12 ms·

I don't know enough about their new ethical approach to say whether it's PR, whether it's just a few well-publicized decisions, or whether it's broad-based and

I don't know enough about their new ethical approach to say whether it's PR, whether it's just a few well-publicized decisions, or whether it's broad-based and substantial. I'm not saying either way; I just don't know. But it could make me a loyal customer much more than cool design and fashionable cache ever would.

nostromo 10y ago
When they took on the FBI I decided that it was more than just vacuous PR. A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. It took real cojones for Apple to stand up for privacy at such a time.
- smnscu 10y ago
  Wow, how gullible you are. It's obviously Apple and FBI are actually best buddies and this was just a PR move to sell more iPhones. Wake up, sheeple. /s Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.
  - piyush_soni 10y ago
    Language aside, the cynicism might not be entirely invalid too. It might be naive to believe any one side of the two (i.e., entirely PR, or entirely for 'the greater public good')
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    Eh you know right that TC was more thaneager to comply if FBI had issued the request privately? All the thing was a PR show from both sides.
    - nicky0 10y ago
      Your source for this allegation?
      - LoSboccacc 10y ago
        all trace back to this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
        nicky0 10y ago
        We don't know if he would have agreed.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      No.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. Why exactly? If Apple wants to make privacy and security its unique selling point, it has to deny an FBI request to unlock one of their phones. Anything else would be a PR debacle.
- andyjdavis 10y ago
  >A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist Not if they were any good at their job. Very publicly standing up against what many would see as heavy handed government and being seen to defend the rights of the little guy (who happen to be their customers and potential customers) got them an enormous amount of very positive press not just in the US but in many countries. It would have cost them a small fortune to pay for that kind of advertising. I am not saying that it wasn't a good thing for them to do but I really doubt it was some sort of selfless act that happened over protests from PR.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    Good PR is sort of like a Turing Test of being a decent human being; it cannot be differentiated from being a reasonable person.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    It's not easy to decide either way. I recently advised a women's rights organization in a similar matter: they were poised to publish a scathing (and somewhat stupid) indictment of islam with regards to women's rights. It's obviously a minefield, with popular opinion divided almost equally. You have to judge the intensity of emotions it will cause in people, the propensity of people to act on those emotions and the base desirability of the different groups. In this case, they rightly passed on the 'opportunity' because it seemed as if the people who would agree were unlikely to donate to women's rights in the first place (and vice-versa). (And because their employees threatened to collectively quit)
    - robbiep 10y ago
      > 'with popular opinion divided almost equally.' that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?
      - matt4077 10y ago
        I just tried to look up statistics and the results mostly depend on the wording. "Afraid of islamic radicalization": 53:47, "Islam part of Germany":37:60, "Muslims can be German": 70:30 etc.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point, it's the best PR you can have. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this nytimes article [1], but if we believe it, Tim Cook had asked FBI to submit their request 'in private' - but FBI did it openly, so Tim Cook 'had to' become the privacy crusader. [1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
  - IBM 10y ago
    It's perfectly compatible to comply with the law and still be known for security and privacy and there's no reason Tim Cook "had to" oppose law enforcement. The only people who don't believe this is the HN crowd. This is a fraction of the people who believe Apple was in the wrong for opposing the FBI.
    - piyush_soni 10y ago
      Yes, it's "perfectly compatible", but that also means it's "perfectly normal". And normal is no good when it comes to advertising - that's no PR. How about a company which can fight even with the government for your privacy? Now that will make the users drool.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point Only safety and security weren't Apple's "perceived selling points". They were mostly touted for user friendliness, it just works, being the first to bring some technologies to market in a well-thought way (e.g. as opposed to crude crap for early adopters), style, high-end ("luxury") items, etc.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason. (Incidentally, why the past tense?)
alsetmusic 10y ago
A couple days after Tim Cook stepped into the CEO position, he reversed a Jobs policy and announced that the company would begin matching employee donations to charities. I considered this a fairly classy and subtle way to signal that he wasn't going to lie down on the job (it had been requested many times on company mailing lists). Source: I was on those lists.
- tajen 10y ago
  As a French person without the culture of corporate donations, I'm both wondering why it was seen as negative that Apple didn't match? Shouldn't they redirect donations to people they prefer?
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    It shows management sharing decision-making with employees.
  - retox 10y ago
    Seems incredibly self entitled to me. Why should your employer shell out money for whatever their employees decide? I don't understand it at all. What if you want to donate a controversial charity? If you feel that strongly about a charity double your own donation.
    - Cacti 10y ago
      It's not everything. Usually there is a list of acceptable national charities for things like heart disease, diabetes, MS, education, poverty alleviation, etc. Chances are you'd recognize every one on the list. Sometimes employees vote on that list, sometimes it's mostly set by HR.
      - retox 10y ago
        I see, thanks for the insight.
      - mikestew 10y ago
ff10 10y ago
Does it really matter if it is PR or not? It doesn't change the result, regardless if it is a good result for you personally or anyone else. I understand that people are looking for reasons to like or dislike a brand because, I believe, most of us see a brand choice as a reflection of (a part) of our personalities – that includes company politics. But in the end we have to assume that Apple does what's best for Apple and that includes advocating for civil rights _as in_ defending one of their main selling points. However, Apple is not your buddy, it might pretend to be here and there, but after all corporations are not people.
nl 10y ago
fashionable cache Not a fan of Memcache? Personally I find it has a certain cachet about it. /jk
k-mcgrady 10y ago
Does it really matter if it's just PR? They're still doing it at the end of the day. Their reasoning doesn't really impact the user.

nostromo 10y ago

When they took on the FBI I decided that it was more than just vacuous PR. A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. It took real cojones for Apple to stand up for privacy at such a time.

smnscu 10y ago
Wow, how gullible you are. It's obviously Apple and FBI are actually best buddies and this was just a PR move to sell more iPhones. Wake up, sheeple. /s Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  Language aside, the cynicism might not be entirely invalid too. It might be naive to believe any one side of the two (i.e., entirely PR, or entirely for 'the greater public good')
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Eh you know right that TC was more thaneager to comply if FBI had issued the request privately? All the thing was a PR show from both sides.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    Your source for this allegation?
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      all trace back to this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
      - nicky0 10y ago
        We don't know if he would have agreed.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. Why exactly? If Apple wants to make privacy and security its unique selling point, it has to deny an FBI request to unlock one of their phones. Anything else would be a PR debacle.
andyjdavis 10y ago
>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist Not if they were any good at their job. Very publicly standing up against what many would see as heavy handed government and being seen to defend the rights of the little guy (who happen to be their customers and potential customers) got them an enormous amount of very positive press not just in the US but in many countries. It would have cost them a small fortune to pay for that kind of advertising. I am not saying that it wasn't a good thing for them to do but I really doubt it was some sort of selfless act that happened over protests from PR.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  Good PR is sort of like a Turing Test of being a decent human being; it cannot be differentiated from being a reasonable person.
- matt4077 10y ago
  It's not easy to decide either way. I recently advised a women's rights organization in a similar matter: they were poised to publish a scathing (and somewhat stupid) indictment of islam with regards to women's rights. It's obviously a minefield, with popular opinion divided almost equally. You have to judge the intensity of emotions it will cause in people, the propensity of people to act on those emotions and the base desirability of the different groups. In this case, they rightly passed on the 'opportunity' because it seemed as if the people who would agree were unlikely to donate to women's rights in the first place (and vice-versa). (And because their employees threatened to collectively quit)
  - robbiep 10y ago
    > 'with popular opinion divided almost equally.' that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I just tried to look up statistics and the results mostly depend on the wording. "Afraid of islamic radicalization": 53:47, "Islam part of Germany":37:60, "Muslims can be German": 70:30 etc.
piyush_soni 10y ago
I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point, it's the best PR you can have. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this nytimes article [1], but if we believe it, Tim Cook had asked FBI to submit their request 'in private' - but FBI did it openly, so Tim Cook 'had to' become the privacy crusader. [1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
- IBM 10y ago
  It's perfectly compatible to comply with the law and still be known for security and privacy and there's no reason Tim Cook "had to" oppose law enforcement. The only people who don't believe this is the HN crowd. This is a fraction of the people who believe Apple was in the wrong for opposing the FBI.
  - piyush_soni 10y ago
    Yes, it's "perfectly compatible", but that also means it's "perfectly normal". And normal is no good when it comes to advertising - that's no PR. How about a company which can fight even with the government for your privacy? Now that will make the users drool.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point Only safety and security weren't Apple's "perceived selling points". They were mostly touted for user friendliness, it just works, being the first to bring some technologies to market in a well-thought way (e.g. as opposed to crude crap for early adopters), style, high-end ("luxury") items, etc.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason. (Incidentally, why the past tense?)

alsetmusic 10y ago

A couple days after Tim Cook stepped into the CEO position, he reversed a Jobs policy and announced that the company would begin matching employee donations to charities. I considered this a fairly classy and subtle way to signal that he wasn't going to lie down on the job (it had been requested many times on company mailing lists). Source: I was on those lists.

tajen 10y ago
As a French person without the culture of corporate donations, I'm both wondering why it was seen as negative that Apple didn't match? Shouldn't they redirect donations to people they prefer?
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  It shows management sharing decision-making with employees.
- retox 10y ago
  Seems incredibly self entitled to me. Why should your employer shell out money for whatever their employees decide? I don't understand it at all. What if you want to donate a controversial charity? If you feel that strongly about a charity double your own donation.
  - Cacti 10y ago
    It's not everything. Usually there is a list of acceptable national charities for things like heart disease, diabetes, MS, education, poverty alleviation, etc. Chances are you'd recognize every one on the list. Sometimes employees vote on that list, sometimes it's mostly set by HR.
    - retox 10y ago
      I see, thanks for the insight.
    - mikestew 10y ago

ff10 10y ago

Does it really matter if it is PR or not? It doesn't change the result, regardless if it is a good result for you personally or anyone else. I understand that people are looking for reasons to like or dislike a brand because, I believe, most of us see a brand choice as a reflection of (a part) of our personalities – that includes company politics. But in the end we have to assume that Apple does what's best for Apple and that includes advocating for civil rights _as in_ defending one of their main selling points. However, Apple is not your buddy, it might pretend to be here and there, but after all corporations are not people.

nl 10y ago

fashionable cache Not a fan of Memcache? Personally I find it has a certain cachet about it. /jk

k-mcgrady 10y ago

Does it really matter if it's just PR? They're still doing it at the end of the day. Their reasoning doesn't really impact the user.