But I still consider what the most likely option is. And in this case, do I think its more likely that Apple has a trick up its sleeve or its merely being defensive because those who are most closely related to the company that do not actually work for it aren't impressed with the direction the company is headed?

Probability tells me the later is more likely true.

Boo Radley said:

From the post above this one:

You've continually applied a point of view which is almost entirely irrelevant to the situation. There wasn't much politics here. Continue to ignore all of the facts, stand on your mountain made of ant hills, and trumpet the call to profit all you want. However, you have continually ignored all of the following:

1) Apple has done incredibly well for its stockholders and remains a juggernaut in the industry.

2) Apple has rebuilt its company image on being more green-friendly for years after being trashed in the past by not doing so. Since then, Apple's image has remained strong (not without problems stemming from patent lawsuits and overseas accounts, but positive enough) and the stock has done incredibly well.

3) Apple's problem as of late has not been the misapplication of money, but perhaps, rather, the lack of spending money.

4) The proposal was rejected by over 97%. Almost all involved agreed that a profit-only proposal was bonkers

To summarize: what on earth are you actually complaining about?

Click to expand...

I responded to that in post 113

Robbie Loucks said:

According to Tim Cook: "A lot of things". I don't study what Apple does outside of earning profit. All I know is that Apple puts money into "green projects". If you want more information, ask Apple what they do.

Click to expand...

So you're defending the fact that Apple is disappointing on profits because of "everything else" but you have no clue what that "everything else entails." How convenient of a position.

ReformCollege said:

I always allow for the possibility of being wrong. But I still consider what the most likely option is. And in this case, do I think its more likely that Apple has a trick up its sleeve or its merely being defensive because those who are most closely related to the company that do not actually work for it aren't impressed with the direction the company is headed?

Probability tells me the later is more likely true.

Click to expand...

Based on Fiddytrees response, I don't think so.

ReformCollege said:

So you're defending the fact that Apple is disappointing on profits because of "everything else" but you have no clue what that "everything else entails." How convenient of a position.

Click to expand...

I don't think I was really defending Apple per se as opposed to pointing out a misconception that the OP made.

ReformCollege said:

1. It really hasn't done that well as of lately. Its still down almost $200 from its high.

Click to expand...

Most people thought the stock was overvalued at that point, perhaps still. But by and large few are seeing Apple as in a serious trouble spot.

2. How do you define "incredibly" well?

Click to expand...

Well, that depends. One could compare the company at as far back as the mid-1990s, or even within the past decade. But certainly we can talk about how the company has been doing since the financial crisis, and they have still been doing well in terms of stock or their products. Challenges always remain (and there will be with more and more emphasis being placed on pure internet service-an area Apple has never been good at), but right now things are pretty good.

3. And a lack of innovation with their products that has allowed Google's Andriod a foot in the door.

Click to expand...

This depends on the product. Some of their laptop line is doing well, their pro desktop line remains to be seen (supply is a serious negative, however), their phone line is doing well (but decline was inevitable), Mac OS is having its twilight years (though I prefer it and Windows 7 over mobile OS any day of the week), and their Apple TV line is still the most popular (but I think the most utterly useless) in its market. Its cross-platform desktop software is murky at best (with iTunes becoming a bloated mess only truly used to sync the device and buy music).

4. It was to send a message.

Click to expand...

To have it and the organization summarily dismissed and ridiculed throughout the press and their stockholders? Great job. I suppose it plays well for the radio show crowd and maybe some internet libertarians, but it's not getting much sympathy elsewhere. Then again, most of those praising the organization for its proposal have had little historical knowledge of the company to begin with.

Fiddytree said:

Most people thought the stock was overvalued at that point, perhaps still. But by and large few are seeing Apple as in a serious trouble spot.

Well, that depends. One could compare the company at as far back as the mid-1990s, or even within the past decade. But certainly we can talk about how the company has been doing since the financial crisis, and they have still been doing well in terms of stock or their products. Challenges always remain (and there will be with more and more emphasis being placed on pure internet service-an area Apple has never been good at), but right now things are pretty good.



This depends on the product. Some of their laptop line is doing well, their pro desktop line remains to be seen (supply is a serious negative, however), their phone line is doing well (but decline was inevitable), Mac OS is having its twilight years (though I prefer it and Windows 7 over mobile OS any day of the week), and their Apple TV line is still the most popular (but I think the most utterly useless) in its market. Its cross-platform desktop software is murky at best (with iTunes becoming a bloated mess only truly used to sync the device and buy music).



To have it and the organization summarily dismissed and ridiculed throughout the press and their stockholders? Great job. I suppose it plays well for the radio show crowd and maybe some internet libertarians, but it's not getting much sympathy elsewhere. Then again, most of those praising the organization for its proposal have had little historical knowledge of the company to begin with.

Click to expand...

Do you know how stocks work? I'm going to assume you don't. Stock price is determined by short term interest. Whatever they've done over the last decade is great for those who bought it in the last decade. But for the much larger crowd of those who have bought the stock in the last two years, the stock has been flat. Past performance means nothing until we have time machines that let you buy stocks from the past.

Also you calling it overvalued is hindsight bias in its finest. Unless of course you're obscenely rich because you have foresight on what will happen to stocks before they do. And you cannot just discredit the fact that it's $200 off it's all time high, and say the stock is performing well. Fact is Tim Cook has been an insanely uninspiring CEO. Apple has let other players in their markets and their profits are shrinking as a result. They still have a lot of cash and with that comes a lot of opportunity to expand their revenue base. People are complaining because they fear those opportunities are being squandered by the day. All the green projects in the world doesn't cover up a decline in interest in the company and it's products.

Robbie Loucks said:

I don't think I was really defending Apple per se as opposed to pointing out a misconception that the OP made.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it was a misconception on his part. Anyone familiar with business knows that it takes a lot of different things to fall in line to make a profit. Many of which do not directly improve profit in the short term. So it sort of goes without saying that apple worries about a lot more then strictly it's bottom line, because those things affect future bottom lines.

Investors know that. I've owned many a company that have made me large returns (% wise, since I don't have much money to play with as a college student) not based on their current revenue but based on future products still in the research phase. Company's that lose money can go up in stock price based on what the company is doing. So for Tim Cook to excuse the current situation of the company as "them doing things other then make profits" is exactly that, a defensive excuse. People aren't blind dead and dumb to what's going on at Apple, it's just more likely they aren't impressed. And Tim Cook isn't doing his company any favors by being defensive, thus giving the appearance that nothing exciting is going on with the company in the future. A tremendous PR blunder on his part.