11 ms·

But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board th

by tfha 8y ago

But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy. The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.

ceejayoz 8y ago
> The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
- tfha 8y ago
  The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.

by tfha 8y ago

ceejayoz 8y ago

> The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.

tfha 8y ago
The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.