4 ms·

I suspect more prosaic motive. Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders who want to sell in China as its big market and lot of money to be made. So Tim C

I suspect more prosaic motive. Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders who want to sell in China as its big market and lot of money to be made. So Tim Cook has to do things like this in order to stay on the good side of the Chinese government. I wouldn’t see any hidden idealism behind it.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders ... That rationalization is used for a lot of damaging behavior; the duty to shareholders is not the only duty, and does not take priority over all the others. He also has responsibilities, for example, to employees and to his community, and for Apple the community is everywhere they sell products. Supporting the oppression of others in order to make money is wrong; it's evil. His job as CEO is to navigate difficult issues like this one; the easy questions can be left to the junior managers.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Unfortunately in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over anything else. As long as you are not breaking the law (but even that can be solved by lobbying government to add loopholes to legislature), shareholders will be happy with anything you do which makes them more money. Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market? I'm not sure Tim Cook could get away with that even if he wanted to. Board would replace him with CEO more aligned with profit oriented shareholders imho. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, he is certainly be replaceable.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over anything else That's not actually true, though I agree that it is often repeated and there is pressure from shareholders and others. It's not and never has required absolute obedience; and IIRC even that idea in the theoretical sense was developed in the 1980s, long after the advent of large public companies. > Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market? His choices are not so extreme. He doesn't have to show up at this conference, for example, or he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people. There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      > He doesn't have to show up at this conference I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything. > he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people This might be more meaningful and would actually mean he is putting something on the line / has skin in the game. Which is why I can't imagine Cook doing that. He would be putting Apple's business in China in danger by doing that. > There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject. Yes, but the more meaningful actions Cook / Apple could take, the more likely it would damage their business. So it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        >> He doesn't have to show up at this conference > I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything. I disagree about its impact. He legitimizes the oppression of the Chinese people with his presence; he says 'this is ok'. > it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures It is against their immediate financial interest; my whole point is that there are other interests too.
alextheparrot 9y ago
Tim Cook has himself explicitly challenged this logic before: > “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock” [0] I don’t necessarily believe you are wrong in this case, but I don’t believe your path to supporting your statements was necessarily correct either. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-companies-should-have-values-like-people-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-companies-...
- richardknop 9y ago
  Skeptical person like me would interpret Cook's quote as just a PR piece to improve Apple image. It's part of branding strategy for Apple but I am not certain how genuine or calculated it is.
smsm42 9y ago
> Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders who want to sell in China as its big market and lot of money to be made. The "profit maximization duty" is a myth. There's no such duty and as long as the management acts in the interests of the company, with very wide margin (basically, everything that is not explicitly designed to hurt the company and benefit themselves, such as stealing company funds to private account) - they are legally fine. Shareholders can, in general, remove management if they don't like it, but prosecuting management for a business decision that did not immediately increase profit would be extremely hard. In particular, the management is fully free (at least doesn't have legal duty to avoid it) to not help censorship in China, even if doing so would bring profit. There is no "duty" to grab every profitable opportunity regardless of morals.

forapurpose 9y ago

> Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders ... That rationalization is used for a lot of damaging behavior; the duty to shareholders is not the only duty, and does not take priority over all the others. He also has responsibilities, for example, to employees and to his community, and for Apple the community is everywhere they sell products. Supporting the oppression of others in order to make money is wrong; it's evil. His job as CEO is to navigate difficult issues like this one; the easy questions can be left to the junior managers.

richardknop 9y ago
Unfortunately in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over anything else. As long as you are not breaking the law (but even that can be solved by lobbying government to add loopholes to legislature), shareholders will be happy with anything you do which makes them more money. Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market? I'm not sure Tim Cook could get away with that even if he wanted to. Board would replace him with CEO more aligned with profit oriented shareholders imho. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, he is certainly be replaceable.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over anything else That's not actually true, though I agree that it is often repeated and there is pressure from shareholders and others. It's not and never has required absolute obedience; and IIRC even that idea in the theoretical sense was developed in the 1980s, long after the advent of large public companies. > Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market? His choices are not so extreme. He doesn't have to show up at this conference, for example, or he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people. There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    > He doesn't have to show up at this conference I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything. > he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people This might be more meaningful and would actually mean he is putting something on the line / has skin in the game. Which is why I can't imagine Cook doing that. He would be putting Apple's business in China in danger by doing that. > There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject. Yes, but the more meaningful actions Cook / Apple could take, the more likely it would damage their business. So it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      >> He doesn't have to show up at this conference > I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything. I disagree about its impact. He legitimizes the oppression of the Chinese people with his presence; he says 'this is ok'. > it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures It is against their immediate financial interest; my whole point is that there are other interests too.

alextheparrot 9y ago

Tim Cook has himself explicitly challenged this logic before: > “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock” [0] I don’t necessarily believe you are wrong in this case, but I don’t believe your path to supporting your statements was necessarily correct either. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-companies-should-have-values-like-people-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-companies-...

richardknop 9y ago
Skeptical person like me would interpret Cook's quote as just a PR piece to improve Apple image. It's part of branding strategy for Apple but I am not certain how genuine or calculated it is.

smsm42 9y ago

> Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders who want to sell in China as its big market and lot of money to be made. The "profit maximization duty" is a myth. There's no such duty and as long as the management acts in the interests of the company, with very wide margin (basically, everything that is not explicitly designed to hurt the company and benefit themselves, such as stealing company funds to private account) - they are legally fine. Shareholders can, in general, remove management if they don't like it, but prosecuting management for a business decision that did not immediately increase profit would be extremely hard. In particular, the management is fully free (at least doesn't have legal duty to avoid it) to not help censorship in China, even if doing so would bring profit. There is no "duty" to grab every profitable opportunity regardless of morals.