Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook: If You Don't Like Our Energy Policies, Don't Buy Apple Stock
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Nick Statt reports at Cnet that at Apple's annual shareholder meeting Friday, Apple CEO Tim Cook shot down the suggestion from a conservative, Washington, DC-based think tank that Apple give up on environmental initiatives that don't contribute to the company's bottom line. The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), hasn't taken kindly to Apple's increasing reliance on green energy and said so in a statement issued to Apple ahead of the meeting. 'We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards,' said NCPPR General Counsel Justin Danhof demanding that the pledge be voted on at the meeting. 'This is something [Apple] should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender.' Cook responded that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. 'When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind. I don't consider the bloody ROI,' said Cook. 'We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive, We want to leave the world better than we found it.' Danhof's proposal was voted down and to any who found the company's environmental dedication either ideologically or economically distasteful, Cook advised 'if you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.'"
The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.
Surely energy policies are about creating a feel-good aspect to the brand. Plus if you learn something along the way by trying perhaps you can commercialize it and it takes you off on another wild ride, like the iPhone did.
Just because they don't understand it, doesn't mean they can run the company better.
What law would that be? Hint: There isn't one.
The stockholders voted, and Apple's energy policy won easily.
The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money. Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.
Yeah, because some think-tank in DC is the majority shareholder in Apple stock...
He is also a share holder, that means he is also an owner.
The stockholders voted with Cook, saying that they, the owners of Apple, want their company to be environmentally responsible AND to acquiesce to government mandating how they do so. That puts him on solid legal ground, I believe.
What would get Cook in trouble would be putting his OWN well-being ahead of stockholder interests. If Apple were paying TimCook Inc a billion dollars for green services, that would be a problem. Cook is carrying out the expressed wishes of the stockholders, and is not enriching himself at their expense.
One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product
Tim Cook telling these right-wing psychopaths to piss off is surely a reason to avoid buying Apple products.
What kind of bullshit is this? Extremist climate change deniers turning up in the Apple shareholder meeting, and trying to foist their idiotic "profit above anything" agenda on Apple, getting the response they deserve (actually, not _quite_ what they deserve, corporal punishment is what they deserve), and that makes you want to avoid Apple products?
Unless you are running the company, you don't know what is in the best interest of the shareholders. I can think of quite a few cases where a company did what the shareholders wanted to the ultimate detriment of the company! (Think Dell, or Seagate...) Sometimes the best interest of the shareholder is to do things that either won't pay off for a long time, or will maybe never directly make any change to the share price, but will put the company in a better position for future growth, or appeal to a larger market. There are a lot of factors going on here, but the ROI to shareholders in my opinion is at the bottom of the barrel as long as he isn't damaging the company. As far as I am concerned, shareholders should be investing in a company because they like the direction the company is going. Attempting to muck around in that process for personal gain will ALWAYS be detrimental to the company.
Tim Cook is a major Apple shareholder, at least among individuals who own shares. He owns a fraction of the company.
And you seem to have forgotten how to follow the money. Those profits don't come out of thin air. Public opinion is entirely within the interests of stockholders and company owners. When shareholders become absolute greedy fucks they need a smack upside the head so they get some perspective.
You're the only arrogant one here. In what universe do you and your ideologically like-minded cronies get to speak for the shareholders? You cannot possibly think that some random DC think-tank is the majority shareholder of the most valuable company in the world.
And that's a valid reason for not changing the policy, but instead he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock (or not buy it in the first place) if they want the course of the company changed. That's completely illogical, as someone who doesn't have stock in the company doesn't have a vote to change the company's direction.
So far there aren't many comments here, but all of them are sitting here flaming Tim Cook. No where in the articles linked did it say that shareholders (as a group) wanted this. In fact, if you RTA (the last linked one), you'll see that it received less than 3% of the vote. But people who are too afraid to post under a user name are also apparently all too happy to post that Cook is doing a disservice to his shareholders, even though the overwhelming majority of said shareholders agree with him.
So what should those that don't do? Buy something else. I don't get why people who are seemingly for the free market are up in arms about a company doing something their way and telling people that if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Just because the ROI in one company might not be as high as possible (according to a think tank, not a court of public opinion by any stretch, which is where Apple exceeds), doesn't mean that the company is doing a disservice to its shareholders, unless those shareholders are in it for the shortest term possible.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Even if his policies are bad, 97.5% of stockholders voted to do it his way. The owners want to be green, so green it is.
Tim Cook is the CEO. His job is strategic planning: seeing where market trends are going, where technology is headed and the economy - including energy costs in the future - as best as humanly possible since nobody is clairvoyant.
The long term trend for the cost of fossil fuels is up. Even with all the "new" found oil and gas in the Continental US the price will go up. Why? Demand outstrips supply.
Asia. Those billions of people want to live like us Americans and we use 25% of the World's oil - for about 300 million people.
The oil companies are sucking it out of the ground as fast as they find it - well, including the time it takes to get a well producing, but you get my drift. In other words, the demand is increasingly MUCH faster than supply and unless some HUGE (another Saudi Arabia) economically viable reserve is found, oil and gas are going to go nowhere but up for the foreseeable future.
Green energy will continue to go down in price because many folks see the writing on the wall and frankly, some prefer clean air and water to profit.
Even the commie Chinese are investing heavily in green energy.
So, what does this mean for Apple? If they want to stay competitive in the future, they BETTER go green.
You should have bought 1000 shares like I did. As of today it's value is 1200% higher than the day I bought it. That pisses you off, doesn't it?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Are you familiar with the law? It doesn't define best interest. Not all shareholders a motivated purely by profit. Those that are motivated as such had an opportunity to vote him out of power (the law is on their side for that), but they couldn't garner enough interest.
Tim Cook told a single owner to go *bleep!* himself. The shareholders as a whole voted specifically on this resolution, and rejected it.
Shareholder value can be more than money. if the stock holders want money to be the only concern then he'd have to, but they they didn't.
A single nut-job that probably has a single stock just so he can show up at meetings and be annoying isn't to be taken serious
If you don't like Apple's energy policy, buy majority shares.
not only does apple control everything about the phones we buy, but they think they can tell the owners to fuck off? One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product
The owners agreed with Cook - the right wing loonie didn't get support from the rest of the shareholders. Which makes sense, as Apple needs not only to have the current premium products associated with its brand, but align with its potential customers - and above all, avoid really bad associations. Or just being boring.
Image is very important for premium brands - and that's what the majority of the shareholders wants Tim Cook to continue to cultivate, alongside its innovation focus.
Will you people just stop with the "owners" bullshit, are people really this ignorant about how a public company operates? Cook is a substantial shareholder, the other owners listened carefully to both sides, then promptly told the other guy to fuck off. This is a non story, voting down idiots at a shareholders meeting is routine business.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This.
The perception of Apple customers has been that they're typically left of center. Apple haters fired the "your iphone is made in a sweatshop" volley (legitimately, I might add) because of this perception of Apple's customers and an attempt at shaming them. Apple responded by enforcing ever stricter standards of minimum working conditions on all their suppliers, thus safeguarding the customer base. Continuing along the same lines and in service of safeguarding their customer base, Apple started moving towards green energy also because that's yet another selling point to keep their customers hooked. It's also the reason why in every product launch, the greenness of the product is a feature touted alongside its technical merits.
Customers give Apple money in exchange for Apple products. That's how Apple became valuable enough to have so many shareholders. Take away the customers and you're holding a shell. The customers *want* a company that is at least a little altruistic because it makes the customers feel good about themselves.
If shareholders treat Apple like the goose that laid golden eggs, they'll suffer the same fate when they try to distil the company to the essence they (wrongly) perceive it to be.
$x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
Cook did care and the result was that basically all of the Apple does care. They just don't give a flying fuck about unscientific drivel, that's all. They care about what they do and how they do it. It's in the best interest to follow the green policies. The brand value just inched a bit higher.
Less ganja man, you may actually understand TFA one day...
Good for Tim, I'll now buy Apple products and stock.
No, they think they can tell a minority of shareholders to do so, as demonstrated by a shareholder vote.
Really, it's the majority of shareholders telling the rest of them to fuck off. If they don't like the outcome of the vote, either buy a majority stake so that you can dictate to the minority, or invest elsewhere.
No, the owner went way too far. Being an owner does not entitle you to behave like a pig.
NCPPR's critique might be valid if Apple were adding solar arrays on its server farms to prematurely try operating off-grid, but that is not what's happening. Apple is using small source energy to supplement the grid, not replace it. Works just like your residential solar collectors.
97.05% of the owners told their co-owner to fuck off, and Tim Cook (as their dutiful employee) agreed.
He was a bit of a dick about it, but when 97.05% of your bosses tell you to tell the other 2.95% to fuck off you ain't supposed to sugar-coat it.
No, not in the slightest.
But I'm curious, what weapons? Those on the USS Yorktown?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
no, 97% of the owners told the other three percent to fuck off
And the truth is the boys at the Washington Think Tank ought to be thrilled. This is a free enterprise owned by free and private people who voted on how to run the enterprise they own. They made a decision to "go green" without some regulator forcing them to do so. Its a shining example about how FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM can work. Its evidence that with success and affluence people and even legal fictions like corporations "do the right thing".
Apples energy police IS a case against regulation.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
You've demonstrated utter failure to comprehend the actual power of minor (read: non-institutional) stockholders. The vote doesn't matter.
What was implicit in his statement is that Apple's energy policies are extremely important to the company and are overwhelmingly supported by Apple's shareholders. i.e. if you're among the tiny minority of shareholders who disagrees then your only options are to deal with it or sell your shares. Implied is that a campaign to force management to abandon the policies is doomed to failure given their broad support.
Just saying: Tim Cook is the CEO. He is _not_ a substantial shareholder. It takes about 500 million dollar to own just 0.1% of AAPL, Tim Cook is nowhere near, and 0.1% doesn't make you a "substantial shareholder". He runs the company because he was hired to run the company.
"No Mom, your computer isn't slow. It's a G4 iMac. You have 1.2 GB of memory. You are never going to run out of gigabytes." (That's how my mother refers to her disk drive.
"The people who write most software these days, they have really, really fast machines, with lots of memory and tons of gigabytes. They don't take care to make their software run fast anymore. It's a real problem."
When I use Mom's mouse to resize an OpenOffice window, the corner of the window lags quite far - not noticably but severely so - behind the motions of the mouse.
Now consider my own product QuickLetter from Working Software, that in 1992 was quick and snappy on a Mac Plus with 4 MB of memory, and what was it? An 8 MHz 68000? Or was it 6 MHz?
I don't know the clock of the G4 in Mom's iMac, but it is several hundred megahertz at least.
It is quite common for me these days to find web pages that take ten minutes to fully download. When I looked into ordering Comcast Business Class Cable Internet, I needed to view three pages - their homepage, then their business internet offerings, then their pricing.
Each page took a full hour to download. This because mom still uses dialup earthlink. It works fine for her occasional email to aunt peggy. I expect that comcast's web designers never actually tested their own site over dialup, despite trying to sell cable internet to dialup users.
Please mail me URLs of software employers.
man the apple fanbois are out in force today
and as i said, I agree with the end result, i disagree with the dickhole way he handled it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Buying stocks or even the products of a company that supports Greenies is not a responsible act.
Stock holders don't own the company. If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Stockholders do indeed own the company. Laws limit the liability of stockholders' in a publicly held corporation to encourage that type of investment. Capitalism runs on investment.
The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.
Wrong. The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors. The stockholders can only vote to change the board. In some cases, don't know about apple, they might be able to raise motions at meetings for the board to take up. But even there was a motion to fire him, it would be up to the directors to execute it. So this policy is presumably backed by the board.
Cook was giving good advice too. The stock holder coould have tried to change the board or passed a motion but that would be ineffective. His only real power to make himself heard would be to sell a large chunk of his stock and get other to do so. That would be a loss at the man's expense (not apple) but the lower stock price would be noticed by other apple shareholders.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Those who have the most ownership should have the most say. What seems to really bother people (lefties) about this is that it makes it appear that even the scary baby devoting, banker types who they think cut down forests for laughs might be willing to do the right thing without be shackled and forced by government.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock (or not buy it in the first place) if they want the course of the company changed
Where did you read that? I didn't notice him saying any such thing.
Ezekiel 23:20
Buying stocks or even the products of a company that supports Greenies is not a responsible act.
And buying the stocks of a company that ignores the law is somehow more responsible? Basically they were asking Tim Cook to ignore the federal mandates on green energy.
Even apart from that moronic idea, locally the number of datacenters we can actually place here in the country is now limited by the capacity of the grid. Doing small scale experiments on how to diminish that reliance, or even go off-grid on a large scale, is very likely to be a smart move. And that is not even taking into account the fact that in the country next door they are actually paying companies to use energy on days they have too much free energy (wind and solar). It makes the energy-intensive companies so competitive that a big one in this country has just gone bankrupt. Making sure that Apple retains an ability to mix and match between different energy providers is just sensible business, however you look at it.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind. I don't consider the bloody ROI," said Cook. THAT's why their stuff is the most expensive. Now I get it...I think. We had a guy in the office go blind in just a matter of a couple of weeks (blood supply to the optic nerves just went away) a couple months ago and Apple's accessibility crap sucks. All of us trying to set up stuff so he could see things on the screen as it was happening were really surprised at how worthless it all was.
HEADLINE
Right Wing Ideologues looking for Publicity get their asses handed to them.
The NCPPR were only trying to raise their own profile by attacking Apple's policy, nothing more.
You have no idea what you are talking about for several reasons:
1. Less than 3% voted for it. That obliterates everything you said right there.
2. This is the case law that asshole execs use as an excuse to obliterate their US workforce for cheap overseas labor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
Ford was an interesting man.
This is a big feel-good event for them. It's PR bullshit, and Apple probably paid the people who came in and made the trouble.
Nobody seems to be scrutinizing who and how the solar arrays were paid for. What percentage of the 'investment' was government subsidies? 10%? 20%? 30%?
In an economy where market failures such as negative externalities are corrected, Apple is already doing the sort of thing that any company would do to maximize ROI. The problem is that conservative organizations such as the NCPPR tend not to believe in externalities, probably because it conflicts with their ideology that the Earth is not warming or that humans are not the cause of it.
It's ironic that the NCPPR bring up ROI when they bash a $68.4 billion train project that would provide the same transportation capacity as $158 billion spent on roads and airports. What this and their meddling in Apple's affairs tells us is that they aren't truly interested in ROI but in supporting Big Oil and opposing anything that competes with burning dirty, nonrenewable fuels. This also explains why they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" (Upton Sinclair)
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This is all about raising money for the think tank. They get to tell their supporters that they stood up to the hated Al Gore, who is on Apple's board. Watch the donations flow in over this.
The news report that I read said that Tim Cook became visibly anger and answered the question in an angry manner. If that is correct, Tim Cook should not be praised because he didn't throw chairs like Balmer.
Your sig references my favorite song of all time, love to play it with my guitar and my hardly capable voice.
BlameBillCosby.com
Such public display of the topic, the good guy apple feeling that comes out of it. I really feel like I just got hit with a very low flying advertisement
You best believe that if Apple was limping along financially then they wouldn't have splurged on such green energy ventures. Don't misunderstand me. Apple has the cash and they can spend it as they wish. But Cook is making a moral argument and it's only the success of the iPhone/iPad that allows him to do so.
He said anything about changing the course of the company. I heard: The course of the company isn't changing, if you don't like where it's going, get off now. Which so long as a majority of the stockholders will back his play is a completely legitimate statement. You don't get to come in with some tiny sliver of stock and dictate terms - either buy 51%, or better yet buy stock in companies whose policies you approve of in the first place.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Are you familiar with the law? It doesn't define best interest. Not all shareholders a motivated purely by profit. Those that are motivated as such had an opportunity to vote him out of power (the law is on their side for that), but they couldn't garner enough interest.
Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong? Apple has enough surplus cash to indulge in such ventures. What if Apple posted a $10B loss? Think such money sinks would still be funded? Yes, willingly paying a premium for energy is a money sink.
If Apple was losing money, all of their shareholders would be concerned. Don't be fooled into thinking they wouldn't be.
correct. My home owners association is a legal corporation. But we make no moves to produce a profit. In fact, we actively work to reduce the member dues as much as possible to make sure we don't produce a profit or a loss.
this is a, if not the major problem that ROI = $'s ** x is the only measure how things are followed, the more the better, and not what would be adequate on a global scale. That's where currently all systems fail flat.
I am not really an Apple fan but this is a good one!
Funny how the good folks at the NCPPR didn't demand that Apple stop their philanthropic activities, which by NCPPR logic would also hurt shareholder value. For some reason, they only objected to Apple's "green" initiatives...I wonder why?
Either way, those "think tank" guys should go back to school and learn how capital assets are actually priced. If the NCPPR had gotten their way, it's likely that Apple's stock price would have gone down, not up.
'We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards,'
Sort of laughable considering how Apple does business, to be complaining about fascism.
Take the Maps app in OSX 10.9 (Mavericks) on my Macbook pro without GPS the maps app is able to detect exactly where I am. The reason this works is because Apple has geo-located every wifi access point anywhere someone with an iPhone is.
The iPhone scans everything around adds the GPS data and uploads it to Apples server.
So I suppose most fanbois will say "that's a feature", but after turning it off in "privacy" (laugh) settings I applied the new SSL patch and behold, location services was once again active even after locking that panel.
Didn't do that on the desktop.
You have no true location privacy with any Apple computer, and I would wager even with WiFi off and Location Service off it still silently looks at the area around and sends your location data to Apple.
Remember this:
http://petewarden.github.io/iP...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Indeed. And he IS acting in the best interest of the shareholders, because being a green company is something important to a lot of people who use Apple products. If you still think most of them are buying shiny useless objects, think again. There's a philosophy and a mindset behind it all. I could tell you the "Think Different" cliché, but you obviously can't do that.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
No, Tim Cook should be praised because he stood up to the right-wing idiots and told them where to stuff it, instead of treating them like an equal partner in a sensible debate.
The right-wing thinktanks have been flooding debates with PR puff pieces (also known as 'lies') instead of facts, and it is high time they got called on it.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
... could the ethical operation of a company be characterized as irresponsible.
The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money. Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.
Even if ROI was the *only* interest of Apple shareholders, acceding to the NCPPR demand would have likely hurt Apple's share price. Pissing off your customers is not a good recipe for increasing ROI.
Which is wrong. The executives and board need to be legally liable. shareholders need to be financially liable based on the percentage of stock held.
Corperations run out of control because they have been given a legal license to break the law whenever they want without recourse.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Glenn Beck and the Giant radio Gasbag both said it, and they WOULD NOT LIE!!!!!
Rush Limbaugh speaks only the truth!
AAPL is at ~$520 a share, so they must be something right
What time frame are you talking about? If it is a 2% ROI in the next year but the company continues to give me back 2% or more every year for as long as I live, I prefer that to someone that gives a 15% ROI the next year and then keels over due to lack of future investments. I am not in the line of making money in the short term, I want this society and civilization to be successful over time.
ROI is a stupid measurement if used alone. It only looks at *ONE* thing and only in a specific time frame.
An investor is not an owner. The money he paid for the stock did not go to Apple, it went to some other market player. In a very real sense, a corporation has no owners. Not in the sense that you own your car (assuming you've finished paying for it).
Corporate policies are made by the Board of Directors and the corporate officers. The Board directs the officers. The Board can be directed by the stockholders. Which happened in this case, with the stockholders telling the Board that ROI was less important than going green.
This has been the first thing Apple has done since the Apple ][ days that makes me think I might want to own one of their products. Maybe. Go Tim!
Will
Stock holders don't own the company.
They most assuredly do own the company. That is precisely how stock works. The ENTIRE point of corporate stock is to divorce the liability of the company from the ownership. It allows companies to take risks that would otherwise be impossible. (And before you jump in with some snarky response, yes that separation of liability from ownership is a Good Thing - companies would not exist without it) Common stock holders however are last in line to get paid if the company goes belly up. Debt holders typically are first in line.
If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Wrong. The company is a separate entity. Except for very small companies there is NEVER a personal guarantee of any debt. The debt is either unsecured or is secured by the assets of the company including all cash flows and receivables, tangible and intangible assets. In the event of a liquidation or bankruptcy, the common stockholders are last in line to recover any money from those assets so they carry the most risk.
No, there are shareholders that want to see a see a good idea come true. Of course they don't expect to lose money, but they might not be in it purely for the money. Granted, these are pretty rare, but I think there should be more of those as opposed to those just wanting to suck money out of a business. If you have no interest whatsoever in a particular business, you should leave the business alone. Use your money somewhere else.
Nowadays the stock markets are far from the investor idea that started it all. Many people trading stock couldn't care less about the companies they trade in. That makes me sick. A sign of a degenerate society.
Headline:
Apple willing to be environmentally friendly and willing to have workers jump of the top of their factories.
There fixed it for you.
Which is wrong. The executives and board need to be legally liable.
Then you will not have a corporation. The ENTIRE point of a corporation is to separate personal liability from ownership. No one in their right mind would agree to accept unlimited personal liability for the actions of an entire company, most of which they do not control. Make the executives and board liable for all actions and corporations will cease to exist which is a Very Bad Thing.
shareholders need to be financially liable based on the percentage of stock held.
They are financially at risk. If the company goes belly up, the shareholders are last in line to get paid. They carry the most risk. Bondholders are typically first in line to get paid from any bankruptcy or liquidation.
Sooner or later the products developed under Jobs (may his turtleneck never sag) will be obsolete, and they'll run out of people to sue over rounded corners, parallel sides or whatever.
We'll see where it's at a few years down the road.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And in this case a right wing think tank also claim they should cut down forests for a laugh and be unwilling to do the right thing even when forced by the government.
Agree with "This has been the first thing Apple has done . . . I might want to own one of their products."
I've never liked Apple very much, but never disliked them very much either. They do some things that I like, they do other things that I dislike, and mostly I don't give a damn about them because their bling is over priced.
But - this really is a huge reason to like them. "If you don't like our policies, don't invest". Blunt and to the point.
I don't even care as much as some people about "green". Green is probably good, but hey, I just can't bring myself to care a whole lot. But, if Apple thinks green is important enough to invest in, so be it. If you don't agree, don't invest. Then, we're all cool!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors.
The stockholders DO have the power to fire him, although their actual ability to do so is rather limited. If 50%+1 of the shareholders agree on anything they can (generally) force the company to do anything that is legal. This is deeply unlikely to happen but it is possible. If 50%+1 or more shareholders get together, they can do almost whatever they want whether or not the board agrees with it.
Wow. A bit of an oxymoron situation there. You're happy to increase the killing efficiency of the war machine - which only becomes more efficient at killing people in general, not just the enemy while creating further unrest in the world and more killing, but you find a computer immoral? Have you ever even used a Mac? It's a full blown BSD system, it even comes with X windows, and is a great platform for running Open Source software even if most but not all of the OS is closed source. It is a great companion for a Linux and FreeBSD junking like myself. But if you are an average computer user, you never have to see that and can use it as an average computer and everything in between. That is power and flexibility. So, dumbing down compared to what and on what grounds? Windows? Chrome? Whatever it is, it dumbed you down a long time ago. While I am an Android user, if you want to direct this at iOS, I could circle back around and start all over - but I don't think your ignorance is worth any more of my time than it has already received.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
If Republicans do not support green energy they will lose 2016 President Election, big money with bi-partisan support of green energy they will most likely blacklist the Tea Party/Republican party when come to donations and money and funding
The CEO of a company - whether public or not - is expected to make certain decisions completely on his or her own.
Like the captain of a ship. Consider that all the captains of the US missile submarine fleet have the authority to nuke President Putin back to the stone ages should the sub ever lose communications with their commanders in the Pentagon.
Like the captain of a ship, the CEO of a company can be relieved of command, should - NOT the stockholders but THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS - feel he or she is doing a bad job.
Like say, when the Apple board tossed Steve Jobs out on his ear, put Woz out to pasture, scouted around for a more multinational kinda brand-oriented guy, brought in John Scully, who proceeded to lay off four thousand of my coworkers back when I was doing MacTCP QA for Apple, because he'd never actually used a computer in his entire life before hiring on at the Cupertino Fruit Company.
Rly. I still have my Apple Employee Loan-to-Own PowerMac 8500. That tradition got started specifically because of Scully not knowing how to use a computer. That was actually a common problem back in the day. Actually it still is; I know of some guy whose computer was running real slow, because he hide NINE Internet Explorer toolbars. But I digress.
Now suppose Timmy-baby really wasn't doing his job, but the board backed him. Then the job of the shareholders would be to elect a new board. That's one of the things they often do at these shareholder meetings. It would be up to a vote of the board to replace the CEO.
As for those who object to Apple's green policies. Consider how many citizens of the People's Republic of China work for Apple, or for one of Apple's suppliers such as FoxConn. I expect that - indirectly - far more people work for Apple in the PRC than do in the whole rest of the world put together.
The air in China used to be pretty clean because the people lived in a very simple manner, they didn't own many consumer products, they all dressed in olive drab and rode bicycles to work and school. Even Ambassador George Herbert Walker Bush rode his bike to the embassy in Peking!
While nominally still Communist, actually it is quite likely the closest to unfettered capitalism of anywhere on the planet. Without the slightest thought towards urban planning, there are factories everywhere, everyone who has a good job has a nice car, and a nice place to live. Thus they had that one hundred mile long traffic jam that lasted a week.
China gets most of its energy from coal. It is plentiful there. They import coal as well; there is a controversial proposal to build a coal terminal where I now live in Vancouver, Washington, so coal mined in Montana can be loaded onto cargo ships then transported to China.
This had the eventual result that I recently saw the most amazing photograph. I don't have a link but maybe I can dig it up then post it in a reply.
The smog is so thick in many Chinese cities that one cannot see the sky, certainly not the sunrise.
So along the busy streets, in the early mornings, they have installed very large video screens that show the rising Sun.
The photo I saw, the video on that screen was so beautiful, but the smog was so thick that the people couldn't see more than maybe thirty feet. That's why the life expectancy in Beijing has gone down by fifteen years.
I don't know that Tim Cook is worrying about his Chinese employees, or those of his Chinese vendors, but if he wants FoxConn to keep assembling iDevices, they can't all be dropping dead of emphysema can they? Grandpa Crawford died of that, he spent his last five years on a portable oxygen tank. It's a nasty way to go.
Please mail me URLs of software employers.
Help me understand what you are smoking, you seem to be suggesting that the board should have a contentious relationship with the CEO? Why? If the board doesn't like the CEO, the board should just fire the CEO.
Since the board is voted in by the shareholders, how is he stacking the board? Is he pointing a gun at the shareholders of the ~900 million shares and telling them to vote his way?
you really post this? really? i like to think we arent all trolls here, but i will assume you are and move on. you cant possibly be serious.
Which is wrong. The executives and board need to be legally liable. shareholders need to be financially liable based on the percentage of stock held.
They are liable for the debts, but that liability is limited to the amount invested. So if you don't think shareholders own the company, then who does own it? Nobody?
Consider buying a car. If you bought a used car, you did not pay the manufacturer. Using your logic, you would not own the car.
Just because someone who buys a share of Apple stock did not buy it directly from Apple does not mean that Apple did not originally benefit from the first sale (or grant) of the stock. It did. In the case of an IPO, a company is selling stock. The company receives money in exchange for that stock. The stock is now an asset that can be re-sold. In the case of employee stock, the company is paying the employee with stock in lieu of paying cash, so the company is trading its stock for the work of the employee -- the company received a benefit in exchange for stock which is now an an asset that can be re-sold
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Well, to be completely fair, the right wing ideologues most likely would tell Apple that they are doing it wrong if at least 2% of workers don't jump off the roof of their factories in any given year.
Corporate policies are made by the Board of Directors and the corporate officers. The Board directs the officers. The Board can be directed by the stockholders.
The Board isn't just directed by the stockholders, it is hired (through election), and if they so choose, fired (again, via election) by the stockholders. The Board works directly for and at the discretion of the stockholders.
Well, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of shareholders in a joint stock company are at least *primarily* motivated by profit. But investors differ from each other in their temperament and priorities, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a stock market. Everyone would by the same stocks.
One of the big differences that drives investment choices is your investment horizon. If you're focused on return in the next quarter or two, you'd act precisely as this guy wants Apple to act. If it's not generating ROI in the next year to eighteen months at at least normal profit rates, you don't do it.
But the farther out your investment horizon is, the further into the future you are planning on holding a stock, the more differences in your beliefs and expectations about the future are going to differentiate you. Green energy is a good example. If you're investing for the next year or so, supporting green energy initiatives would be an act of altruism. If you are investing for the longer term you may see it as a hedge against future price volatility in fossil fuels -- presuming you *anticipate* future volatility, not everyone does.
Investment isn't just a numbers game; it's a belief about the future game. The longer the investment horizon, the more your individual beliefs about the future play in what courses of action you think will maximize profit.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Could you please explain your goose analogy further? Thank you.
When I buy a car, the money doesn't go to the car. It goes to the previous owner of the car. When I buy stock, the money doesn't go to the corporation, it goes to the previous owner of the stock.
The stock is a title to the corporation. Investors very literally are the owners.
Before the creation of the limited liability company, stockholders were liable for the debts of companies that they owned. Stockholders are not liable because there are laws that limit their liability (if the company is set up correctly), not because they don't own the company.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Which is interesting if the stock holders vote to have the company do something risky and dangerous. Then they aren't held accountable for what they told the company to do. Hmmmmm....
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I will likely never buy an Apple product, I would like to shake Cook's hand for the way he pushed back against the NCPPR. It's about time these "Profits Uber Alles!" twits got their behinds handed to them.
Of course, who wants to bet on how long it is before the NCPPR begins pushing for a shareholder proposal to have Cook removed as CEO? "How dare he waste money that we could be squirreling away in our offshore accounts on that dirty, hippie stuff like Green Initiatives?"
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The problem is that this sort of thing works. It seems to be the main mission of PETA, for instance.
If they wanted to do something really good, they'd stop off shoring all the work going into making their devices (which they lock you into), and create jobs for people in the country that buys most of their goods, and whose whole cultural and economic system allowed the company to come into being. Of course their whole client base is more concerned about being 'cooler than the next person' which includes the latest cause de jour. In this case the environment. Who really gives a fuck about the unemployed when you can get your Chinese made bling? I don't like any company off shoring, but I really hate companies that make phony news stories in a spasmodic bowel like cynical spout espousing their so called pile of bullshit beneficence.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Then learn who the hell owns a device once it has been purchased and act accordingly. The OWNER should not be locked out of their device or policed by their device in any fashion.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
I don't know how much of it's revenue Apple spends on these sorts of things. But assuming it isn't significant in its effect on the bottom line; its all about Apple's pubic image. Much in the way companies spend money on fancy corporate headquarters and associated landscaping, it gives both the public and its employees a better image of the company. And that is worth something both to the brand's value as well as employee morale and productivity.
These sorts of effects are difficult to quantify, although they are real. So it's pretty much up to the CEO and upper management as to how much to spend and on what.
Danhof might have a good point about mandatory standards. But if Apple and others don't voluntarily step in and fund such investments, that's an excuse for the government to do so. And the underlying argument should be one of who (private business or a government bureaucracy) is best suited to make such investment allocation decisions.
Have gnu, will travel.
The money he paid for the stock did not go to Apple, it went to some other market player.
If I buy a used car, the money paid does not go to Ford, it goes to the previous owner.
In a very real sense, a corporation has no owners.
By your logic, neither does a car.
Having a positive green image and policy helps Apple public relations and also keeps Apple in some socially responsible funds. While Cook
doesnt claim its for ROI, there is a financial gain for at least some green practices.
The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money.
In this case it almost certainly was. Apple is not a big energy consumer, so they get their green credentials without much cost. People buy Apple products, at least in part, because of the brand status. Being green helps that brand image, and lets them charge premium prices.
Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.
ROI is not just "short term". The biggest stock market investors, by far, are pension funds, which have investment horizons of many decades.
Most shareholders, including myself, would prefer that Apple error on the side of caution with regards to our planet's resources and health. I'd like the planet to be here when I'm ready to spend my profits.
The "green energy mandate" applies to federal agencies; it is not binding law for private companies like Apple.
Those 'conservatives' at the meeting were really agitating for Apple to make decisions based on their short-term ROI rather than their long-term ROI. Short-term decisions are necessary but a healthy company rarely does them. For example, many companies, including Apple, spend a lot of money on research. Research costs a lot of money, has an uncertain return on the expenditure, and a lot of time passes before that return is ever realized. From a short-term perspective, companies should never spend money on research but should instead just pass all of the money on to their shareholders. Yet, if companies operated in that way, they would go out of business fairly quickly. So...that is the beauty of the free enterprise system. It leaves companies free to operate in what they see as their overall best long-term interests and often, those are as Apple's Tim Cook presented them rather than as the 'conservative' shareholders wanted. When shareholders gain too much influence over the daily operations and decisions of the company, it usually leads to the company's demise as shareholders seek to transfer cash assets to their pockets and leave the company limping along and struggling to continue. However, that just means that the company's competitors pick up the business that the wounded company can no longer compete for. Ultimately, it's a self-correcting system, as long as there is a competitive marketplace with no one company grown so large as to monopolize all of the business.
Wow, you speak quite authoritatively for somebody who doesn't know shit about corporate law.
Ironically it ended up being good PR for Apple. They have the headlines out there of Tim Cook both taking a stand and using free market principals in it too. (Don't like it don't buy.)
Executives and board have been held legally liable in certain circumstances. Especially when they were a party in something very illegal.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I'm amazed that someone so utterly indifferent (about everything) could muster the motivation to type up a post, explaining how very indifferent they are.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Wake up sheeple!
If you see Obama as ultra-left-wing you must be somewhere right of Hitler...
As people have pointed out before: Foxconn is not Apple's factory any more than they are Dell's factory (or any other factory since they make products for many, many other companies in that same factory). Let's not facts get in the way of a smear.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes, ROI in terms of pure profit is not always in the best interest of a company. Longer term thinking, customer loyalty, good PR, etc are intangibles that may not appear in a balance sheet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"utterly indifferent (about everything)"
Indifferent about everything? WTF? We were only discussing a single company here. Apple is everything? Apple and it's shareholders are everything? Get a grip dude - Apple is one company among many. At present, that company is pretty successful, but it's not very special as companies go. I don't dislike Apple a whole lot, I don't dislike them a whole lot. But, on many other subjects, I'm a very opinionated person. Care to change the subject to Microsoft? Google? NSA? Veterans' rights? Gun rights? Pick a subject, I have a lot of strong opinions, and I love arguing them.
Care to discuss Apple fanbois? I have much stronger opinions about fanbois, than I have about Apple.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Maybe I'm just more cynical, but isn't this an incredibly convenient and free advertisement about the morality, kindness and social responsibility of a giant corporation? I'm not saying that the "ideologues" were told to manufacture a controversy for the sake of publicity. But if they did it spontaneously, it's pretty clear that Apple was eager to shut them down loudly enough to make the news. There isn't a better image-building exercise than one which pits the altruistic benevolence of a company against the money-grubbing greed of some shareholding scrooges. We love to see them being told off, and feel like this makes Apple our ally. Well, however this episode ultimately came about, I must clap and declare it "well played" on Apple's part.
Enron had a great ROI - for a while. Short sighted investors (and policicies) lose in the long run. Bravo Apple!
I have some new-found respect for you. A small amount, but it's something.
Then they aren't held accountable for what they told the company to do.
Should citizen voters be liable for prison time if they elect a senator who turns out to be corrupt?
I could point to a study citing dozens of solid sources, but the bottom line is this:
Geothermal is great where it's available (California).
Wind power is great, when the wind is blowing.
Hydro is great, where it's available, but requires a 100 mile reservoir.
Solar panels, which catch energy several l hours per day, are super expensive crap. As in it costs TEN TIMES as much as natural gas. A $1,500 / month home electric bill? No thanks.
Geothermal, wind, and hydro can each provide 2%-5% of our power needs. The rest needs to be provided by either fossil fuels or nuclear. The co-founder of Greenpeace agrees that nuclear is the only feasible option, since he doesn't think fossil fuels are feasible long term.
Looking at the safety record of each option, coal is the worst, hydrothermal is the second most dangerous. Nuclear is the safest (by far).
Directors and officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders to run the company in their interest.
This USUALLY means trying to maximize return on investment. But the sotckholders may want other things, in addition to or in place of, financial gain. When this is the case, the duty requires them to set their own target appropriately.
This is not uncommon: Think "green energy company" or "church" for two examples. The Bell Telephone company, started by Alexander G. out of his research into hearing aids, has always done work on assisting the hearing impaired. Hershey's, at the direction of its founder, is owned by a trust and 30% of its profits go to support a school for orphans.
One typical strategy is to "satisfice", rather than maximize, financial gain, while pursuing other interests. This produces a sound financial base for pursuing those interests. (i.e. Hershey's, churches, "green companies"...) Another is to do things that are win-win with respect to the business (i.e. Bell Telephone, doing things like designing phones to work well with hearing aids, make ringing sounds that are auddible to the partially deaf and light-flashing ringer devices, and otherwise making the phone system accessable to hearing impaired.)
As you point out, these approaches may also lead to financial benefits that typical businesses and business-school graduate executives miss in their pursuit of the short-term bottom line. Good will, new inventions, synergies, etc.
Another example: Hershey's, not constrained or incentivized by short-term bottom-line, doesn't use typical industrial-food ingredients such as corn syrup, or follow other food-processing fads. It sticks with basic, high quality, time-proven, ingredients and recipies. This produces a consistent product (which also forms the base for consumer recipies) and a loyal customer base. (No "New Coke" debacle or gradual deterioration of product quality over decades with this company.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Fake controversy to generate publicity. This is soooo 1995.
Ya, damn Apple for making that conservative think tank denounce their green strategy!
Is this just a brilliant publicity stunt? NCPPR played the bad guy, Cook gets to look like a socially responsible CEO, Apple ingratiates itself even more to the younger crowd, increasing brand loyalty and profits for all shareholders including NCPPR.
What "enemy"?
If you don't like Apple's energy policy, buy majority shares.
And/or recruit other shareholders to your opinion.
Which is what he tried to do. It's a testiment to the Apple shareholders that it didn't work. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Investor" is a subset of "human", so investors want the things that humans want. To "think as an investor" means to think as a human being. Dollars are not the only thing human investors want, so the ROI isn't measured only in dollars.
I own the most of the stock in one company, which gives me control of the company. I don't work there, so I don't make the day-to-day decisions, but I could fire the people who make the day-to-day decisions, so they listen to me on the big stuff. I regularly make decisions as the primary investor which negative or neutral to profits. Some things are more important than money. I believe that money is a tool, a means to some end. Money is not an end itself. I, the greedy capitalist pig, make money so that I can use that money to be of service to people. If the company can be of great service to people and lose a little bit of money doing so, that's a great deal and we do it. The comparison, the alternative, is how much good we can do if we get the money as profit, give 30% to government, then spend the rest being of service.
It takes about 500 million dollar to own just 0.1% of AAPL
But that's if you buy today on the open market. As a high-level executive of Apple since 1998, Cook has had plenty of opportunity to get stock in company through compensation and purchases. In fact he was awarded 1M shares when he became CEO of Apple in 2012. I doubt the NCPPR has more shares than him.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
TV on Fox 24/7, didn't RTFS, or TFA.
Right Wing Ideologues looking for Publicity get their asses handed to them.
The NCPPR were only trying to raise their own profile by attacking Apple's policy, nothing more.
Your second claim defeats your first. I've never heard of NCPPR before.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The NCPPR wasn't trying to get Tim Cook riled up....they were trying to make millions of stockholders aware that Al Gore, whom both the left and right recognize as a nutjob, is the board member driving some weird decisions at Apple, and that Tim is backing him.
That's a lot of nutjob conspiracy accusations without any evidence there. Dell has green initiatives, and I can without a doubt say Al Gore has nothing to do with them.
Al doesn't know the first thing about computers. And he's on the board of directors at Apple.
Dina Dublon knows nothing about software yet she's on the board of Microsoft. I daresay, most of IBM's board knows nothing about IT services. Having technical knowledge about a company's products isn't a requisite for most boards.
And he's working (and succeeding) at driving Apple board discussions away from how to make computing devices and into "how to fight climate change." He's shifting the company away from what they're good at into something new, and political.
Unless you are present and have firsthand knowledge of the Gore's interaction with Apple, you can't claim this.
"Hey! You guys hired Lisa, the former head of the EPA to be a decision maker at Apple. What sense does that make? What qualifications does she have to make decisions for a tech company?"
A simple Google search and Apple's announcement shows you that she's in charge of Apple's environmental programs. I would think that her job at the Environmental Protection Agency would qualify her for such a position.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Al Gore, whom both the left and right recognize as a nutjob
He's certainly hated by the right wingers, especially by climate change deniers. But he's rightly respected by the left.
He's the best President America didn't have.
Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong?
I don't "think" you're wrong.
I know you're wrong.
Simple logic. As a shareholder who most definitely has more priorities than just profit, I invalidate your assertion by the mere fact of my existence.
I do like to profit, but I doubt your definition of "profit" involved anything but money anyway.
Well, nobody else seemed to complain, the majority of the stockholders seemed perfectly happy with it, so what are you complaining about?
If you look at the result of 97% against I'm quite convinced that the majority of the owners perfectly approved what he said and probably had far more unfriendly opinions. You can disagree with that, but your argument is still pure bullshit since there is not the slightest indication he did _not_ exactly represent the "owners" with what he said.
Those 'conservatives' at the meeting were really agitating for Apple to make decisions based on their short-term ROI rather than their long-term ROI.
I don't think so.
You're definitely right that short-term thinking can damage a company's long-term prospects, but I don't see how increasing energy costs today to be green does anything to help the long-term ROI. Of course we all need to eventually shift our energy production to less-impactful sources, but that'll happen at roughly the same pace no matter what Apple does, and Apple could just choose the lowest-cost route now and then shift when greener sources become more cost-effective. It does make sense to make some projections of future energy costs and make decisions regarding long-term capital investments (e.g. the design of data centers), based on expected net costs, even if the long-term best option means front-loading some of the costs, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about paying more for today's energy.
No, I think Tim Cook was 100% honest when he said that it's not about the profit motive. Many slashdotters want to reduce corporate decisionmaking processes to pure bottom-line evaluations, probably because we like to have simple, black and white rules we can logically evaluate. But the reality is that corporations are made up of people, and people go off in all sorts of directions.
Now, corporate executives do have a legal obligation to fulfill the promises made to shareholders in the articles of incorporation and the information provided in public offerings, and those documents nearly always do specify that the company's primary goal is to make money. But except in extreme cases those obligations are pretty hard to enforce, and in practice execs have a great deal of freedom of action. With something like green energy, it's very easy for leaders to follow their own personal moral compasses and, if they ever need to, they can easily justify their decisions based on arguments about maintaining good relations with local governments, or building brand image, or any of a dozen other squishy yet unquestionably valuable things.
But the justifications are very likely to be just that: post hoc explanations used to provide an apparently rational basis for decisions that were actually made on an emotional basis. The explanations may well be perfectly reasonable and rational, but that doesn't change the fact that they were made for other reasons.
This assumption of perfect profit motives often causes people to misunderstand corporate decisions, in both positive and negative directions. It often makes those who are skeptical of corporate power believe that companies have nefarious ulterior motives for any apparently socially-responsible decision (we see this in slashdot posts *all* the time), and it often makes those who are convinced the free market can do no wrong believe that corporate leaders are immune to personally self-serving decionmaking and other truly nefarious moves because the market should drive out such inefficiencies, especially in the long term.
It's wise to always keep in mind that while corporations are legally "people" in some senses, they're really agglomerations of people. Further, they're rarely strictly hierarchical, either; it's not at all uncommon that one portion of a corporation works toward one goal while another works for the opposite, and the two efforts may never be reconciled. Corporations also change directions frequently due to changes in leadership, which may not even require the replacement of any leader, but merely shifting degrees of influence among the same set of people. However, these directional changes are tempered by corporate culture which is a very real thing, and one that changes more slowly (though it definitely does shift over time) -- but keep in mind that some companies' culture really is "anything for profits".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong?
I know for a fact you are wrong. See: Ethical investors.
Shit. And I just decided earlier this week to invest in the stock of some companies I believe are doing good in the world, and now you come along and tell me I can't because the only acceptable reason for becoming a shareholder is profit-mongering. Damn!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I have no love for the NCPPR, but I understand why they did it. I work at GE. If Jeff Immelt took Al Gore into the Board of Directors, and senior staff meetings were dominated by Al Gore talking about Climate Change instead of market penetration and product roll-out, I'd expect people to want to stand up and take notice.
I work at GE too. How's their stock doing? Enough said.
The fucking enviro-nazi's and their partners in crime: big goverment.
Yeah. OK Buddy. The guy who invented the internet doesn't know the first thing about computers. Good one!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Of course, the science denialists used the right font for their press release heading:
COMIC SAAAAAAAAANS!!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
you are an ass
The suicide rate at Apple factories is lower than the suicide rate at US factories.
But don't let your lies stop you from an irrational rant.
Learn to love Alaska
The comment below tells more of what is likely to be the underlying motivation.
Basically, Tim Cook is wanting to feel superior.
I don't quite go as far as you, but I have definitely come around to view limited liability as too generous. While I think that passive investors should still enjoy limited liability, I think that active participants in the business should not. In other words, you should not be on the hook for, say, the BP oil spill just because your pension fund or 401(k) holds it or a mutual fund which owns it. But if you are on the board, in the management, or a majority owner then you should definitely be on the hook for the actions of the company- both financially and legally.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Nope. If the best interests of the shareholders is to be green, even if that loses them profits, then you "must" do that. The law says that the shareholders must be priority #1, but not what that priority is. If the shareholders want to see good works done, then profit isn't top priority. The implication is that anonymous institutional investors care about profits above all else, but individual stockholders are less sociopathic.
Learn to love Alaska
That's a good analogy, but it fails because a single citizen can't "own" a senator. A corporation can be owned by a single person or even another corporation. Protecting the single guy (or small group of people) who completely controls the corporation probably makes little sense from a "what's good for society" standpoint.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
No, most investors aren't humans. They are fabricated legal entities with no morals, no brain, and no conscience.
Learn to love Alaska
Ah yes, the demonizers of Al Gore continue to haunt us like a pulsating mob of zombies in ripped coveralls, oozing pus from their remaining jawbones, and moaning, "Soros, Gore, Suzuki, Bill Nye, brains, brains, Brains, BRAINS!!!"
How ironic that, according to Fox News, they and their Koch Bros. sponsors will inherit the earth. But first they need brains.
I think Apple will be just fine.
Al Gore, whom both the left and right recognize as a nutjob
These sorts of comments never help arguments. Making them, bad idea.
The people who think he's a nutter already agree with you, and the rest just started ignoring you. Much fail.
Spending extra on green energy is a long-term benefit. First, it's about branding. Apple's customers may well expect the company to be out in front on this. If Apple chooses to ignore the issue, there may be enormous long-term costs as customers take their business elsewhere. Second, paying more for greener alternatives now may have a short term cost but provide long-term benefits in future vendor relationships, future cost structures, and better management of future energy needs.
The bottom line is the last thing these clowns are actually worried about. It's just cheap political theater that might get them on Fox News.
Stockholders do not manage the company. They vote for the board of directors, which manages the rest. Only in special circumstances, like an offer to privatize the company, do the votes have any direct effect.
There have also been many lawsuits over the years trying to force the behavior in either direction.
There were a whole bunch of them in the 1940s to 1960s. Some state courts ruled that the business owners must be compelled to consider a profit motive in all things, others ruled that the executive boards were hired and placed in the positions so they could decide what was best, even if the changes were contrary to other common business plans or did no consider a profit motive. Exactly which rules apply depend on the state.
If the group represented a large enough collection of stockholders, maybe 5% or 10%, they could probably compel Apple to change through the courts to make the cheapest decision rather than a morally-guided decision. Without that kind of number they'll just need to accept the decisions of the board.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Especially in the United Kingdom and also in the rest of (developed) Europe executives can and will go to jail for wrongdoings on their watch.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You didn't read the post you responded to.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
First of all, if the agenda of the NCPPR was to alert shareholders about Al Gore, why didn't they do that? They chose a very round-about way to execute their plan if Al Gore was really the issue. At best what they did was incompetent or too-clever-by-half. At worst it was deceptive.
Second of all, I think Al Gore is known and has a track record. People know who he is and what he stands for, whether you agree with him or not. "OMG Al Gore is a Green Socialist!!" isn't a message that's going to set the world on fire. It's old news, give it up already.
Third, the membership of the board of directors is public knowledge and widely circulated to shareholders. Do you mean to suggest the shareholders cannot read? Or that they ignore their fiscal interests? What is the problem with Al Gore that the NCPPR is fixing?
Fourth, you don't necessarily have to "know computers" to be a director of a computer company. Knowing business is helpful. Knowing the tech business is really helpful. Knowing computers is nice but number 101 on the list of the top 100 things you must know to be a director.
Fifth, the NCPPR really didn't establish any harm from following environmental policies. That's fatal. Green initiatives are generally considered to be at least a modestly positive thing and lots of people think that green policies are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Regardless of whether you can identify a line on your income statement that went up or down.
No, the NCPPR just came off as a special interest group pursuing their favourite hobby horse. An intelligent man in charge recognized what was going on and schooled them. Game, set, and match!
while we can argue the merits of AGW all day long
Well we could argue or you could just accept the truth (found via real science, not made up denier bullshit) then Global Warming exists, chemicals in the atmosphere are a forcing factor and we release large amounts of said chemicals.
Really? How do they know Gore is having these internal Apple meetings about how to green the planet instead of how to make better products? How do they know he even shows up at the office for anything but board meetings?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You are confusing investor with corporation.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Stockholders do not manage the company. They vote for the board of directors, which manages the rest. Only in special circumstances, like an offer to privatize the company, do the votes have any direct effect.
Then they aren't held accountable for what they told the company to do.
Should citizen voters be liable for prison time if they elect a senator who turns out to be corrupt?
Oh how wonderfully responsible a democracy would be if that were true. Many a politician would have literally been hanged if that were the case. If you look carefully at how public corporations work you will find that the publicly available shares will never amount to controlling interest in a corporation. The hostile take over days of the 1980s taught any smart company to never let more than 49.9% of their public stock to be held by any investor. You make sure that management and private equity firms own the 50.1%. Or, you buy back stock to manage that ratio. Corporations are not democracies, nor are they moral. They operate on hard numbers or they die. If it didn't make financial sense Apple wouldn't do it. That's one thing I know is their primary M.O. If there isn't revenue to support it, it doesn't happen inside Apple.
Buying stocks or even the products of a company that supports Greenies is not a responsible act.
Assuming the result you want is a barely habitable planet that requires little understood technology be used on a large scale to fix then you are right.
If however your aiming at leaving a habitable planet behind after you it is a responsible act.
Until you said this, I thought you were talking about the US system. Here, owning a legislator is strictly a matter of money and the ability to spread it around quietly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You know you've found a tolerant, caring liberal when they take every chance to call out and exclude people opposed to them, usually calling them names in the process.
Who spends money on an underpowered overpriced piece of locked down garbage that has total control over your ever action?
This has nothing to do with energy policies.
Stockholders do not own the company in the traditional sense of ownership. They are "residual claimants," that have very very limited rights in the relationship with the firm. People have it backwards. Legally speaking the firm is an independent legal entity that is real. "Stockholders" are not a legal physical entity. The modern notion of the stockholder as the "owners" came from the writings of Milton Freidman.
Your logic doesn't make sense. If Apple was posting a $10 billion per year loss, I wouldn't maintain their stock unless I thought there was a reasonable chance that they could recover. However, whether they are using green energy or coating their walls with baby seal skins wouldn't be the motivator for me to sell their stock. The fact that that they are losing money is the motivator. However, that hypothetical scenario is just that: hypothetical. They are not losing money. They are making money for themselves and for their investors. And a majority of their shareholders agree with the tactics they are taking. If I were purely motivated by a company thinking solely of profits, I would invest in Walmart, but I don't because I don't like what they stand for. On the contrary, I do like what Apple stands for. Are they perfect? No, not even remotely. But I believe, as do many others, that they are heading in the right direction.
Right Wing Ideologues looking for Publicity get their asses handed to them.
The NCPPR were only trying to raise their own profile by attacking Apple's policy, nothing more.
Your second claim defeats your first. I've never heard of NCPPR before.
And like a wingnut ignorance is bliss?
It is the cheapest decision. The bad publicity for a company that isn't green and doesn't support the handicapped is truly a bad deal, financially speaking.
If Apple were in the least interested in taking a morally guided path, they wouldn't leave one in five of their users exposed to hackers; they'd likely consider it an actual obligation to fix the broken OSX (and iOS, for that matter) products they've sold to people instead of leaving them stuck with busted-ware, regardless of version or age -- instead, they blunder forward, ignoring old bugs and leaving customers exposed while spewing out new ones. It is outright nuts to ever assume Apple is on the more moral or ethical path. I can hardly think of a company more hard-nosed, more vicious with regard to customer risk and harm, or more straight-up all about the money.
Yeah, I'm an Apple user. No, it isn't always a viable option to upgrade to the next or latest and greatest OSX. Apple tends to break the living hell out of previously working operations between upgrades, and quite a few users can't just break machines without consequences.
PS -- I'm not attempting to make Apple look any worse than anyone else here, it's just Apple I'm most familiar with in recent years. I still remember Microsoft leaving the bloody file dialog code broken as living hell for many releases and revisions, and I can quote you some very persistent Qt bugs as well. It's just that reading a statement crediting Apple with taking the "morally guided path" made me spit coffee.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Unless you are running the company, you don't know what is in the best interest of the shareholders. I can think of quite a few cases where a company did what the shareholders wanted to the ultimate detriment of the company! (Think Dell, or Seagate...) Sometimes the best interest of the shareholder is to do things that either won't pay off for a long time, or will maybe never directly make any change to the share price, but will put the company in a better position for future growth, or appeal to a larger market. There are a lot of factors going on here, but the ROI to shareholders in my opinion is at the bottom of the barrel as long as he isn't damaging the company. As far as I am concerned, shareholders should be investing in a company because they like the direction the company is going. Attempting to muck around in that process for personal gain will ALWAYS be detrimental to the company.
You know absolutely nothing about how real institutional investment works do you? Most public stock is owned by hedge funds and pension funds. That means there is one person directing millions of shares of stock in a company. They don't care about anything but generating ROI. I don't know if you are aware of this, as your statements demonstrate you're not, but damaging a company equals bad ROI. Mr. Cook in this case did neither and simply shutdown some jackass that also did not understand how corporations and being a shareholder worked. He'd just seen it on TV or at the Cinema. That's fiction, btw. ;)
Corporations are people!
Psychotic, vicious, underhanded, rotten, ethics- and morals-free people to whom most of the law needed does not apply.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, the owner went way too far. Being an owner does not entitle you to behave like a pig.
Whoa! I demand a recount! Does Tim Cook or the jackass and whom he represents own more of the company? I'd bet (with options) Tim does. So, Tim told a lesser owner to take his money elsewhere if he didn't like the way Apple was doing things. I would say that was a valid assertion by someone who clearly knew better.
Yes, but there is plenty of competition for each senator. :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's just a little more indirect. They write up a formal request, bribe the regulators as needed, and the request is approved. This is why rates almost constantly move up. For instance, right now, the US has a huge surplus of natural gas. There's so much they just burn it right off at the oil fields -- right now North Dakota's night skies are outright destroyed because of this practice. Do NG customers get NG delivered at anywhere near its real cost to deliver? No. It's horribly expensive, it's been horribly expensive, and it's going to stay horribly expensive. And all the while, energy company executives receive salaries in the eye-popping range.
What most regulation does, at least in the US, is insert government actors in the roles of middlemen so they can make money off the industry as well. It is a wholly corrupt system.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Maybe you should worry about GE more than Apple. Apple is doing very well with its branding and its corporate image. Oh yea it's cash on hand is the envy of wall street.
On the other hand GE limps along, disappoints market expectations, made some layoffs, and continues to be rumored that better days are ahead (they just need to layoff more people).
Your mama. That's who most investors are. If your parents, or you, have a 401k, a 401b, an IRA, or any other savings for retirement, they are investors, and the most common kind.
Sometimes, your mom might invest her savings in a mutual fund or other instrument. What that means is simply that she lets a professional pick exactly which stocks she's investing in. It's still her savings she's investing, there's just a bank or broker assisting her.
OMG Al Gore is a Green Socialist!
I wouldn't call him a socialist, but then even the left seems to be right in the USA (or at least what I'd consider right wing)
The suicide rate at Apple factories is lower than the suicide rate at US factories.
There are no reports of suicides at any Apple factories as far as I have ever heard. There were reports about suicides at Foxconn factories (and a thread of suicide by a large number of Foxconn employees who feared losing their jobs when Microsoft lowered Xbox production).
There are a few things that skew the statistics. One, most people wouldn't commit suicide at work, but at home. At Foxconn, many people live at the factory, so all suicides by employees happen at work. Two, we heard of people jumping from buildings. Which according to Wikipedia is a very rare way to kill yourself in the USA (2%), but over 50% of all suicides in Hongkong (couldn't find any other places), so hearing of people jumping from buildings gives a very wrong impression to Westerners.
Now we always hear people saying "they put up suicide nets, evil Apple, buahuahua". So what's the story behind that? The story is that this gave huge ammunition to all the people trying to dump on Apple or Foxconn, but it worked. Foxconn is down from 21 suicides in one year (which is about the same rate as the murder rate for retail employees in the USA), to just three in the last two years. On the other hand, San Francisco refuses to take action at the Golden Gate Bridge, where a massively larger number of suicides happen year after year.
Cook responded that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.
Isn't it the law that directors of a public company have a fiduciary duty to make a profit for their investors? Regardless of whether it's morally right or wrong, it seems to me that Cook is admitting here to a breach of his fiduciary duty.
Corporate management is just a hired representative, just like a senator.
A political think tank close to the GOPs anti-science nutheads complains to a company that it should be fighting something which the customers of the company seem to like? At least my impression is that Apple seems to know fucking well what the customers like. They have become one of the most valuable brands. I am pretty sure that if Apple would consider the policies a problem for them they probably would fight these.
To me this sound like "Apple should have our opinion. Apple, please spend some hundred millions on our lobbyism, and do politics for us".
The last paragraph is also amusing ... with even more unsubstantiated assumptions presented as fact ...
If Jeff Immelt took Al Gore into the Board of Directors, and senior staff meetings were dominated by Al talking about Climate Change ... I'd expect people to stand up and take notice ...
First of all, the Board of Directors is elected by the shareholders. The Board of Directors then hires the CEO. Not the other way around - the CEO doesn't pick the board members.
Second, if Al Gore was in senior staff meetings and 'dominating them with talk of Climate Change' to the exclusion of other company business, other board members (who tend to be powerful people in their own right) would object.
Third, the sentence implies that Al Gore has been dominating Apple's board with talk of Climate Change ... which the OP would know because ? .. unless he's on Apple's board ...
Likelyhood of OP being on Apple's board ? ... less than zero. ... greater than 100%
Likelyhood of OP being a brainwashed conservative nutjob ?
But, some people need to be angry at *something*, *anything* .. or why bother getting up in the morning ...
That this is considered 'news' is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this world.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Especially in the United Kingdom and also in the rest of (developed) Europe executives can and will go to jail for wrongdoings on their watch.
They can in the US too if their actions were criminal and can be proved to be so. The corporate veil can be pierced but it protects them from liability from things that are beyond their control.
To elaborate a bit, since you mentioned the Golden Gate Bridge:
As far as I can find on Google, it's thought that 46 people committed suicide via the Golden Gate in 2013. That number is probably low, because the combination of the fog and swift outgoing currents make it quite possible to do so unseen. That's ONE method of suicide in a city with a population of about 800,000.
What a lot of people don't get is the sheer scale of Foxconn's factories. According to Cnet, their Shenzhen factory alone employs 500,000 workers. Obviously, that's more than half of San Francisco's population. But to add a little more perspective: Take your pick of Atlanta, Miami, Oakland, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh. That ONE factory employs more people than *live* in any of those (considered fairly major) cities. And that is just one of Foxconn's factories.
Sure, they have other issues. But by the standards of any city... and let's not kid ourselves, Foxconn operates entire cities... their suicide rate is fantastically low.
Imagine all the people...
Most investors (by dollar, not number of investors) are corporations - Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, etc. "JP" invests plenty of my money, and is the owner of record for it.
Learn to love Alaska
I can no longer fully embrace my Apple hatred. Could cook ACTUALLY be what every seems to BELIEVE that Jobs was? Debate amongst yourselves while I hide in the bomb shelter...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_022814.html
The trustee sends a proxy form to each 401k account holder. You fill that out to instruct them to vote your shares as you desire.
That's actually EASIER than voting directly held shares. The trustee sends someone to the meeting for you, who announces "50,000 shares yes, 40,000 shares no" or whatever their account holders voted.
No, you don't. I've had multiple 401(k) with multiple companies, John Hancock currently, and none have ever sent me a proxy. I got plenty of proxies from Compushare when I directly held stocks, but never from any pension fund. Voting for directly held shares is exactly as easy as you describe, and voting for mutual funds is easier, as you have no vote.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope, I got all the money I need from developing weapons for the military. Im much too moral to further the dumbing down of the world by financing Apple.
Killing people = Good.
Dumbing people down = bad?
Sounds like the problem here is someone is afraid of the controlling-the-masses competition.
The only way you can remain forever ignorant is by choice, by refusing to learn. By choosing to argue your first guess as fact, you make the only choice whereby you can continue to be clueless.
If you hold stocks in an account setup under 401k, the trustee is required by law to send you a proxy form. If you opened your mail and read it, you'd see the form. If you hold mutual funds, you can vote your shares.
You may be too busy or to lazy to do so, or decide that it's not worth shattering your illusion that you already knew everything the day you were born, but you most certainly do have the option. I can understand if you refuse to do so because in so doing you'd be acknowledging that you do make choices, that it's not "the man" holding you down, but only your own decisions of passivity.
The ENTIRE point of a corporation is to separate personal liability from ownership.
Risks don't go away. By shielding the owners from risk all you're doing is laying the risk on others. That's not fair and it's not right.
In a true free market shareholders would need to become more fully informed about both risk and rewards than they are now and acted accordingly. In particular there would be much better investment decisions on companies that might trade while insolvent (dead easy now despite the law) and better solutions to the principal agent problem (currently it's far too easy for company agents to act act in their own interests rather than the shareholders).
Make the executives and board liable for all actions and corporations will cease to exist which is a Very Bad Thing.
No, liable for their part in any action, not your straw man . That's what every non-company employee does on a daily basis.
Exactly. Corporations do not absolve liability, it separates and limits liability from acts you have no control over. As a share holder of a company that does not in any way take actions or cause the company to take actions, you are only liable to the extent of the value of investment. As a CEO who order the books to be cooked, you are criminally and civilly liable for your part in the parade. As the CFO who decided safety harnesses for the guys working on scaffolding 200 feet in the air despite OSHA regulations were too costly and burdensome, you are criminally and civilly liable for the deaths of the two who fell last year.
Of course it is often hard to follow the trail back to hirer ups like the CEO and so it makes it appear as if they never get in trouble. But to suddenly demand they take punishment for something they should have had control over but didn't is like demanding the mother of some kid go to jail when her son of 21 years fails to stop at a stop sign and kills someone in a minivan that hits him. We don't or at least we are not supposed to convict people of crimes others commit and we are not supposed to punish by corruption of blood. It's basic principles in the constitution.
Except the long term ROI is potential increased sales. Remember that buying Apple is partly buying into an image, and they want to maintain that image. And people want to buy into the image.
Apple being green is part of the marketing plan of Apple, and if you note all their product releases, they clearly state how green they are.
A lot of people are into buying green products, even paying more for it. Enough so that there's an industry term for making false environmental marketing claims - greenwashing.
Apple likes to market green and environmental friendliness, and they definitely do not want to be found greenwashing. So paying more for electricity now allows them to be honest in becoming greener and not some investigative journalist's dream of pointing out greenwashing.
And there's also nothing wrong with being ethical at the expense of profits - at the end of the day, one has to be able to look at themselves in the mirror.
People have shown they're willing to give up profits to be ethical - see the rise of so-called ethical funds at any financial institution - the ones that don't invest in companies that are bad for the environment, produce products that lead to human suffering, etc (i.e., no oil, tobacco, weapons, etc). The ROI on those has traditionally been less (face it - oil companies make a LOT of profit, as do tobacco), but it lets people sleep at night knowing their retirement isn't funded on people getting killed, maimed, addicted, or destroying the future.
Actually, I would go one step farther than Tim Cook. If you don't believe in the results of the scientific method (i.e. predictions of climate change) then you shouldn't invest in high tech companies.
If, despite knowing nothing aout the fundamentals of the company, you do decide to invest in high tech after all because of a historical high rate of return, then you certainly shouldn't expect to dictate policy to the people who are successfully running those companies using techniques derived using the scientific method. They rightfully should treat your opinion on scientific matters as completely worthless.
Meh. Where were these guys two years ago when Jobs was still alive? They knew better than to bring up the subject because Jobs would have handed them their ass for second-guessing him (although your guess is as good as mine whether he would have done it calmly or torn them a new one).
These guys thought they could bully Tim Cook, and this is the first thing he's done that shows he may have what it takes to fill Jobs' shoes. He's apparently got the determination and the wisdom to tell some anti-science troglodytes to invest elsewhere if they're going to question his application of scientific principles to running a high tech company. What remains to be seen is if he's got the ability to establish and promote a vision at the same level that Jobs did. That's not certain, but he can't do worse than these bozos.
In my opinion, that misses the point. Instead of selling the best qualities of Apple, Apple CEO Tim Cook made himself the object of controversy. That shows that he is not competent and should be demoted immediately. It also shows, in my opinion, that Apple is on the way down much faster than I would have guessed. Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs drew attention to himself, but did it in a way that also drew attention to Apple products.
"Our products are the best in aiding the blind" isn't about Apple products?
"Our products are the best in aiding the blind" isn't about Apple products?
What is important is not what Tim Cook says. What is important is the result of what he says. Will talking about severely limited people cause customers to pay $550 for another (unlocked) iPhone, or pay a hidden increase of $550 for a new cell phone contract that includes a new iPhone? Will creating a distracting controversy cause customers to pay another $550? No.
We are witnessing the collapse of Apple. I once paid $1,500 for a laptop PC. Now far better laptops cost $500. Eventually people will decide that the smart phone they already have is enough.
Tim Cook is merely distracting people from thinking about the value a new iPhone has on the quality of their lives. The distractions do nothing about the collapse.
"What remains to be seen is if he's got the ability to establish and promote a vision at the same level that Jobs did."
Yes, remains to be seen. However, we are already seeing indications that Tim Cook does NOT have the ability.
Did you read beyond the first paragraph of my post?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What he said was if you are looking for him to value ROI over all else, this is not be the stock for you. And he's right; if you like apple stock, it's not for the "ROI is supreme" mentality because it's not there. Right now, the owners seem happy with his direction, but If the owners start to want ROI over all, he will likely not be the one doing it.
Apple is very ethical with their slave labor in China
We don't care about Apple ROI, lower prices so all Americans can afford an iPhone, you have enough cash on hand. You lie Tim Cook.
If someone reading this knows Tim, please give him my regards.
Also, if he wants to talk about the whole world going off fossil fuels to a cheap form of solar, be happy to do so. If it can't make dollar a gallon gasoline, then the idea isn't ready for prime time.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/...
Talk I gave at Google.
http://youtu.be/qCiw99yRBo8
A laser 33 times larger than the propulsion laser I propose.
http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
Actually, you're wrong. Shareholders do not legally own any portion of the company they own stock in. This is a common misconception that gets repeated over and over again on the interwebs for some reason. For more info: http://www.directorship.com/st...
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Think again.
Investors-- stockholders-- own title only. They do not own any of the property. This is similar to the way the bank owns the mortgage on your home, but you still own your home.
The difference is the entire reason for corporations to exist. It allows a stockholder to buy into a corporation without taking on any of the responsibilities that would go along with a partnership or any other ownership arrangement.
In other terms, if you own something, you are responsible for it. If the thing injures somebody, then you are liable. Stockholders are by law irresponsible. They have no ownership in the thing, they only "own" the paper giving them partial rights as title holders.
Will
Yes, that's the edge case.
Closely held corporations are different, though, from publicly traded corporations, which is the context of this discussion. An IPO is arranged in such a way that first purchasers are essentially the same as later purchasers who use the stockmarket. I understand that there is a large body of law determining the way IPOs are handled, basically to assure that there is no room for fraud.
Will
Actually, that's the biggest single problem with stock today.
It needs to be one shareholder one vote, not one share one vote.
And all employees should be required to be given one share their first day on the job.
The original i phone had environmentally terrible chemicals that practically all other major companies banned from their products like 4 years ago. If they could get away with being completely 100% unfriendly if it helped the bottom line without anyone noticing? They'd so do in a heartbeat.
They don't donate to any worthy causes (environmental, humanitarian or otherwise) even though they're making money hand over fist.
Remember, the majority of their demographic is female, and females tend to a) believe marketing (how would you explain all the diet pills and "superfruit" garbage), b) most care about some cause (animal, human rights, animal rights) and are extremely vocal about it. If they didn't come out and create some think tank to tell them to do something they're already not doing (not giving 2 fks about the environment) so that the fanbois can point to his lies and say "hey look, we're environmental!"? Their popularity would drop like a rock.
Nope, mine debuted in the Gulf war. Land based.
Cant say.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Yes, Im a mystery wrapped in an enigma topped with a beer head.
I use an old , olde Mac for a doorstop to my shop, when I carry in firewood.Its failed a few times, but outperforms a pile of manure.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Look up the lyrics to Lets Have a War by Fear
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product
Tim Cook telling these right-wing psychopaths to piss off is surely a reason to avoid buying Apple products. What kind of bullshit is this? Extremist climate change deniers turning up in the Apple shareholder meeting, and trying to foist their idiotic "profit above anything" agenda on Apple, getting the response they deserve (actually, not _quite_ what they deserve, corporal punishment is what they deserve), and that makes you want to avoid Apple products?
Honestly, his response has made me consider Apple now that I am looking for a replacement for my current aging MP3 player. (It's going on 5 years now and is starting to act funky)
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
All too often we see the management of a company sacrifice the future in favor of the next SEC-mandated 10-Q filing. Here we have a CEO of a publicly traded corporation telling some political douchebag to take his politics and shove them straight up his ass because it has no place in the management of this company, which is exactly what Slashdot has been clamoring for some CEO to do, and it's still questioned by Slashdot because it happens to be Apple.
If you don't think that guy was planted there by a DC-based conservative douche-tank in order to score a couple political points in the form of a press release, go read the douche-tank's press release. They trip over themselves to basically call everyone that voted down their ridiculous proposal the "Al Gore contingency" and left wing radicals because they have the audacity to spend some of the Cupertino Money Bin on doing something nice for the planet.
I wonder what these ultra-conservative fucksticks would have thought of Andrew Carnegie spending the vast majority of his steel profits on libraries and other philanthropic ventures; or Leland Stanford, a Whig, establishing an endowment for a university bearing his name, now one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the world. Neither were profit oriented, and both are lasting and significant contributions to society nearly a century later.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"The ENTIRE point of a corporation is to break the law without liability."
FTFY
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My white 2006 MacBook runs Snow Leopard with a dirt cheap SSD (original 80GB drive still works) and RAM upgrade. Didn't expect it to last more than 5 years.
My HP NX9420 barely made it to 5, with two major repairs, replaced charger, dead battery, and pieces falling off. Butchered it for the RAM.
The white still has it's original battery that is almost as good as new. It has Windows XP and GLBasic running inside VirtualBox (for some light Android and iOS development). Didn't feel like paying for Lion, but may reconsider now that they killed SL.
Will buy from Apple next time, though I doubt the new ones will last this long. Similar laptops from Samsung, Asus etc look like they'll come apart after 2-3 years.
Where's the -1 Wrong option in my moderation?
hey Tim, why stop with asking "climate change" non belivers to stop buying apple stock. As long as youre shooting off your big mouth why dont you show everyone what a big man (and non-tolerant person) you are by also telling them not to buy your products either!!!!!!!!!!
Wow I'm glad the Democrats are above all that. ROFL
Apple's has invested in some green energy only as a PR stunt and they got called out on it.
If they were worried about the environment they would ship their products from China rather than fly them. They wouldn't build products that are almost impossible to upgrade, repair or even recycle.They wouldn't glue batteries into place meaning that once you’ve gone through the battery’s lifespan of recharges you’ve got to junk the entire device. They wouldn't waste resources by over packaging their products. Damn the environment we want to sell more iProducts.
They only indulge your green fantasies when it sells more iPads and gives them a golden public image.
Apple's has invested in some green energy only as a PR stunt to sell more products and they got called out on it. Overall their policies are only about the bottom line.
If they were worried about the environment they would ship their products from China rather than fly them. They wouldn't build products that are almost impossible to upgrade, repair or even recycle.They wouldn't glue batteries into place meaning that once you’ve gone through the battery’s lifespan of recharges you’ve got to junk the entire device. They wouldn't waste resources by over packaging their products. Damn the environment we want to sell more iProducts.
They only indulge your green fantasies when it sells more iPads and gives them a golden public image.
You should not believe this CEO when he says he wants to leave the world better than he found it... Normal people naturally want to make the world better - but that's because they can have children (and all normal people want their children to have a better life than them). But this CEO is not like normal people - he is biologically incapable of producing offspring (Q: do you know why?). So, the question is why would someone who is incapable of leaving a legacy care about leaving the world a better place? The more disturbing question is - isn't it more likelier that someone with his lifestyle, who has been persecuted by society during his formative years, now hates society and that he sees the environmental movement as the best means of depriving future generations of their liberties - through excessive government energy and environment regulations?