[scotty321]

Can any shareholders who attended the meeting please explain to us what Steve Jobs said about their LACK OF ADVERTISING for Tiger? Microsoft is starting an 18-month ad campaign for Windows XP, but Apple does not have an ad campaign for Tiger. Can someone please tell us what Steve jobs said in reply to the advertising questions? Thank you.

[argonaut]

In reply to:

---

If it's factually accurate, I most certainly will make that contention.

---

Well, good. Since it's factually inaccurate, perhaps you can stop making that BS contention.
All this thread has proven to me is that despite contentions that Mac-users are somehow more liberal or progressive, there sure are a bunch of sexist idiots in the bunch. Of course, W already proved that.

[argonaut]

In reply to:

---

jmincey, are you suggesting that men and women are biologically equal?

---

Actually, I think that is what he is suggesting. And he's right. I think the question you really want to ask is "are you suggesting that men and women are biologically the same?", which of course they are not. Pretty similar, but not the same.

[jmincey]

"Can any shareholders who attended the meeting please explain to us what Steve Jobs said about their LACK OF ADVERTISING for Tiger?"
I wasn't there so I can't answer your question, but while we wait for someone who can, I suspect Apple calculates that its ROI on such a campaign would be very poor. I say that because while Microsoft and Wintel have this huge installed base of recalcitrant corporate users who need a marketing push to see the value added by one new version of Windows over an older one, I think this is not so much a problem in the Mac community.
For one thing, there's a large installed base of Macs which would be ineligible for the Tiger upgrade, so advertising for that chunk of the market would be an utter waste. As for those Mac owners whose current model does meet the Tiger system requirements, I think Apple has reason to believe the media buzz and word-of-mouth alone will more than carry the day. Apparently there is data which show that a higher percentage of Mac owners upgrade than Windows owners.
Of course, this is only my speculation.

[bradleys]

In reply to:

---

(perhaps you've never been in a corporate environment and seen the time parents have to take for myriad time demands?).

---

Im in my 40's and other than completing University have worked in corporate offices all my working life from government enterprises, government administration and private enterprise.

In reply to:

---

Heck, talk with a single Mom some time, and you'll see how she prioritizes her children and her role as Mother over all other things.

---

Both my current and previous partners were single mothers when I met them. I am more than well aware of their priorities, which might I add, should be the same priorities as everyone else, whether a board member or not. If your positon as a board member holds higher priority than your family and friends, you forfiet your humanity and are probably not suitable to be a board member in any instance. No-one is indispensable, and I know this as I have seen many people who thought they were come and go, working themselves into the ground....they're gone, but the comany is still here!

In reply to:

---

because you declare simply raising the point to be sexist and unenlightened, perhaps you're ruling out things that would be useful to bring into the discussion.

---

Whether you meant it or not, the tone of your first post smacked of apologism (which you seem to have clarified to some extent in your next). I dont think there is anything useful to be gained from the tired old argument that because women choose to have children that there is an argument for the fact that less than one fifth of board members are women. As Jeff Mincey has implied thru this thread, the math just doesnt stack up. On a 12 member board, if randomly chosen from a population of 50% Men and 50% women, there is a 1/4096 chance of their being all men. Even accounting for babies, almost every corporate boardroom is mathematically so far out of step with the population that NO explanation other than out and out systemic discrimination can make any sense. What really gets up my nose is when this discrimination is given some sort of veneer of reason despite the in your face odds. You can put a coat of paint on a dead cat, but you cant hide the smell.

In reply to:

---

Many women in their thirties are choosing to have children right when they're in the peak period of their movement through the executive ranks

---

Sure many are, but many arent....Even if 50% of them were, the numerical gender imbalance of corporate boardrooms is still so far out of the ballpark in relation to the population it beggars belief.

In reply to:

---

Corporate governance is a heavy job in a $30 billion company, requiring a tremendous amount of time and travel, among other sacrifices

---

A statement of the bleeding obvious...so what are you saying?... only men can handle it? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

Another poster says, "Corporate governance is a heavy job in a $30 billion company, requiring a tremendous amount of time and travel, among other sacrifices."
You reply, "A statement of the bleeding obvious...so what are you saying?... only men can handle it?"

---

Alas, in the context of this thread, what else could his statement imply?

[drduuude]

Jmincey-
Actually, I think the mistake you're making is assuming that merit or random probability
has anything to do with board membership. In fact, board members are often NOT chosen
for their financial/business/technical acumen, and random probability does not apply.
The best example here is Al Gore - what exactly does he bring to the company?
technical knowledge - hardly (other than inventing the internet, of course )
business knowledge - no. he's been in public service most of his life.
financial knowledge - no. I beleive he's a lawyer by trade, no?
The advantages he does bring are ones of PR, connections, and politics. Merit (in a
technical sense) really has nothing to do with it.
Probability does not apply here, as choices for the board not random, independent events
(I'm sure many board nominees attract attention by good words from the other board
members, etc). Given this reality, and the fact that most people who would be considered
for the board are men, and most of the people making recommendations for board members
are men (and are likely to pick their colleagues that they know well) it does not surprise
me that there are no women on the board.
It'll change.
--drduuude!

[scottellsworth]

Bradleys:
"On a 12 member board, if randomly chosen from a population of 50% Men and 50% women, there is a 1/4096 chance of their being all men."
Leaving aside that Apple's board only has seven people, there is a bigger problem.
The population from which corporate board members is chosen is nowhere near evenly split, thus any attempt to use even probabilities is doomed to irrelevance. In addition, the population in the executive suite, which is the feedstock for the boardroom, is also not evenly split. It appears to be closer to even than the boardroom. (~20% rather than ~10%)
I submit that it is not enough to just look at tech companies. Look at the boardrooms, executive suites, and mid and junior management representation of the entire Fortune 500, as you really want to get an idea of the true pool of qualified candidates, and where they are leaving the system. I suspect the numbers will be interesting.
In other words, if you really want to do something about the gender imbalance, examine the junior and senior management level where there is a more evenly mixed population in the feedstock. Actual discrimination becomes a lot easier to find when the sample sizes break double digits.
Scott

[bradleys]

In reply to:

---

Leaving aside that Apple's board only has seven people, there is a bigger problem.

---

Well, only 1/128.....thats ok then /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

In reply to:

---

The population from which corporate board members is chosen is nowhere near evenly split, thus any attempt to use even probabilities is doomed to irrelevance.

---

Thats probably the difference between our perspective....I think the massive imbalance in the "feedstock" is anything but irrelevant....Its the crux of the problem.

In reply to:

---

Actual discrimination becomes a lot easier to find when the sample sizes break double digits.

---

As someone else has already quoted:
Apple: 0 of 7
Microsoft: 2 of 10
IBM: 2 of 12
HP: 2 of 10
Sun: 1 of 9
Dell: 1 of 10
What can you say....sample size, schmample size...... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[samrod]

Jeff,
Having read quite a bit about Jobs, his charm, personality, and flaws, you're also forgetting one important factor: how many women would want to work with him. I remember Ellen Hancock not being all that happy with him at all. Steve has a powerful charm and wrath, both of which play key roles in how he leads. There just may not be that many who'd want that position.
Also, I actually remember at least a couple MacCentral articles in recent years about Apple making either the top spot or the top ten list of most environmentally friendly tech companies. What do you expect from a vegan Zen Buddist CEO?

[samrod]

In reply to:

---

Now you don't really wish to contend, do you, that women are biologically less equipped to be a good board member than a man?

---

Not necessarily. But while women may not be less equipped than men, they're surely differently equipped. In fact, the foundation of '60s feminism and modern feminism has evolved from absolute gender equality and avoiding any differences, to acknowledging, accomodating, and celebrating gender differences.
Employers should have no consideration for the demographics of their employees. While diversity is a beautiful thing, it must take a back seat to job seekers' rights to fair evaluation and employment. The only jobs in which demographics should be a factor are entertainment positions: actors, strippers, etc.

[samrod]

In reply to:

---

Do you suppose these women are just tokens who lack competence? I don't.

---

You make many assumptions. While I don't assume these women are tokens, I also don't assume they're not. And whether or not they're tokens doesn't mean they're not qualified. All else being equal, if one candidate diversifies a board more than another equaly qualified candidate, then you have a valid reason for considering race, gender, sexual orientation, build, etc.

[jmincey]

"Actually, I think the mistake you're making is assuming that merit or random probability
has anything to do with board membership."
When I use the term, merit, I do so to designate all criteria which are gender blind, race blind, religion blind, etc. So this can include the things which Al Gore brings to the board such as his experience in government and legislation -- which IS important to major corporations in the world today -- not to mention that Gore is among the most technically literate in the government sector and he DOES understand the issues of the industry.
I don't disallow the possibility that board choices are influenced in part on things like "internal company politics," but I fail to see why this would automatically lead to an all male board or an all white board, etc, unless sexism and racism play a role in the selection process, (even if subconsciously so).

[Nobody]

Who gives a crap. If Jobs weren't the liberal butt-kisser some claim him to be he wouldn't have even dignified that nut-case group's comments with statements and answers. Let those paranoid, pansy-@$$3d leftists environmental wackos go get real jobs... and stop lobbying their livings from other [working] people's pockets.
Yet, that's the problem with these left-wing morons... they want government (and everyone else) to take care of them instead of earning their own way through life. "Cradle-to-grave dependence is the order of the day -- for those such as these environmental nuts, and other extremist liberals -- who do not have the dignity nor integrity to make ways for themselves.
Jobs was right to defend Apple Computer and what they do. Me? I would have simply told them to go whine some more, suck their pansy-socialist thumbs some more, and either back up their accusations with hard facts, or simply just "Shut Up!"
Always someone, or some leftist group, looking for a way to get "something for nothing." Please, go away... you truly irritate and bore me!
Stevie boy... get a clue. Stop pandering to the looney-left... in your personal life and in your business life. Let them whine... they'll get over it... like all paranoid, brat children do sooner or later!