View Single Post
Old 01-16-2013, 09:59 AM   #61
PatNY
Zennist
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
PatNY's Avatar
 
Posts: 927
Karma: 46026034
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
Just to clear up my view (I'm having a bad day, sorry if that came through).

I don't particularly care one way or another about this story or whether Apple respond to it.
What I do dislike is the modern trend for executives to have more concern about managing their share price than their company.
I don't think share price concerns should have any effect on a companies decision making, they should be focusing on the company itself, and increasing revenue and profit. Instead (fulled, no doubt, by share-price related bonuses), success is measured by whether the share price goes up or down.
Shareholders are rewarded through dividends, and the best way to increase dividends is to run a profitable company.
The success or failure or short-term speculators (where medium term would be years if not decades) should not affect business decisions.
Rant over.
(I also hate the modern 'journalism' that regards reporting rumours from another site as somehow being a real story. Second rant over too.)
murray, I understand where you're coming from, and to some extent I agree. But I'm not really talking about how a company should consider its stock prices when setting its business strategies. But rather about doing their individual stockholders a service in the event of critical misinformation.

And I'm harping on this only to point out that silence on the part of Apple tends to confirm the rumor. That's how I read their silence. And I'm sure many on Wall Street are reading it that way too.

As for journalists, to a large extent they've always used one another as sources -- ie, the AP, UPI and other wire services have frequently formed the basis of stories for many of the same mainstream newspapers.

--Pat
PatNY is offline