3 ms·
>I disagree. Apple's stance on privacy has everything to do with the personality and life experiences of Tim Cook. Stop focusing on feelings and personality.
by criley2 10y ago
>I disagree. Apple's stance on privacy has everything to do with the personality and life experiences of Tim Cook.
Stop focusing on feelings and personality.
It would be a violation of his role as Chief to lead the business on purely emotional grounds, making decisions based on his experiences growing up.
He has an obligation to return value to his shareholders.
Privacy is a Business Moat[1] for Apple, it's something they can offer to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and frankly: nothing more.
It's a clever moat because Google's moat is the actual opposite. Google says we will take your private data, reorganize it and return it to you in more useful ways. This is a powerful moat because consumers demonstrate that they like the convenience of Google's features.
Apple chose the exact opposite moat: we will respect your privacy and not run advanced intelligence against the dataset of you. It's clever because it turns a disadvantage (Google is waaaaay better at it) into an advantage (Not doing it is a good thing).
You can rationalize the calculus with feelings but that doesn't change the fact that Apple isn't a business run on emotions it's run on rational decisions, like market differentiation to create a perception of value.
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicmoat.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicmoat.asp
- npizzolato 10y agoI hate this argument that companies are completely void of all emotion. You could just as easily say that no one cares about privacy and that taking a stand is a bad financial decision. Given the amount of bad press Apple got for their stand against the FBI, that doesn't seem like a very difficult argument to make. So given that it's not very hard to make the arguments that standing up for privacy might be or might not be a good financial decision, why would you think the decision Tim Cook chose had absolutely nothing to do with his life experiences? EDIT: Another comment chain had this quote from Tim Cook in a shareholders meeting that I think illustrates my point. From https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politics-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rej...: ""When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader."
- rayuela 10y agoIt's a completely legitimate argument actually. If ever his personal agenda lead him into conflict with the interest of shareholders in a fashion that was detrimental to Apple's profits, the board would remove him. Simple as that.
- npizzolato 10y agoThere's a difference between a decision being made for a moral/ethical reason that happens to be in line with shareholders and a decision being made only to appease shareholders. Given how hard it is to determine if any one decision is truly good for the short/long-term health of the business, it seems silly to say that the first case never happens.
- csomar 10y agoI used to think exactly like you until recently. Something happened that changed my thinking completely: I come into a position of power, and I was actually inclined to push my personal believes "policy". There was no personal benefits. Maybe not much benefits for the counter-party I was acting for. I used to think people act completely on self-interest. Well, they do run daily for self-interest but you'll be surprised how much they want to push their "policies"/"believes". And some of them do go really long extra miles and put huge efforts. Now, Tim Cook might be in for financial reasons. But I'll be surprised if his experiences didn't affect his decision making a LOT.
- redwood 10y agoThat's right. Customers aren't human beings.