3 ms·

I share your respect for corporations that help make the world a better place but I want to pick at the tone of your comment. It implies that businesses can’t d

by hudon 9y ago

I share your respect for corporations that help make the world a better place but I want to pick at the tone of your comment. It implies that businesses can’t do good for good’s sake, that there has to be some greedy motive behind every action. What if the leaders at Apple are actually good people and they’re honest when they say they want te leave the Earth a better place?

annabellish 9y ago
Then it'd go down in the history books as the first time a large public company had done so. We all run on Capitalism, meaning we've picked the generation and acquisition of Capital to be the one metric we've decided as a society to optimise for. This is why it's so important for governments to legislate carbon requirements, because that's the designed escape hatch for capitalism causing people to doing stuff which is very bad for society by optimising for capital.
leonroy 9y ago
> What if the leaders at Apple are actually good people and they’re honest when they say they want te leave the Earth a better place? There's a concept called first mover disadvantage where for example a well intentioned CEO can push for a positive action by the company like reducing pollution, improving worker welfare. These nearly always incur a cost and push down shareholder value in the short term. Furthermore if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining in the short term over you. A CEO like that is not going to last very long and most CEOs don't have the kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down. That's what makes Apple's approach here pretty unique. Now if they'd only refresh their Mac lineup a little more often that'd be something...
- reaperducer 9y ago
  > There's a concept called first mover disadvantage A failed concept that has been proven wrong again and again. At this point it's a cliché coming out of people who got MBA's from bad schools. >if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining in the short term over you This assumes your target market doesn't differentiate between your product and competitor's products on anything other than price. Apple, and others, have repeatedly proven this wrong. > most CEOs don't have the kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down Tim Cook is already on record saying that Apple is committed to doing what it sees as the right thing, and the investors can pound sand if they're not on board. There are a number of other very large companies that are also run this way. The notion of a corporate board that only listens to its shareholders is a gross oversimplification and not based in a thorough study of modern business.
usefulcat 9y ago
Even if that's all true, there are still other incentives that aren't going away that can have a tremendous influence (fiduciary obligations to shareholders, for example). Which is just to say that there are some significant structural aspects at play here.
dlwdlw 9y ago
Businesses don't have this type of intentionality in my opinion. They're like forces of nature (with smaller lifespans) primarily acting in the economic realm. Even non-profits must manage input and output economically correctly in order to survive. True forces of nature are like a graph. Companies are like trees with a root. There is some control in targeting the root but the end result is similar to the graph in that it can't be predicted. Thus good/bad must be taken as is without looking too much into the intentionality. A focus on intentionality may actually create "bad" because it rewards focus on the packaging over the content. CEOs may just be the main story teller to manage the packaging of the company as an individual (vs PR branch which is faceless/just-a-job)

by hudon 9y ago

annabellish 9y ago

Then it'd go down in the history books as the first time a large public company had done so. We all run on Capitalism, meaning we've picked the generation and acquisition of Capital to be the one metric we've decided as a society to optimise for. This is why it's so important for governments to legislate carbon requirements, because that's the designed escape hatch for capitalism causing people to doing stuff which is very bad for society by optimising for capital.

leonroy 9y ago

> What if the leaders at Apple are actually good people and they’re honest when they say they want te leave the Earth a better place? There's a concept called first mover disadvantage where for example a well intentioned CEO can push for a positive action by the company like reducing pollution, improving worker welfare. These nearly always incur a cost and push down shareholder value in the short term. Furthermore if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining in the short term over you. A CEO like that is not going to last very long and most CEOs don't have the kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down. That's what makes Apple's approach here pretty unique. Now if they'd only refresh their Mac lineup a little more often that'd be something...

reaperducer 9y ago
> There's a concept called first mover disadvantage A failed concept that has been proven wrong again and again. At this point it's a cliché coming out of people who got MBA's from bad schools. >if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining in the short term over you This assumes your target market doesn't differentiate between your product and competitor's products on anything other than price. Apple, and others, have repeatedly proven this wrong. > most CEOs don't have the kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down Tim Cook is already on record saying that Apple is committed to doing what it sees as the right thing, and the investors can pound sand if they're not on board. There are a number of other very large companies that are also run this way. The notion of a corporate board that only listens to its shareholders is a gross oversimplification and not based in a thorough study of modern business.

usefulcat 9y ago

Even if that's all true, there are still other incentives that aren't going away that can have a tremendous influence (fiduciary obligations to shareholders, for example). Which is just to say that there are some significant structural aspects at play here.

dlwdlw 9y ago

Businesses don't have this type of intentionality in my opinion. They're like forces of nature (with smaller lifespans) primarily acting in the economic realm. Even non-profits must manage input and output economically correctly in order to survive. True forces of nature are like a graph. Companies are like trees with a root. There is some control in targeting the root but the end result is similar to the graph in that it can't be predicted. Thus good/bad must be taken as is without looking too much into the intentionality. A focus on intentionality may actually create "bad" because it rewards focus on the packaging over the content. CEOs may just be the main story teller to manage the packaging of the company as an individual (vs PR branch which is faceless/just-a-job)