3 ms·
Tim Cook was pushing some clever PR there. The reality is that if a company deviated significantly from it's primary goal of attaining profits for shareholders
by q1w2 5y ago
Tim Cook was pushing some clever PR there. The reality is that if a company deviated significantly from it's primary goal of attaining profits for shareholders, the shareholders could easily sue to take control away from the CEO - and this indeed happens.
The example of a small feature here or there is a deflection since, like any do-good public effort, it's just good PR to do them when they're relatively low cost.
- pixelgeek 5y agoApple, and Cook in particular, is a member of groups that are actively working to stop the proposed environmental laws in the US. So yes indeed, deflection https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon...
- q1w2 5y agoThis is a completely bogus claim, and you really should not be taking content from the guardian seriously - this is a great example why. Apple, in this case, is one of many companies that generally supports various lobby groups for various causes. In this article, they note that some (unspecified) groups that Apple supports oppose the current budget bill. Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. Nowhere. That's garbage reporting. The Bill is massive with literally thousands of provisions - most having NOTHING to do with climate. The title is so misleading, it's comical. Pure clickbait - and frankly, you should be more careful about posting misleading garbage like this on HN.
- pixelgeek 5y agoBogus how? Sources? > Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. That is a lot of caps. Apple gives money to group A. Group A opposes a bill that contains environmental provisions. Apple will not refute the actions of group A. Who cares if group A says their objection is for other reasons. They are still trying to sink a bill with environmental provisions while saying they are in favour of said bills. Apple can't have it both ways.
- q1w2 5y agoI dislike broccoli. Broccoli is a vegetable. Therefor I dislike squash. This is the idiotic argument the article is making. You are better than this.
- michaelt 5y agoNah, successful shareholder lawsuits are exceptionally rare, except in tiny family companies. Almost any waste of money can be justified as an attempt to support some intangible, immeasurable goal. I mean, CEOs are allowed to do spend money in ways that improve the company's image. They're allowed to perform experiments that may not bear fruit, and gambles that may not pay off. They're allowed to do things that improve employee morale and retention. CEOs can spend shareholders' money on buying other companies the CEO owns ("I thought it would be a good investment"), outfit themselves with a super-luxury office ("We need it for meetings"), even have the shareholders buy them a private jet ("I'm paid so much, the time savings are worth it") - with the right fig leaf, it's all legal.