"Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 16:45 (#245) Sorry, but his closeted status is the ONLY interesting thing about the guy. He's an apparently competent and boring manager, period.People keep wanting him to be a showman / asshole like his predecessor. It's good that he's not.May the cult of Apple die a nice slow slide into overpriced obscurity.I'm not exactly sure the point of the Times' ballwashing exercise. Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 20:59 (#24B) Hah, hah, it seems Gawker and I are of like minds on the subject -- they say NYT desperately wanted to "out" Cook in the piece but couldn't bring themselves to do it. The New York Times Really, Really Wants to Out Tim Cook "It's silly, because the world has known Apple's chief executive is gay for years now, but the New York Times is practically gnawing its own arm off in the process of writing about Tim Cook's personal life. They clearly want to mention the sexuality of capitalism's most powerful man-so why won't they?" Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 23:48 (#24C) Perhaps it's because his sexuality is irrelevant? As is everybody's? Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 17:15 (#24Q) Irrelevant to what, exactly? I don't see any other substantive discussion. Which was exactly my point. He's a rich manager. There's no story without the sex angle.
Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 20:59 (#24B) Hah, hah, it seems Gawker and I are of like minds on the subject -- they say NYT desperately wanted to "out" Cook in the piece but couldn't bring themselves to do it. The New York Times Really, Really Wants to Out Tim Cook "It's silly, because the world has known Apple's chief executive is gay for years now, but the New York Times is practically gnawing its own arm off in the process of writing about Tim Cook's personal life. They clearly want to mention the sexuality of capitalism's most powerful man-so why won't they?" Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 23:48 (#24C) Perhaps it's because his sexuality is irrelevant? As is everybody's? Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 17:15 (#24Q) Irrelevant to what, exactly? I don't see any other substantive discussion. Which was exactly my point. He's a rich manager. There's no story without the sex angle.
Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 23:48 (#24C) Perhaps it's because his sexuality is irrelevant? As is everybody's? Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 17:15 (#24Q) Irrelevant to what, exactly? I don't see any other substantive discussion. Which was exactly my point. He's a rich manager. There's no story without the sex angle.
Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 17:15 (#24Q) Irrelevant to what, exactly? I don't see any other substantive discussion. Which was exactly my point. He's a rich manager. There's no story without the sex angle.