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.
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