Apple Updates Corporate Bylaws on Diversity Following Criticism Over Lack of Female Leaders

[JoshBoy]

I know I will get flamed for this but here goes -

* Right person, right role... I don't give a flying f&^* if it is a woman or a man
* As a guy I would be offended and angry if I was equally qualified or more qualified than a woman and she won its over because she was a woman
* Woman and men are different.... I get it, they bring different skill sets to the table however that is only one part to the puzzle, there is more to consider.
* I have now learnt to laugh it off when it comes to a lot of female based demands, equal opportunity blah blah blah. If there is a men only club or men only specific place woman cry out that woman should be allowed in yet I have lived next to a "woman only gym" yet they say "oh its a must to get away from sleazy men"

Don't get me wrong, I work for a 600 billion dollar company led by a woman (who has 4 kids), we have around 40% woman. I have 17 direct reports into me, 16 are female but we really need to look at peoples skill sets, not look inside their pants to determine what's best for a business. and we do not need to pay attention to skin colour, that really gets under...... well my skin.

 

[Eraserhead]

No, because there are undeniable biological differences between the sexes that are far deeper than, say, skin color.

OK, in which case you'll want to have a good mix of genders on company boards in order to make sure you are providing the best products for your customers of both genders. Well over 70% of company directors think that both racial and gender diversity is a good thing.

it's been proven time and time again most women do NOT like being in this industry.

Except that a whole bunch of people at the beginning of computing were women - as are 40% of Iranian CS graduates.

"Because having the most diverse board means BETTER decision making. All OLD WHITE MEN IS BAD"!

Having a whole bunch of people with the same life experience on the board is hardly going to lead to good decision making, regardless of industry.

I absolutely want to see more women in engineering and computer science, but the solution is not diversity hires. Little girls grow up playing with dolls while their brothers play with computers figuring out how they work

Sounds like sexism to me.

Sorry to be rude but that basically translates into "women are not good enough but few enough of them will not be too much trouble". I'm not sure that it's actually what you mean.

A quota would be a minimum representation for each gender. When the representation is much lower than that (e.g ~5% as it has been traditionally) then forcing them to increase it to something vaguely sensible is probably reasonable. Obviously to make sure each company has the best people you are going to have a pretty reasonable range of members of each gender even in a truly equal society.

So if women are equal to men, a proposition I am perfectly willing to believe, then women should have no problem earning their place in business (inherently a profit-driven, unbiased meritocracy

This is a very nice theory, but in reality business isn't an 'unbiased meritocracy'.

Source?

Say every time you watch a movie the male characters are much more developed than the female characters, who are usually just added in as a pretty love interest. If you watch a pop video like Pitbull and Ke$ha's new "song" video Pitbull is dressed in a suit, whereas Kesha spends most of her time in a state of undress.

To be clear there is nothing per say wrong with the Kesha and Pitbull video alone (or say the blurred lines video from last year) but there aren't any videos from major female pop artists are in an evening dress with lots of close ups of men's crotches who have oiled bodies and only tight underwear on.

 

[Eraserhead]

Best person should get the job. You want the job, become the best.

No disagreement. It's just that finding the best sometimes involves improving your selection criteria a little to consider candidates you wouldn't have considered before who will actually deliver more for your business than the traditional old white male.

----------

yet I have lived next to a "woman only gym" yet they say "oh its a must to get away from sleazy men"

It's not ideal. But let's face it the vast majority of the time that someone makes an inappropriate advance it's a heterosexual male.

 

[jimbobb24]

They are still looking for the best person, they simply said that they will actively bring more women and minorities into the pool, not that they will give them preference. It's like the Rooney rule in football, you have to interview at least one african american for any head coaching job. No football team is going to hire a less capable black man over a white man, but since this has gone into effect we now have had some black head coaches.

I guarantee you that there are some very capable women out there who haven't been seriously looked at for these kinds of jobs. This only gets them in front of the company to show what they can do, if they aren't the best, they won't get hired, but Apple may have missed out on some of the best because they didn't actively include them in the pipeline.

Everything you say above is conjecture. The Rooney rule may or may not have led to more coaches. No way to prove and it is a stupid rule.

This is more evidence that Tim Cook is your average visionless manager obsessed with whatever views are catching the fancy of our elite. There have been many signs this is just more of the same. That is sad but most companies have un imaginative leaders obsessed with every trivial cultural idea - Apple should hardly expect different.

Looking for women/blond haired/brown skinned/whatever diversity is stupid. There is no proven benefit to diversity. It is love affair pushed by people with an agenda. It has proven negative effects in communities and college level education (but maybe you are a science denier and don't believe the data). The only diversity worth having is intellectual diversity and if you think intellectual diversity is reflected by gender or skin...than you are reviving the same arguments of sexists and racists times past but this time with a positive spin.

 

[Eraserhead]

No way to prove and it is a stupid rule.

Why is it a stupid rule? Requiring an interview isn't exactly requiring masses of effort...

 

[JoshBoy]

----------

[/COLOR]

It's not ideal. But let's face it the vast majority of the time that someone makes an inappropriate advance it's a heterosexual male.[/QUOTE]

Such a sexist remark..... where is your data to support this as you have placed in so many of your posts?

A fact is I have been hit on by homosexual men a lot at the gym, im heterosexual..... should I open up a straights only gym?

You are only posting now for the sake of seeing your own posts come up on line... AKA keyboard warrior.

 

[macpro2000]

except Meadowlark Lemon (or whomever is the star of that franchise now) and gang are not a generic job description. Most of us have been seeing Harlem Globetrotters ads since we were children. May as well say name a member of Earth Wind and Fire or some other African American entertainment group that is frequently advertised.
(for non-US forumites, Harlem Globetrotters are a non-NBA basketball team that plays "exhibition" games against various non-pro teams across the country. They specialize in showboating tricks and stunts. Kind of like a traveling circus based around basketball. They are almost exclusively African American, having their origins in pre-desegregation American sports. Though they have had a few latin and white members over the years.)
If I whistle "Sweet Georgia Brown" in an upbeat tempo, any American will say "Globetrotters!"

Yes, so in your opinion then they should 'broaden their horizons' and throw in some asian, mexican, and whites to their team. OK, now I get it.

 

[Apple Corps]

A limited period of time where investors over-valued the stock.



I'm not discounting it at all. I consider it one statistic among many.



I assume you are referring to P/E ratio here. And, again, you are throwing out a statistic without any sense of context. Apple's P/E ratio is about the same as it was when Tim Cook took over. Amazon's is just insane, so it completely undermines your attempt to create a comparison.



Right back to ignoring the anything that doesn't fit your storyline.

My belief is that you are throwing out a bunch of countering opinion w/o any FACTS. The Apple stock story is bad - pick whatever set of metrics make sense:

Same price as 12 months ago

Did not perform on par with the Dow

$157 lower than all time high after 15 months

Very low multiple

Poor stock appreciation among peer technology group

Do you actually own a substantive number of shares or are you an armchair pundit?

 

[macpro2000]

When it comes to different skill sets, men and women are different. It's how we are wired. So some jobs can for sure be skewed toward one sex or the other. Skin color is a different story, treatment should be equal for equal skill sets. Problem is in our society black people want equality, for which I 100% agree, however they also always want preferential treatment too because they're black, which I 100% don't agree. Can't have it both. Sorry.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Yes, so in your opinion then they should 'broaden their horizons' and throw in some asian, mexican, and whites to their team. OK, now I get it.

nope, I just think white guys moaning about affirmative action are huge babies. And I'm a (mostly) white guy btw.
I do think Apple has a glass cieling problem, but I hope they address this proactively and not get hobbled with some 'committee solution' to it.
I agree that merit is the best method to choose candidates not race. Which is why it is kind of shocking how far out Apple is from the demographic of other computing companies in Silicon Valley. It certainly is not that there aren't qualified Asian, Latin or black candidates. There are thousands working at and leading companies all over the grater Bay Area.

There are less women in IT, but not in design, sales, marketing, or business management. Design and Marketing are actually quite female dominated at my last few jobs.
This reminds me of Spike Lee's assertion that Woody Allen has some kind of blind spot, how else can Allen explain shooting so many scenes in NYC without any black or Puerto Rican characters?
It's not like overt racism. More like "what the?".
(though Spike was imply racism there I am pretty sure).

----------

 

[ctyrider]

Do you actually own a substantive number of shares or are you an armchair pundit?

"Owning a substantial number of shares" doesn't give you any more credibility in discussing Apple stock performance. If anything, it makes you a biased observer.

Besides, I'd rather be an "armchair pundit" than a clueless investor who jumped on overvalued Apple stock at the peak of the bubble in a hope of making a quick buck.

 

[Apple Corps]

"Owning a substantial number of shares" doesn't give you any more credibility in discussing Apple stock performance. If anything, it makes you a biased observer.

Besides, I'd rather be an "armchair pundit" than a clueless investor who jumped on overvalued Apple stock at the peak of the bubble in a hope of making a quick buck.

Sounds like you are another armchair pundit as well. I am a very long term investor in AAPL.

Owning a considerable # of shares DOES give me a very different perspective than "pop off" pundits with no skin in the game.

I don't want to see my gains going in reverse !!!

 

[ctyrider]

Sounds like you are another armchair pundit as well. I am a very long term investor in AAPL.

Owning a considerable # of shares DOES give me a very different perspective than "pop off" pundits with no skin in the game.

I don't want to see my gains going in reverse !!!

If you really are a "very long term investor in APPL" - then you're doing pretty well overall. Be happy with that.

But if you can't take a minor dip in stock price coming off a bubble high - perhaps you should be putting your money in some nice 1.95% 7-year CDs. Stock market isn't for you.

 

[Apple Corps]

I've done very well, but the trend over the past 15 months has been poor. If that continues than I do "less well" every month.

And I do not agree that AAPL at $705 was even close to a bubble. It is stuck at a very low multiple and that is part of Tim Cook's job to get the valuation much more in line.

I do believe that Wall Street fails to grasp the Apple experience and value of the eco-system - that is something Cook should be tackling with even more vigor than some of the other issues he is focused on.

 

[KPOM]

Except that a whole bunch of people at the beginning of computing were women - as are 40% of Iranian CS graduates.

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Perhaps there are other factors at play. Maybe Iranian women are drawn to CS degrees by external factors (e.g. availability of jobs outside Iran, lack of opportunities in professions available to women in other countries). It's also the same with the early days of computing. Note that the early days of modern computing coincided with World War II. While the men were out in the trenches, women entered the workforce in lots of traditionally male roles (e.g. Rosie the riveter). While some continued after the war was over, during the 1950s, millions of women returned to "traditional" roles, many of whom because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.

----------

I've done very well, but the trend over the past 15 months has been poor. If that continues than I do "less well" every month.

And I do not agree that AAPL at $705 was even close to a bubble. It is stuck at a very low multiple and that is part of Tim Cook's job to get the valuation much more in line.

I do believe that Wall Street fails to grasp the Apple experience and value of the eco-system - that is something Cook should be tackling with even more vigor than some of the other issues he is focused on.

Considering that it was at $325 in January 2011, rising to $705 by September 2012 was a bit of a bubble. Apple does have a valuable brand and ecosystem. That's why it is the most valuable tech company right now and toys with the most valuable company in the world. However, a stock price is also reflective of growth potential. Once you reach Apple's current levels, it's hard to maintain the same rates of growth. Heck, even Samsung seems to be hitting that wall right now, as did Microsoft in the past. The law of big numbers starts to take hold.

As an AAPL shareholder myself, I do think there is untapped value. But I don't harbor illusions that it will grow faster than the market indefinitely. I think it has a great chance of getting back to $705 this year, but I don't expect it to grow like it did between 2007-2012. iPhone is a once-in-a-lifetime type of development. It is unrealistic to expect something else that lucrative to come around again. It would be great if it does, and it is certainly possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable. More likely, a successful Apple sustains a highly profitable segment of a stabilizing technology sector.

 

[Mums]

So let me see if I follow here. You're a white male in a post graduate degree program and you are being held back by feminazis.

You got it rdowns.

----------

Affirmative action doesn't require businesses to hire X amount of Asians, black people, or Samoans per Y amount of white people. The quotas are all but a myth usually perpetrated by people who don't understand how it works. At its most basic, what AA does is insures a person normally discriminated against in the workplace has the same rights to a job and a living as anyone.

Like if you're a well qualified black dude who's been itching for a high paying job, but keep getting passed in favor of less qualified white dudes, then you probably have an AA case. But on the flip side of that, they're not gonna hire you just because you're black. That's not what AA does.

In an ideal world.

 

[unlinked]

Having a whole bunch of people with the same life experience on the board is hardly going to lead to good decision making, regardless of industry.

I hate to break it to you but the idea people have the same life experience because they have the same genitalia is ridiculous.

 

[Technarchy]

It needs to be a black woman or it doesn't count.

 

[BaldiMac]

My belief is that you are throwing out a bunch of countering opinion w/o any FACTS.

Again, you are simply ignoring the facts that disagree with your conclusion. I've listed many facts.

The Apple stock story is bad - pick whatever set of metrics make sense:

Same price as 12 months ago

Did not perform on par with the Dow

$157 lower than all time high after 15 months

Stock is up almost 50% since the day Tim Cook took over as CEO. Substantially more than that since he took over in an interim role.

Very low multiple

Why? Maybe because of uncertainty. Apple's culture of secrecy has advantages and disadvantages. The fact that they do not publish a roadmap has investors (rightly) skittish until they see that the current Apple executives can successfully enter a new market.

Poor stock appreciation among peer technology group

Largest market cap of any corporation by more than $50 billion.

Do you actually own a substantive number of shares or are you an armchair pundit?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

 

[phillipduran]

No disagreement. It's just that finding the best sometimes involves improving your selection criteria a little to consider candidates you wouldn't have considered before who will actually deliver more for your business than the traditional old white male.

Who wouldn't be considered before? What's wrong with traditional old white males. You sure seem to have white male issues.

Tell me how you improve selection criteria if you are looking for the best candidate.

It's not ideal. But let's face it the vast majority of the time that someone makes an inappropriate advance it's a heterosexual male.

Not where I live. Women are frequently flirty and inappropriate. Men just don't complain about it. Women aren't really creepy for the most part and when they are inappropriate in the same ways that men can be, men most don't care. Their egos might even be satisfied even if they have no interest in the person flirting with them, or making comments about how they look etc. Men can be creepy though and when they do the same thing I see women doing to the men, they get creeped out. Understandably so, but I have not seen a disparity of inappropriate comments from one gender. They both do it just as much from my experience.

 

[Nunyabinez]

So no to equality and yes to elevating women above men in the workplace?

And you speak of morally right things to do.

Best person should get the job. You want the job, become the best. Don't bring your private parts, skin color, economic situation or any other factors to the job offer, just your skills and experience.

Please show me where I said women should be elevated above men.

A huge number of people in this thread including you are not reading what is written but what your biases want to be written.

Apple did NOT say that they were not going to hire the best person, only that they wanted to make sure that more women and minorities were looked at so that IF they were the best candidate they would be chosen.

But please don't be troubled by the facts or the actual meaning of words, if they don't allow you to feel persecuted as a white male.

----------

FYI, I'm checking out of this discussion. I am a professor of business and teach organizational behavior and human resources and the level of stupidity, ignorance and sexism in this thread have reached a point where I can't read this without wanting to punch my computer.

 

[Apple Corps]

BaldiMac - you are an "arm chair" pundit for sure. Dio you actually own a substantive # of Apple stock?

Your link is irrelevant - my point in raising the question, as explained earlier, is that one with skin in the game has a very different perspective than one with no investment skin in the game.

Market is up again today - AAPL continues to fall. You can banter all the academic commentary around you want. Long term investors with real money in AAPL stock are seeing their investment ROI look less and less positive the longer Tim is at the helm.

 

[BaldiMac]

BaldiMac - you are an "arm chair" pundit for sure. Dio you actually own a substantive # of Apple stock?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Your link is irrelevant - my point in raising the question, as explained earlier, is that one with skin in the game has a very different perspective than one with no investment skin in the game.

Everything that doesn't fit your point seems to be irrelevant.

Market is up again today - AAPL continues to fall.

Somehow you can't see an 8 month upward trend over a 2 week decline. AAPL is up 38% since mid April. Dow is up 13.5% in the same time frame.

Long term investors with real money in AAPL stock are seeing their investment ROI look less and less positive the longer Tim is at the helm.

Again, AAPL is up around 50% since Cook took over as CEO. Significantly more if you start when he took over on an interim basis.

 

[MyMac1976]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem



Everything that doesn't fit your point seems to be irrelevant.



Somehow you can't see an 8 month upward trend over a 2 week decline. AAPL is up 38% since mid April. Dow is up 13.5% in the same time frame.



Again, AAPL is up around 50% since Cook took over as CEO. Significantly more if you start when he took over on an interim basis.

Let him have his tantrum

 

[Apple Corps]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem



Everything that doesn't fit your point seems to be irrelevant.



Somehow you can't see an 8 month upward trend over a 2 week decline. AAPL is up 38% since mid April. Dow is up 13.5% in the same time frame.



Again, AAPL is up around 50% since Cook took over as CEO. Significantly more if you start when he took over on an interim basis.

You have your head so far in the sand there is no hope. AAPL is DOWN $162 from 16 months ago. Down another $3.89 today ( Dow is up again today ). Apple, per MR article struggling with various components for the rumored iWatch. The iTV / Apple TV is rumored to be back burnered so they can focus on wearables. Not enough resources or vision or negotiating clout to do both? New processors, higher ppi screens and other embellishments on the existing product line are not working for the stock. Not even the China Mobile contract propelled stock price much.

Bad mouthing the market as irrational does not help - it is what it is. Maybe Tim ought to take Bezos and Schmidt out to dinner and learn what their magic is for propelling their stock price.

----------

Let him have his tantrum

You got any $$$ in the game??? If you did, you would be as concerned as many investors are. Hell, Tim and company can't even sort out how to get some of that cash back to shareholders. Pay a special dividend out of the US cash already taxed, borrow the $$ for US operations from a foreign bank and pay that off at some point with the reserves currently overseas.