Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 3, 2014 19:05:51 GMT -8
BTW, I called Porsche today to learn why it (and Veyron for the rest of you) has not signed on to CarPlay. I was asked to call back, since she didn't have any information to release. The VW Group has been reasonably supportive of iPhone, so I'm not sure why they would buck the trend now. Google + $$? VW being reasonably supportive could be an understatement Mercel. I mean, remember this from 2003? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aonh2eaWyvc
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Mar 3, 2014 19:49:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by appleaddict on Mar 3, 2014 20:06:12 GMT -8
It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp. Wrong. This has nothing to do with politics. If you invest in a company, you expect a return. And you certainly expect a return from a company with Apple's fundamentals when the rest of the market is skyrocketing.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 3, 2014 20:24:15 GMT -8
Anyone have a link to a transcript of the shareholder meeting? Do those sorts of things exist?
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Mar 3, 2014 20:33:23 GMT -8
It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp. Wrong. This has nothing to do with politics. If you invest in a company, you expect a return. And you certainly expect a return from a company with Apple's fundamentals when the rest of the market is skyrocketing. The thing is, you ARE getting a return in terms of a dividend and future prospects for the stock. If Apple had not accomplished its green initiatives and instead gave that money to shareholders, we might have benefitted slightly. Or not. Because people like me are more likely to buy products from and invest in a green company. Heavy crude has heavy consequences in hidden government subsidies and overseas wars. AAPL's problems have everything to do with enormously inflated expectations for life-changing future products–and the disappointment that earth-moving products are coming from Caterpillar and not Apple–and nothing to do with its green initiatives. If Apple was more cheaply fueling the North Carolina plant with heavy crude stored in huge tanks on the site, you would not see a difference in the stock. Aside from all that, Apple could well enter the alternative energy market with appropriate products in the future, and the green technology initiative for Apple's facilities could help engineers become familiar with opportunities in solar, fuel cell, wind, and battery technologies.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on Mar 3, 2014 20:37:55 GMT -8
It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp. Wrong. This has nothing to do with politics. If you invest in a company, you expect a return. And you certainly expect a return from a company with Apple's fundamentals when the rest of the market is skyrocketing. Yes, we expect a return. I don't think anyone is invested in Apple merely to fund solar cells on the new spaceship campus. I'm staying long despite Apple's efforts at sustainability. And I think the hand wringing over what Cook said to the ridiculous questioner at the shareholder's meeting is overdone. If you've lost confidence in Cook's leadership, oh well. I believe Apple has an ethos that doubles as PR, and it gets more fleshed-out all the time. The made in America thing-- I think they are serious, and we will see a bigger effort to make things here in the states going forward. Will this add cost? Likely. But I would argue it is worth it in goodwill. Time will tell, the rest is noise. Same with sustainability issues. And for that matter, equality. You don't need to be at the far left on the spectrum to appreciate such efforts. It is kind of about politics, sadly. The farce at the shareholder's meeting was pure politics, on the questioner's side. The legislation in AZ was pure politics as well. In both cases, Cook did shareholders proud, imo, and neither move seems to have torpedoed the stock, just the predictable gnashing from the usual suspects.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Mar 3, 2014 20:59:39 GMT -8
Just read the IBD article, "Tim Cook's Climate Change Faith Costs Apple Shareholders". I'm trying to read and understand each section of the article so I don't overlook something important. Hmm, let me see...
Apple CEO Tim Cook has told global warming skeptics to "get out of this stock." No...he didn't.
But in essence, he did more than that. He told every Apple shareholder to take a hike and waved potential investors away. No...he didn't
When Cook met with shareholders Friday, he lost his usual business cool when a group proposed that the company be more open about its environmental activism as well as transparent about costs it incurs as it increases its dependence on renewable energy. "If you want me to do things only for ROI (return on investment) reasons, you should get out of this stock," Cook snapped back. Snapped back? No...there was no snapping. But is this the part where he told every Apple shareholder to take a hike?
He might think that he's merely brushing off gadflies who aren't sold on climate change. But he's really telling the investment world that anyone interested in making more money from this superstock should stay away. No...he's not saying that.
In what the media described as Cook's blistering response to the representative from the National Center for Public Policy Research, the group that floated the proposal, the CEO played the political correctness card. Blistering response? No...no snapping, no blistering response
He yammered on about wanting "to leave the world better than we found it" and guaranteeing workers everywhere the right to "a safe and fair work environment." Yes...I see the point here. Why yammer? Why make this kind of statement? When has the press EVER blasted Apple for not ensuring a "a safe and fair work environment."
Under Cook, who succeeded founder Steve Jobs as CEO in 2011, Apple has taken on the global warming bogeyman, roughly tripling its use of renewable energy for its offices to 75%. The goal is to go 100% renewable. As a long term Apple shareholder, I'm appalled and ashamed by this statistic.
Energy prices are highest in the countries whose energy portfolios have the largest shares of renewables. So this is why Europeans are paying over $7/gal for gas...
With costs so high, there can be no doubt that Cook's dabbling in renewables further hurts an Apple bottom line that, as the chart above shows, is already suffering under his stewardship. To serve an activist agenda that costs the company and investors money is a dereliction of his duty. Yes, no doubt. I'm convinced that's the problem. It's Tim's dabbling.
If Cook and Apple's board, including Al Gore, were doing their jobs, they'd adopt the NCPPR's proposal. Yes. They should be more open to Apple shareholders telling them what to do and how to do it. In fact, I'm hoping they'll join our forum so they can benefit from all the advise we could give them on how to run the business.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,555
|
Post by mark on Mar 3, 2014 21:18:38 GMT -8
and gave us 10,000% returns along the way. ... Regardless, give me Jobsian returns, and I might be a little less prickly with Tim "LASER FOCUS" Cook. Until then, respectfully, shut up and do your job. Um, isn't that obviously impossible Unless the company can somehow become bigger than the entire US economy (or perhaps bigger than the entire world economy).
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 3, 2014 21:24:21 GMT -8
I'm detecting sarcasm near the end of that post, Luckychoices. Now, to be specific - in your view, did Tim get "visibly upset" during that NCPPR deal? Now we know that Tim gets to talking at auctioneer speed (which is quite impressive to listen to) every so often (which probably surprises people more used to his "slow drawl" delivery), but did he actually seem more irritated than when he, Oppenheimer and that tax counsel guy got dragged before Congress?
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 22:11:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Mar 3, 2014 22:31:12 GMT -8
I'm detecting sarcasm near the end of that post, Luckychoices. Now, to be specific - in your view, did Tim get "visibly upset" during that NCPPR deal? Now we know that Tim gets to talking at auctioneer speed (which is quite impressive to listen to) every so often (which probably surprises people more used to his "slow drawl" delivery), but did he actually seem more irritated than when he, Oppenheimer and that tax counsel guy got dragged before Congress? Your iDetection is calibrated and working well, Mav! As I mentioned in a previous comment, I had turned around and was looking back at the guy representing NCPPR while he was addressing Tim_but I seriously didn't notice a change in Tim's voice volume or intonation when he responded. I have to admit being quite surprised that the NCPPR rep would even ask Tim to commit to not diverting money to anything unless it helped the bottom line. We already knew that the NCPPR proposal had been overwhelmingly defeated (only 3% of shareholders voted for it) during the business part of the meeting. In fact, when Tim was calling on folks who had their hand up to speak, he said to the NCPPR rep, after he called on him, "Oh, I guess you already spoke." The rep said, "I'll be brief." I've been amused to read in the online media that Tim had "snapped" at the NCPPR rep. Pretty weak snapping, I have to say. And once one article stated it, the rest could just refer to it as "reportedly snapped" at the rep. Done and done. Late breaking news. I just read a new version: "Tim Cook essentially told his interrogator from the National Center for Public Policy Research to go boil his head..."OK, we may not be done with this quite yet.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 3, 2014 23:02:55 GMT -8
Win-win as far as Tim Cook CEO behavior is concerned. Outsiders: Tim has a fiery side (even "mercurial" ? Gotta love the media molehill mountain operation) Those who can fairly comment on his reaction: Tim remains basically unflappable Thanks for the perspective once again
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 23:55:26 GMT -8
Win-win as far as Tim Cook CEO behavior is concerned. Sure Mav, if you call my elevated blood pressure and agitation levels a "win." That's the same kind of spin as, "we're very excited by our record quarter" when Apple lays an egg on Earnings Day. In related news, so nice to see some green futures.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 4, 2014 0:07:38 GMT -8
Clearly if you dislike Tim's take on that "corporate responsibility/awareness" deal, it isn't a win from your perspective. Me, "I don't care" because the financials are fine except for that whole growth thing. Just a flesh wound! (Will we seriously have to wait until September all over again?)
What the heck is with those futures?! Up 70-80 basis points? Woe to the bears continueth?
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Mar 4, 2014 2:21:43 GMT -8
1. You still don't seem to understand what an internal combustion engine is and how terribly inefficient it is. Stop quoting me and trying to disprove it - you're completely wrong. Accept it. 2. Why are you comparing a Tesla to a Civic? Why not compare it to a Hummer then? It's about equally absurd. 3. I already stated the comparison is largely dependant upon the source of electricity generation. If you don't think the world is shifting away from coal and towards renewables you are delusional. Yes, it will take time but it's happening. Nothing you posted surprises me. Tesla is not the fix for all problems - it's merely a step in the right direction with enough buzz to make a long-term difference. I love when people make such statement because it so easily shows their ignorance. In case you weren't aware, the rapid change in CO2 concentration brings about climate change, not just "global warming". The overall trend may be up a couple of degrees over many years, but there will be wild fluctuations year to year with a greater frequency of abnormal or catastrophic weather events. Hmmm...look around and tell me that's not happening. Better yet, open your eyes and read the science behind it. It's actually quite simple and makes complete sense. Hard to argue with dinosaurs - I'm going to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 4, 2014 5:21:44 GMT -8
1. You still don't seem to understand what an internal combustion engine is and how terribly inefficient it is. Stop quoting me and trying to disprove it - you're completely wrong. Accept it. 2. Why are you comparing a Tesla to a Civic? Why not compare it to a Hummer then? It's about equally absurd. 3. I already stated the comparison is largely dependant upon the source of electricity generation. If you don't think the world is shifting away from coal and towards renewables you are delusional. Yes, it will take time but it's happening. Nothing you posted surprises me. Tesla is not the fix for all problems - it's merely a step in the right direction with enough buzz to make a long-term difference. I love when people make such statement because it so easily shows their ignorance. In case you weren't aware, the rapid change in CO2 concentration brings about climate change, not just "global warming". The overall trend may be up a couple of degrees over many years, but there will be wild fluctuations year to year with a greater frequency of abnormal or catastrophic weather events. Hmmm...look around and tell me that's not happening. Better yet, open your eyes and read the science behind it. It's actually quite simple and makes complete sense. Hard to argue with dinosaurs - I'm going to bed. Without commenting on the merits of either side in this debate Tuffet, I can say your credibility is taking a big hit by resorting to personal attack. Does not help your case at all.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Mar 4, 2014 5:54:05 GMT -8
Nothing insulting about his posts, right? Funny. I tend to respond in the tone of the person I'm addressing. Bit of a fault of mine I guess.
My credibility doesn't matter - a simple google search will tell you the answers if you don't believe me. "Efficiency of internal combustion engine". Now tell me if the number you see is "high" to you.
By the way, looking at tone rather than fact or common sense is probably not the best way to assess credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 4, 2014 6:33:03 GMT -8
Nothing insulting about his posts, right? Funny. I tend to respond in the tone of the person I'm addressing. Bit of a fault of mine I guess. My credibility doesn't matter - a simple google search will tell you the answers if you don't believe me. "Efficiency of internal combustion engine". Now tell me if the number you see is "high" to you. By the way, looking at tone rather than fact or common sense is probably not the best way to assess credibility. I am not here to discuss this topic, so I will make only one point and leave it at that. Your argument has a fundamental flaw when you focus solely on the efficiency of the engine. You need to look at the complete system, end to end, which is what that total carbon footprint example was trying to do. This includes delivery of the necessary energy to the vehicle where it can be used. If the delivery system for an electric vehicle is more inefficient than an internal combustion vehicle, then that fact needs to be accounted for in the overall assessment. And apparently, when the complete system is taken into account, the Tesla is roughly equivalent to a Civic in footprint. In spite of an inefficient internal combustion engine. I thought that the total carbon footprint data point was a useful contribution and not worthy of a heated personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Mar 4, 2014 6:51:25 GMT -8
You're absolutely correct. But please, read all my posts on the topic and all of his as well. There are no flaws in my argument - I made the same point as you. I'm the one who stated in an earlier post that a well-to-wheel assessment needs to be made.
JD called the ICE "highly efficient" - THAT is what I took offense to and disagreed with. After I pointed it out, he refused to acknowledge his error and went off on other tangents which are not wrong, but show obvious bias. Why compare a Tesla to a Civic? A more appropriate comparison would be with a car in its same class, clearly.
|
|