Slashdot Mirror
Why Bob Mansfield Was Cut From Apple's Executive Team
colinneagle writes "AllThingsD reported that Bob Mansfield, Apple's Senior Vice President of Technologies, has disappeared from the executive management team at Apple. But it was only last October when Mansfield was widely reported to have been convinced to return from retirement by Apple CEO Tim Cook for a two-year stint. His return to the company may have been cut short on account of Apple's continued reliance on Samsung for its mobile SOC processors, for which Apple paid an estimated $10 billion to Samsung last year. Mansfield's group was to have played a major role in this, and apparently it has not been able effect this change."
Mansfield tried to retire in 2012. It's just possible he wanted out again and Tim Cook asked him to stick around and lend his expertise without the management responsibilities. It's the perfect semi-retirement: get rid of the tedious part of the job, work on the fun stuff, and continue to get compensated. I'd jump at an offer like that. Get removed from the management bio page? pfft.
... perhaps the lawsuit wasn't such a great idea? I believe it's likely the case that Apple needs Samsung. Also, the billion dollar lawsuit is like a tube of toothpaste in this scenario. Meaning that you squish one end only expands the other end (i.e. squishing does not change the volume if the cap is on).
Apple cash : 10,746,000
Intel's market cap: 115,690,000,000
I didn't post this to prove you wrong - I was sincerely interested. You wouldn't believe the crazy things I've heard on the internet that turned out to make me money!
But, I posted my results just to boost my own ego is all.
Carry on....I have a pathetic little life....
Talking about who's who at large corporations, and the monetary details of their jobs. I get that it matters, it just bores the hell out of me.
Some news sites that Mansfield is working on special projects. That could mean iTV, iWatch, iRealityDistortionField, whatever.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I see nothing in TFAs which support the question in the title or the speculation in the summary. True: BM was re-hired in Oct for continuing hardware work. Informed input: Apple is struggling to move SoC production, but looks like they're stuck with Sammy for the short term. Utter leap of speculation: because of this, BM was fired. wtf? leave the speculation to the ACs, please.
In the summary, 'affect this change' [grrrrrr] should be 'effect this change'. It could have read 'affect the situation'.
Oh the humanity: I'm having flashbacks of my grade 8 grammar teacher thrashing us mercilessly for just such an offense. Twas eons ago and most of my grammar synapses have degenerated to dust but the affect/effect thingy persists.
I whimper.
8-P
i mean all the problems that nvidia has had with them over the years have all been solved
i'm not an expert, but over the years i've read enough to know that you can't just switch to a new fab at a whim. they all use slightly different methods to make CPU's and these are also dependent on the tools you use to design the chip. A few years back AMD had the same problems for months or years because some chip they designed wasn't compatible with the process at the Global Foundries or wherever they tried to make it
over the years nvidia and AMD both have had lots of products delayed while TSMC worked out their problems. you can build all the fabs you want, but you need people with experience to work out the kinks in the production process to get the yields to make money
tim cook can show off all the iphones he wants, but unless apple can make over 100 million of them every 12 months, its just a show
and apparently it has not been able affect this change.
Effect dammit. There was no change to possibly be affected because there was no change done!
*grumble* grammarless *grumble* get off my lawn
Apple has $146 BILLION in cash as of last quarter. those numbers are old
$100 billion of it is outside the USA
Not affect.
How the hell this qualifies as any kind of news is beyond me. This appears to be someone's tech blog where he's basically just talking out of his ass and pulling suppositions out of thin air, about something that just happened like 24 hours ago. Suppositions which by the way are not confirmed by the only further piece of information we have, which is the statement from Apple that Mansfield will be working on special projects. He was already announced to be retiring last year and was convinced to stay on a temporary basis. Why on earth would Apple hold one executive responsible for the failure of a third-party company to effectively compete with Samsung in making chips? It's just--I can't--what?
This article is full of all kinds of fail. How about we wait a couple of days until someone actually has some factual news to report? Why the fuck is everybody and his brother jumping all over this guy all of the sudden? I expect this sort of thing from Mac _RUMORS_, but here? What the hell, Slashdot?
You might want to double check your numbers. Yahoo says it has 10,746,000,000 in cash. Yahoo reports in thousands of dolllars.
Which is 10% of Intel's market cap. Nothing to sneeze at, but still
But then they'd have to pay tax on it. And you know what beancounters would think of that.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
So why the f*** doesn't it do it????
-- ghost of Steve
Even with 25% repatriation taxes (no idea what they really are), they'd still have enough to buy it without debt.
But since they have huge cash flows, they could also probably buy the whole thing from debt only.
My guess is they buy TSMC and quadruple their production with the cash they already have.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
But personally, I think Apple buying Intel would be a travesty. Intel laid the foundation for personal computing (including smartphones) more than any other company. I realize Apple uses Samsung chips, not Intel, and that microprocessors would have developed a lot since the 1970s without Intel or any other single company. But still... for Apple to swoop in and make such an unheard of windfall by putting a pretty face on the technology that an entire industry has been building for decades just exemplifies the annoying "winner takes all" aspect of market forces when it comes to intellectual property.
You can't read properly.
Apple has >141 BILLION dollar in reserve.
http://news.yahoo.com/apple-cash-hoard-focus-turns-innovation-160022075.html
http://news.yahoo.com/apple-cash-hoard-focus-turns-innovation-160022075.html
141 billion dollar. Learn do research.
They have enough to buy Intel.
Who cares?
“Oh, so I’m not allowed to mention the fact that he messily devoured a live salmon during a staff meeting?”
http://crazyapplerumors.com/2013/03/21/bob-mansfields-review/
All numbers in thousands
That makes it a more reasonable but still short 10,746,000,000 to 115,690,000,000
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
That makes it a more reasonable but still short 10,746,000,000 to 115,690,000,000
The ten billion is _cash_. Like stashes of bank notes and money in a current account. There is for example another 92 billion in long term investments, 20 billion in receivables, and a few smaller items.
That's assuming you get to buy the whole company at the current market cap price.
Well, the current market cap is what's known as the whole company's valuation. So it's a pretty good assumption.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Cash is what this discussion was about. Not if Apple was financially capable of getting the deal done.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Apple has 145 billion dollars in cash and other liquid assets it could use for a buyout as of April supposedly. Tech crunch
They had 120 billion dollars in long term investments as of October The guardian on 120 billion dollar investment strategy
The different in counting depends on what you're counting exactly as 'cash'. Your yahoo link gives apple as 176 billion dollars in assets, 15 billion of which are property 800 million as inventory, 1 billion in goodwill, and 4 billion in intangibles. There are about 40 billion dollars in outstanding cash liabilities.
The difference is in what exactly you want to count as 'cash'. Companies usually take their money and buy stuff with it, if they don't want to buy other companies or to give the money to shareholders they can buy other companies bonds (sometimes even for overnight), they can buy government debts etc. etc. etc. As per the guardian link, Apple has a lot of money waiting to repatriate it to US investors whenever congress can be bought into offering a 'one time' tax break for doing so.
What Apple could use for a buyout (of anyone really) would be their cash, cash equivalents, short term investments and long term investments. They might end up with some complex web of borrowing money against those assets too, but that's relatively normal.
Some companies like BP have more far assets than their market cap. It's not always a good indication of a company's value.
I very much doubt that Apple will buy a business which would force Apple to get into an entirely new industry that is only marginally connected with Apple's core business. Intel's value is primarily due to supplying chips to an entire industry. So what would Apple get in turn for buying Intel? Cheaper pricing? The savings would hardly make up for the cost of purchasing Intel. Make Intel exclusively an Apple supplier? Even leaving aside the question of Intel's current obligations, this would mean throwing much of Intel's market value down the toilet. But if Intel vanishes as a supplier of silicon to the industry, this would simply create a huge incentive and opportunity for other firms to step into the gap--and to offer Intel's engineers sky-high-premiums to induce them to jump ship. The only reason for Apple to buy Intel would be if there were some sort of synergy. But could Apple improve on what Intel is already doing? Intel is the industry leader, and Apple's strength is in consumer design, not chip fabrication. Perhaps Apple could push Intel to develop superior products for mobile devices--but the guys at Intel aren't stupid, which means they are probably already doing this as best they can. Apple is a huge market, and Intel would love to sell them more chips.
No it isn't . I's the price of the cheapest currently available share times the number of shares. When you buy, say, 50% of them the other 50% will be more expensive. If someone desperately wants to buy the whole damn company you'd be stupid as fuck to sell your part at the "before announcement" market price.
By 'cash' the OP of this comment meant money, not physical dollar bills in a savings account.
Apple has $10 billion in cash, yes, but they have very roughly $150 billion in cash+short term investments+long term investments. Most people refer to that number colloquially as Apple's cash.
So technically yes, Apple does have the means to completely purchase Intel at Intel's current market cap, but they would never make such a large acquisition.
True, pedantically speaking Apple has $10 billion in cash. But also add "long term investments". These are assets that are easy to sell like stocks, bonds, etc.
Apple cash : 10,746,000
Intel's market cap: 115,690,000,000
I didn't post this to prove you wrong - I was sincerely interested. You wouldn't believe the crazy things I've heard on the internet that turned out to make me money!
But, I posted my results just to boost my own ego is all.
Carry on....I have a pathetic little life....
Maybe everyone else is crazy who reports it but I know I've read Apple has over $140 billion in cash. Much of it is overseas and would be subject to taxation if brought back to US but that is a whole lot more than the $10+ billion you mention. In fact it is much more than the market cap for Intel you mention but I have doubts about that since it is from the same source.
First, the number for Apple is in 1,000s.
Second, that's the September 2012 number. As of March 2013, it was $12 billion.
Third, you've got to add two additional lines to really understand Apple's cash horde. Because it would be imprudent to actually hold over $100 bilion in bank accounts, Apple holds both long-term and short-term marketable securities ($106 billion and $27 billion, repsectively). Those probably consist of various government securities and high-rated corporate bonds. For accounting purposes, they don't count as "cash equivalents", but for practical purposes they should be considered as such.
So Apple's cash horde was a little over $145 billion as of last September. Intel's market cap of $115 billion is meaningfully smaller.
oops. the $145 billion was as of last March.
So what would Apple get in turn for buying Intel? Cheaper pricing?
More like, by adopting Intel's process technology they could save 20% or more of the power used by all of their mobile devices, not to mention the billions of dollars they contribute to Intel's profit margin currently. If Apple owned Intel, they could even resume manufacturing Flash RAM in-house.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What winner take all approach? You mean like how Intel and Microsoft and even IBM colluded to shut Apple out of its small slice of pie using PowerPC for 2 DECADES?
Apple has cash to burn... If they wanna buy companies to burn um down that's how capitalism works!
I'm surprised Steve was as peaceful at the end as he was... Given that kind of money. I'd buy rival CEO's homes from the banks just to burn um down, let alone their companies.
They could burn it down and invite Microsoft! Who would Microsoft sell Windows to without Intel Processors? Technically not "monopolistic" either.
He had objections to the Forstall/Jobs style, offered to quit, was motivated, then now has moved to "special projects".
The only thing Wall Street cares about is special projects. (growth).
This is pre-retirement gig.
JJ
its just a manager, not like they did anything important