3 ms·

> Ultimately I believe Tim Cook is a good human who really does want what he says and leave the world in a better place than what they found it. What does a 'g

> Ultimately I believe Tim Cook is a good human who really does want what he says and leave the world in a better place than what they found it. What does a 'good human' mean in your context? I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced (suicide nets, plant explosions, high cancer and infertility rates) or the people mining minerals for chips. The conditions of all of these people are directly within Mr. Cook's influence. Of course, it's possible to argue over a La Croix that the real social good is making lots of new iPhones every year, which give more important people more important power. And you can make similar arguments about his vast international tax avoidance, keeping money from healthcare, education, housing, etc. Does "good person" simply mean "their self-interest appears to be aligned with my own, and I assume yours"? > IMO he really believes we all have a fundamental right to privacy and that they're doing everything in their powers to ensure their customers get it. Everything in his powers? Then why a 50% margin? Why is his only lobbying interest in Washington lowering his tax bill? I agree with the majority of posters on this thread, that privacy is a highly marketable feature, especially to older wealthy Americans. Cook is in the business of collecting the premium placed on privacy. He is doing everything in his power to collect that premium. If he was doing everything in his powers to further privacy, he could use Apple's considerable cash and lobbying muscle to push for legislation. But, products wouldn't be aspirational if people in general could have them!

sjwright 9y ago
> Cook is in the business of collecting the premium placed on privacy. A cynical view, but for the sake of argument let's assume that's correct. Okay, so where are all the marketplace competitors vying for that premium? Has Apple got a monopoly on privacy?
sjwright 9y ago
> I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced (suicide nets, plant explosions, high cancer and infertility rates) or the people mining minerals for chips. Foxconn and its competitors manufacture for many companies, not just Apple. Why doesn't anyone raise these concerns when we discuss the Xbox and PS4? Or any of the countless other tier-one products manufactured by Foxconn? Have you ever raised these concerns about Samsung products and their responsibility towards the miners of rare earth minerals? (And let's not forget that a Foxconn worker has always been statistically less likely to commit suicide than an American citizen.)
mythz 9y ago
> What does a 'good human' mean in your context? He routinely stands up for human rights, equality, accessibility, pro-privacy, pro-environment, etc. > I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced You mean employees working for Chinese suppliers? You can read what steps Apple's doing to ensure Supplier responsibility at: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ > Or the people mining minerals for chips. So you believe people would be better off not working at all and the world would be a better place if it didn't have enough minerals to make chips so the price for owning a computing device is only accessible to the super wealthy? > And you can make similar arguments about the billions he's avoiding paying to democratic governments in taxes, to pay for education, healthcare etc., for the poors. I agree the tax laws should be changed so multi nationals pay their fare share of taxes at the same time Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximize their returns. It would be uncompetitive and fiscally irresponsible for corporations not to minimize their taxes to the extent that's legally allowed whilst their competitors don't. Ideally all companies would voluntarily pay the appropriate company tax in each country they operate in and if their major competitors weren't also minimizing their taxes than Apple should absolutely follow in kind, but that's realistically not going to happen until laws are changed and tax loop-holes are closed, until that happens I don't fault them for minimizing their tax liability. > But does "good person"/"good human" ever mean anything more than "their self-interest appears to be aligned with my own, and I assume yours"? No I think it's pretty clear what's right and just which is also where I find most of Cook's public political stance lies. These views aren't universally shared and are often contra to the political views of other powerful and elected figures we have at the moment, who I don't think is a good person.

sjwright 9y ago

> Cook is in the business of collecting the premium placed on privacy. A cynical view, but for the sake of argument let's assume that's correct. Okay, so where are all the marketplace competitors vying for that premium? Has Apple got a monopoly on privacy?

sjwright 9y ago

> I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced (suicide nets, plant explosions, high cancer and infertility rates) or the people mining minerals for chips. Foxconn and its competitors manufacture for many companies, not just Apple. Why doesn't anyone raise these concerns when we discuss the Xbox and PS4? Or any of the countless other tier-one products manufactured by Foxconn? Have you ever raised these concerns about Samsung products and their responsibility towards the miners of rare earth minerals? (And let's not forget that a Foxconn worker has always been statistically less likely to commit suicide than an American citizen.)

mythz 9y ago

> What does a 'good human' mean in your context? He routinely stands up for human rights, equality, accessibility, pro-privacy, pro-environment, etc. > I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced You mean employees working for Chinese suppliers? You can read what steps Apple's doing to ensure Supplier responsibility at: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ > Or the people mining minerals for chips. So you believe people would be better off not working at all and the world would be a better place if it didn't have enough minerals to make chips so the price for owning a computing device is only accessible to the super wealthy? > And you can make similar arguments about the billions he's avoiding paying to democratic governments in taxes, to pay for education, healthcare etc., for the poors. I agree the tax laws should be changed so multi nationals pay their fare share of taxes at the same time Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximize their returns. It would be uncompetitive and fiscally irresponsible for corporations not to minimize their taxes to the extent that's legally allowed whilst their competitors don't. Ideally all companies would voluntarily pay the appropriate company tax in each country they operate in and if their major competitors weren't also minimizing their taxes than Apple should absolutely follow in kind, but that's realistically not going to happen until laws are changed and tax loop-holes are closed, until that happens I don't fault them for minimizing their tax liability. > But does "good person"/"good human" ever mean anything more than "their self-interest appears to be aligned with my own, and I assume yours"? No I think it's pretty clear what's right and just which is also where I find most of Cook's public political stance lies. These views aren't universally shared and are often contra to the political views of other powerful and elected figures we have at the moment, who I don't think is a good person.