Quote:
Originally Posted by eroticsexxx
Flawed comparison.
Jobs was running Apple into the ground and made serious mistakes in leading the company at that time.
He needed to be fired.
On the other hand Zuckerberg led Facebook to where it is today. The IPO is being made based on the products of his leadership and their ongoing potential.
Any attempt to cast him out as a primary element of the equation when the company shows nothing but growth potential, even in the face of privacy and interface complaints, would be shooting themselves in the foot.
It surely would not happen on Morgan Stanley's watch. Changing the CEO of a solid investment shortly after pushing the IPO automatically poisons confidence in said investment. The clients would be furious as to why they were not informed that the CEO was going to be changed before they made the investment. Morgan Stanley would not deal in such frivolousness.
|
I didn't say 'shortly' afterwards.
After the IPO they will have a legal duty to make as much money as possible for the shareholders.
Zuck doesn't like intrusive ads. He doesn't like 'fucking' with what works. However, what works isn't making as much money as he could.
I give it a year.
Apple was 3 weeks away from going bankrupt when Jobs returned. Now it's the largest company in the world according to marcap. Think on't.