3 ms·

Who literally saved Apple from their attempted corporate suicide? Yeah, I think he is a good example of why you need a strong founder sometimes.

ncallaway 5y ago
I think their point is that you can have a strong leader that doesn't have control of the company through ownership mechanism. Steve Jobs at Apple is a perfect example, since it was a publicly traded company that Steve Jobs didn't control. However, he was still able to be an extremely effective leader as the CEO.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  He had de facto control. Nobody was able to successfully defy him. He used this control to force his vision upon Apple. No committee would have done what he did.
  - mithr 5y ago
    That's... not the point at all? This post is about a law that (to Sweeney's claim) would force founders to sell their controlling stock. This law wouldn't affect "de facto" control of a company -- it would affect actual stock-driven control of a company. The fact that Jobs did not have stock-driven control of Apple, and yet he was still able to "force his vision upon Apple" as you said, would make him a good example of why this law could be effective, since this law would not have affected Jobs' control of Apple.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    Right, that's exactly my point! It's possible to be CEO, and exert control over a company without literally owning >51% of the voting shares. A good leader can "control" a company without having legal control over it. That's exactly the point about Steve Jobs. The assertion is that: It is possible to be a dictatorial executive CEO, without having 51% of the voting rights of the company. This is the corollary of "losing control of the voting rights of the company doesn't automatically imply that the company must be run by committee". Steve Jobs proves both of those assertions to be true.

3 ms·

Who literally saved Apple from their attempted corporate suicide? Yeah, I think he is a good example of why you need a strong founder sometimes.

by zchrykng 5y ago

ncallaway 5y ago
I think their point is that you can have a strong leader that doesn't have control of the company through ownership mechanism. Steve Jobs at Apple is a perfect example, since it was a publicly traded company that Steve Jobs didn't control. However, he was still able to be an extremely effective leader as the CEO.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  He had de facto control. Nobody was able to successfully defy him. He used this control to force his vision upon Apple. No committee would have done what he did.
  - mithr 5y ago
    That's... not the point at all? This post is about a law that (to Sweeney's claim) would force founders to sell their controlling stock. This law wouldn't affect "de facto" control of a company -- it would affect actual stock-driven control of a company. The fact that Jobs did not have stock-driven control of Apple, and yet he was still able to "force his vision upon Apple" as you said, would make him a good example of why this law could be effective, since this law would not have affected Jobs' control of Apple.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    Right, that's exactly my point! It's possible to be CEO, and exert control over a company without literally owning >51% of the voting shares. A good leader can "control" a company without having legal control over it. That's exactly the point about Steve Jobs. The assertion is that: It is possible to be a dictatorial executive CEO, without having 51% of the voting rights of the company. This is the corollary of "losing control of the voting rights of the company doesn't automatically imply that the company must be run by committee". Steve Jobs proves both of those assertions to be true.