[ingus]

Quote

I have no control over what you choose to understand from what I write. Of course you do. The first burden of communication is on the speaker to use words that actually express what they mean. I don't know what you mean, only what you said. What you said in the prior message didn't align with what you had said previous to that as I understand the language and it certainly did not line up with the post which started this sub-thread. Remember this? Forget that carrot, chase your dream and you might end up with more carrots than you know what to do with. Then again, maybe not. That is a completely unacceptable course of action for a company organized in the way that Apple is organized. The institutional investors would toss the executive suite and the board if Apple took that view, and they'd be complete in their rights to do so because those bodies would have been neglecting their responsibilities. You don't seem to (want to) understand that in the case of a company organized as Apple is, the carrot by definition is the dream. Everything they do is ultimately in service to that on some level. Is not it your contention, then, that it is "illegal" for a corporation to not strictly chase profits as its "primary goal". You may note that in the post immediately prior to this I acknowledged that they don't have to strictly "chase" value but only strive to acquire it. Based on your statement, is it not possible that a corporation might choose to create great products as its primary goal if it can demonstrate that pursuing that goal can yield returns far in excess of those attainable by doing otherwise? Your suggestion is self-contradictory. You cannot declare that A is your primary goal based on the fact that it helps you achieve B. B is necessarily a higher priority goal in that scenario. Abstractions aside, the law declares that B is the highest priority in this case. You may or may not like that, but until it changes you can't rationally ignore it either. The carrot cannot be "guided". The one chasing the carrot can only control his own actions. Untrue. This particular carrot can certainly be guided. That's why marketing exists. Great things do not need offices, labs and cubicles for their creation. Offices, labs and cubicles are where the packaging for "great things" is designed, and I mean "packaging" in a very wide sense. Completely irrelevant to the point. You've moved into troll territory. Have a nice day.

Bastion, I think you're being more than a bit one dimensional on what "generating shareholder value" can be construed to mean. Yes, the board has fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. That can include, but is not limited to profits. Several other factors can impact company reputation, longevity, and ultimately maintenance of shareholder value. It can easily be argued that going for the "quick buck" can cost a company huge amounts of credibility, and ultimately, profits.

This post has been edited by ingus: 01 February 2013 - 04:33 PM

[bastion]

ingus, on 01 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Bastion, I think you're being more than a bit one dimensional on what "generating shareholder value" can be construed to mean.

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts and the responses to them. Because...

Quote

Yes, the board has fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. That can include, but is not limited to profits. Several other factors can impact company reputation, longevity, and ultimately maintenance of shareholder value. It can easily be argued that going for the "quick buck" can cost a company huge amounts of credibility, and ultimately, profits.

I agree 100%. Now tell me which of my posts in this thread or any other I implied otherwise. When did I advocate for going for the quick buck? Never happened. Not here or anywhere else, ever.

What I said was this:
Building great products has not been Apple's primary goal for 36 years. That is the case because 36 years ago they organized themselves as a publicly-traded, for-profit corporation in the state of California. By the definition of that organization their primary goal is to increase the wealth of the shareholders by increasing the value of the company. Everything they do is ultimately in service to that goal.

Where did I say they had to chase short-term profits? Where did I say that profitability was the only factor affecting value? Where did I say they had no interesting in building great products? I didn't say any of those things, because I don't believe any of them. Those concepts have only arisen in this thread because other posts have conflated them with what I said; I'm not the one who introduced them.

This post has been edited by bastion: 02 February 2013 - 05:29 AM

[ingus]

bastion, on 02 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

ingus, on 01 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Bastion, I think you're being more than a bit one dimensional on what "generating shareholder value" can be construed to mean.

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts and the responses to them. Because...

Quote

Yes, the board has fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. That can include, but is not limited to profits. Several other factors can impact company reputation, longevity, and ultimately maintenance of shareholder value. It can easily be argued that going for the "quick buck" can cost a company huge amounts of credibility, and ultimately, profits.

I agree 100%. Now tell me which of my posts in this thread or any other I implied otherwise. When did I advocate for going for the quick buck? Never happened. Not here or anywhere else, ever.

What I said was this:
Building great products has not been Apple's primary goal for 36 years. That is the case because 36 years ago they organized themselves as a publicly-traded, for-profit corporation in the state of California. By the definition of that organization their primary goal is to increase the wealth of the shareholders by increasing the value of the company. Everything they do is ultimately in service to that goal.

Where did I say they had to chase short-term profits? Where did I say that profitability was the only factor affecting value? Where did I say they had no interesting in building great products? I didn't say any of those things, because I don't believe any of them. Those concepts have only arisen in this thread because other posts have conflated them with what I said; I'm not the one who introduced them.

I believe that you get it. It's how it comes across. You overstressed profits and the Boards obligations vis a vis the shareholders. Apple's publicly stated mission is to "build insanely great products". That's what they based their reputation on, and that's what they've publicly committed to. I personally don't believe this, but you could have been construed as taking the position of "Apple is legally obligated to milk their customers".

[Hologram]

bastion, on 01 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

I have no control over what you choose to understand from what I write.
Of course you do. The first burden of communication is on the speaker to use words that actually express what they mean. I don't know what you mean, only what you said. What you said in the prior message didn't align with what you had said previous to that as I understand the language and it certainly did not line up with the post which started this sub-thread.

Remember this?
Forget that carrot, chase your dream and you might end up with more carrots than you know what to do with. Then again, maybe not.
That is a completely unacceptable course of action for a company organized in the way that Apple is organized. The institutional investors would toss the executive suite and the board if Apple took that view, and they'd be complete in their rights to do so because those bodies would have been neglecting their responsibilities. You don't seem to (want to) understand that in the case of a company organized as Apple is, the carrot by definition *is* the dream. *Everything* they do is ultimately in service to that on some level.

Is not it your contention, then, that it is "illegal" for a corporation to not strictly chase profits as its "primary goal".
You may note that in the post immediately prior to this I acknowledged that they don't have to strictly "chase" value but only strive to acquire it.

Based on your statement, is it not possible that a corporation might choose to create great products as its primary goal if it can demonstrate that pursuing that goal can yield returns far in excess of those attainable by doing otherwise?
Your suggestion is self-contradictory. You cannot declare that A is your primary goal based on the fact that it helps you achieve B. B is necessarily a higher priority goal in that scenario. Abstractions aside, the law declares that B is the highest priority in this case. You may or may not like that, but until it changes you can't rationally ignore it either.

[b]The carrot cannot be "guided". The one chasing the carrot can only control his own actions.
Untrue. This particular carrot can certainly be guided. That's why marketing exists.

[b]Great things do not need offices, labs and cubicles for their creation. Offices, labs and cubicles are where the packaging for "great things" is designed, and I mean "packaging" in a very wide sense.
Completely irrelevant to the point. You've moved into troll territory. Have a nice day.

I spoke my mind. I stand by what I said.

You're free to interpret my words through your filters, and ultimately, agree or disagree.

Regarding the carrot analogy, no, the carrot is not influenced by anything we do. We don't change the carrot, we don't move the carrot, we don't affect the carrot. If we're lucky, or powerful enough we can choose another carrot to pursue.

Marketing doesn't affect the carrot. Marketing can, however help steer the vehicle we use to reach the carrot. That vehicle is the consumer who pays to obtain our product or service.

I believe you're confusing the carrot with the vehicle. Selling a device to a customer, where marketing often comes into play, is a means to an end and not the end, or carrot, in itself. Amassing wealth, being profitable and satisfying investors are also means to an end and not the end in and of itself. It is possible that the ultimate goal of an individual or a corporation is to be recognized as "making really awesome stuff".

Focusing on a lesser goal, such as "selling devices to customers", is not leadership but the role of management. When managers somehow assume a leadership role, by election or revolution, there is a very real danger that what they believe to be the "carrot" becomes the ultimate goal. There is a very real danger that the ultimate corporate goal becomes "selling devices to customers" and that the primary metric becomes "market share" achieved at all costs. The goal could become satisfying shareholders at all costs, or generating profits at all costs.

Apple nearly succumbed to that very scenario many years ago. AppleI has gotten to where it is today by focusing on making "really great products". Judging by how far it has come, it appears Apple has had some measure of success.

From what I've seen of Tim Cook over past year, it appears he is staying the course and resisting management by Wall Street. Wall Street, by its very nature, is not interested in the ultimate goal of a corporation.

This post has been edited by Hologram: 02 February 2013 - 09:30 AM

[bastion]

ingus, on 02 February 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

bastion, on 02 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

ingus, on 01 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Bastion, I think you're being more than a bit one dimensional on what "generating shareholder value" can be construed to mean.

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts and the responses to them. Because...

Quote

Yes, the board has fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. That can include, but is not limited to profits. Several other factors can impact company reputation, longevity, and ultimately maintenance of shareholder value. It can easily be argued that going for the "quick buck" can cost a company huge amounts of credibility, and ultimately, profits.

I agree 100%. Now tell me which of my posts in this thread or any other I implied otherwise. When did I advocate for going for the quick buck? Never happened. Not here or anywhere else, ever.

What I said was this:
Building great products has not been Apple's primary goal for 36 years. That is the case because 36 years ago they organized themselves as a publicly-traded, for-profit corporation in the state of California. By the definition of that organization their primary goal is to increase the wealth of the shareholders by increasing the value of the company. Everything they do is ultimately in service to that goal.

Where did I say they had to chase short-term profits? Where did I say that profitability was the only factor affecting value? Where did I say they had no interesting in building great products? I didn't say any of those things, because I don't believe any of them. Those concepts have only arisen in this thread because other posts have conflated them with what I said; I'm not the one who introduced them.

I believe that you get it. It's how it comes across. You overstressed profits and the Boards obligations vis a vis the shareholders. Apple's publicly stated mission is to "build insanely great products". That's what they based their reputation on, and that's what they've publicly committed to. I personally don't believe this, but you could have been construed as taking the position of "Apple is legally obligated to milk their customers".

In a way, they are. The conflict arises from the assumption that said milking will be performed in an unsustainable fashion. You can't milk customers unless you have customers to milk after all. There's a false dichotomy being advanced between building great products and pursuing value. Hologram implied they can't happen within the same company. I assert outright that Apple strives for the former to achieve the latter. I honestly don't understand how that's difficult to understand or controversial, especially given the evidence of the last 15 years.

[ingus]

Quote

Wow. I'm wondering how many of you responding on here actually own anything made by Apple. If not, why are you here? For some reason, most of you don't understand that Apple has never asked the consumer what it wants. So get over it. They've done a pretty good job. And you also don't understand that the reason to have a company is to make money. Apple stock prices might of gone down recently but frankly I don't understand Wall Street folks anyway. They don;'t get it. IF a company sets records for a quarter again and again and again, they must be doing something right. And if you guys are just about complaining why not do it on all the PC sites you have. There you guys can discuss why you hate Apple so much and you might find someone who actually cares.

"And you also don't understand that the reason to have a company is to make money."

True. But, as consumers, it's certainly not our obligation in any way to see to it that they succeed.

[robogoboqfy1]

ENOUGH!

[Hologram]

bastion, on 03 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

In a way, they are. The conflict arises from the assumption that said milking will be performed in an unsustainable fashion. You can't milk customers unless you have customers to milk after all. There's a false dichotomy being advanced between building great products and pursuing value. Hologram implied they can't happen within the same company. I assert outright that Apple strives for the former to achieve the latter. I honestly don't understand how that's difficult to understand or controversial, especially given the evidence of the last 15 years.

Like I said, you're free to understand, or in this case misunderstand what I said any which way you please.

I have no idea how you managed to conclude from my comments that making great products and pursuing value are mutually exclusive.

There are many ways of chasing profits and "milking the customer". Just ask Bernie Madhoff if you need an example of what happens when "pursuing value" becomes the ultimate goal.

You don't need thousands of engineers, scientists, and expensive R&D labs to do that. All you need is a couple of accountants, a few computers and some copies of Excel. Apple could easily choose to pursue "value" by juggling numbers. Instead Apple focuses on and invests in "building insanely great products" which, yes, seems to result in insanely great results. And no, those results don't happen by accident.