4 ms·

Apple CEO Tim Cook made a personal $1 million "donation" to the Trump inauguration in January 2025: > Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration i

by rchaud 2y ago

Apple CEO Tim Cook made a personal $1 million "donation" to the Trump inauguration in January 2025: > Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-million-trump-inauguration https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-mil...

jedberg 2y ago
He was in a tough spot. I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin, but also he knows Apple needs tariff relief, and paying a “donation” to Trump is a good way to do that. He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)
- gosub100 2y ago
  Now extend that logic to everyone else, make everyone else a hero.
- fumar 2y ago
  So for the greater good support the current administration with donations? Is that right?
  - righthand 2y ago
    For the greater good of Apple, not the people. Donating to authoritarians doesn’t benefit customers it benefits Apple.
- pornel 2y ago
  It's incredible that paying fealty to the president is talked about so casually, and framed as just a normal and necessary thing to do. This is something that should be expected in an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    I agree completely, and I think it's disgusting and despicable. But honestly this sort of thing has been happening for many, many decades, maybe even centuries, it's just been done a lot more discreetly in the past. The big difference now is that it's so blatant. While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.
- toyg 2y ago
  > Apple needs tariff relief Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid. > I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin Why, are you a personal friend of his? The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  That poor, poor powerless company. Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.
    - tombert 2y ago
      Wait, is that true? What law is that?
      - TehCorwiz 2y ago
        Result of the Dodge v Ford Supreme Court decision: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        > Under some interpretations, the case also affirmed that the business judgment rule that directors may exercise is expansive, leaving Ford and other businesses a wide latitude about how to run the company, if management decisions can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
        TehCorwiz 2y ago
        Yes, and the Wiki article goes into detail with some more quotes about the difference between the judicial understanding and the common understanding being different. The ruling didn't invent the idea of shareholder value maximization, but it did reinforce that there are legal limits to acting against it. They acknowledged as a practical matter policing it is probably unlikely to expect except in egregious cases for the reason you cited among others. But fundamentally, shareholder maximization is the goal stated by both common business sense and legal rulings. I personally believe that long-term optimization rather than short term is a more successful strategy. But in the short term the board could remove him for going against the feds. Shareholders could sue if it caused a drop in value or impacted global operations. Caused by I don't know, tariffs that could have been avoided with a corrupt monetary contribution. I'd love to actually see a CEO refuse to grease the palm and them get sued for not doing something corrupt. Would be a case to follow. The point is, as I understand it, that CEOs of publicly traded corps are not afforded the freedom required to make an ideological stand and keep their job.
- roboror 2y ago
  Calling morals vs money a tough spot is pretty weak, especially considering it didn't work.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  “Yeah, sucks, but what are you supposed to do? Have to pay the president so he doesn’t use the government to harm my business out of retribution” No. Reject this.
- sneak 2y ago
  He literally did support the admin; to claim he doesn’t really is disingenuous. He gave the current admin a million dollars. If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you? It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.
- Muromec 2y ago
  It's called a bribe
- tombert 2y ago
  That, or these CEOs have no real opinions or principles of their own and simply do what they think will be advantageous for them and their company, and literally no other thought goes into this. I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it. Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
CalChris 2y ago
Did Cook, in the spirit of unity, make a similar donation in 2020?
- rchaud 2y ago
  Of course not, that would be "political".
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Presumably not, because that administration wasn't corrupt and wasn't demanding those kinds of things.
  - lenkite 2y ago
    Did you also call Obama's inaugural funding as corruption, when he was donated $53 million in 2009 and ~$43 in 2013 ? Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ? Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family. Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
    - dragon-hn 2y ago
      > Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ? I believe you missed another option. The President-elect has been convicted for fraud, is a big believer in quid pro quo, and did similar actions in his first term. Sometimes it really is about corruption.
      - lenkite 2y ago
        Changing the goal posts away from the inaugural funding, I see - because its fine for your side of the aisle - you have no standing there. It is now suddenly back to that horrific judgement by a partisan and corrupt judge whose daughter (Loren Merchan) was a highly-paid (multi-million) political consultant campaigning for Kamala Harris and where a misdemeanor was raised to a felony, then the felony was applied outside the standard five-year statute of limitations for felonies, the prosecution never proved which exact "unlawful means" (campaign finance, tax fraud, etc) Trump intended and where the jury was from Manhattan - which voted ~90% democrat and would have voted guilty for a non-democratic fart. Sometimes it really is about extreme corruption.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Should we etch swastikas in all iPhones? Not sure how close we are to corporations working under government direction here (part of literal fascism iirc)
codyb 2y ago
Was super disappointing to see him up there at the inauguration. E-mailed tim.cook@apple.com and told him as much. Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently. Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.
- rchaud 2y ago
  May as well have emailed no-reply@buy-more-iphones.apple.com
  - swiftcoder 2y ago
    He certainly doesn't read your emails, but they do get rolled up in a sentiment analysis most places
    - rchaud 2y ago
      Well that would be something. Assuming it's not being delivered via Apple Intelligence summaries.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Some do, sometimes. Steve Jobs used to read and respond to many emails.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dimal 2y ago
Amazon and Meta did too. Then Bezos changed the Washington Post editorial page policy that they could only write about personal liberties and free markets (subtext: not Trump). I wonder what Meta got in return. It seems like this relatively cheap $1M payoff was a subtle “kiss the ring” of the emperor. Good business. Shareholders would approve.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > I wonder what Meta got in return. Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4] [1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-capitol-riot-9939e52679364080c983e0cab739b805 https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies-trump-avoid-antitrust-trial-wsj-reports-2025-04-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies... [3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mark-zuckerberg-trump-eu-meta-b2725325.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit... [4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_bill_repeal.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...

by rchaud 2y ago

jedberg 2y ago

He was in a tough spot. I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin, but also he knows Apple needs tariff relief, and paying a “donation” to Trump is a good way to do that. He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)

gosub100 2y ago
Now extend that logic to everyone else, make everyone else a hero.
fumar 2y ago
So for the greater good support the current administration with donations? Is that right?
- righthand 2y ago
  For the greater good of Apple, not the people. Donating to authoritarians doesn’t benefit customers it benefits Apple.
pornel 2y ago
It's incredible that paying fealty to the president is talked about so casually, and framed as just a normal and necessary thing to do. This is something that should be expected in an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.
- freedomben 2y ago
  I agree completely, and I think it's disgusting and despicable. But honestly this sort of thing has been happening for many, many decades, maybe even centuries, it's just been done a lot more discreetly in the past. The big difference now is that it's so blatant. While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.
toyg 2y ago
> Apple needs tariff relief Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid. > I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin Why, are you a personal friend of his? The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.
probably_wrong 2y ago
That poor, poor powerless company. Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...
- kube-system 2y ago
  Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Wait, is that true? What law is that?
    - TehCorwiz 2y ago
      Result of the Dodge v Ford Supreme Court decision: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
      - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        > Under some interpretations, the case also affirmed that the business judgment rule that directors may exercise is expansive, leaving Ford and other businesses a wide latitude about how to run the company, if management decisions can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
        TehCorwiz 2y ago
        Yes, and the Wiki article goes into detail with some more quotes about the difference between the judicial understanding and the common understanding being different. The ruling didn't invent the idea of shareholder value maximization, but it did reinforce that there are legal limits to acting against it. They acknowledged as a practical matter policing it is probably unlikely to expect except in egregious cases for the reason you cited among others. But fundamentally, shareholder maximization is the goal stated by both common business sense and legal rulings. I personally believe that long-term optimization rather than short term is a more successful strategy. But in the short term the board could remove him for going against the feds. Shareholders could sue if it caused a drop in value or impacted global operations. Caused by I don't know, tariffs that could have been avoided with a corrupt monetary contribution. I'd love to actually see a CEO refuse to grease the palm and them get sued for not doing something corrupt. Would be a case to follow. The point is, as I understand it, that CEOs of publicly traded corps are not afforded the freedom required to make an ideological stand and keep their job.
roboror 2y ago
Calling morals vs money a tough spot is pretty weak, especially considering it didn't work.
Vegenoid 2y ago
“Yeah, sucks, but what are you supposed to do? Have to pay the president so he doesn’t use the government to harm my business out of retribution” No. Reject this.
sneak 2y ago
He literally did support the admin; to claim he doesn’t really is disingenuous. He gave the current admin a million dollars. If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you? It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.
Muromec 2y ago
It's called a bribe
tombert 2y ago
That, or these CEOs have no real opinions or principles of their own and simply do what they think will be advantageous for them and their company, and literally no other thought goes into this. I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it. Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

CalChris 2y ago

Did Cook, in the spirit of unity, make a similar donation in 2020?

rchaud 2y ago
Of course not, that would be "political".
crazygringo 2y ago
Presumably not, because that administration wasn't corrupt and wasn't demanding those kinds of things.
- lenkite 2y ago
  Did you also call Obama's inaugural funding as corruption, when he was donated $53 million in 2009 and ~$43 in 2013 ? Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ? Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family. Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
  - dragon-hn 2y ago
    > Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ? I believe you missed another option. The President-elect has been convicted for fraud, is a big believer in quid pro quo, and did similar actions in his first term. Sometimes it really is about corruption.
    - lenkite 2y ago
      Changing the goal posts away from the inaugural funding, I see - because its fine for your side of the aisle - you have no standing there. It is now suddenly back to that horrific judgement by a partisan and corrupt judge whose daughter (Loren Merchan) was a highly-paid (multi-million) political consultant campaigning for Kamala Harris and where a misdemeanor was raised to a felony, then the felony was applied outside the standard five-year statute of limitations for felonies, the prosecution never proved which exact "unlawful means" (campaign finance, tax fraud, etc) Trump intended and where the jury was from Manhattan - which voted ~90% democrat and would have voted guilty for a non-democratic fart. Sometimes it really is about extreme corruption.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Should we etch swastikas in all iPhones? Not sure how close we are to corporations working under government direction here (part of literal fascism iirc)

codyb 2y ago

Was super disappointing to see him up there at the inauguration. E-mailed tim.cook@apple.com and told him as much. Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently. Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.

rchaud 2y ago
May as well have emailed no-reply@buy-more-iphones.apple.com
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  He certainly doesn't read your emails, but they do get rolled up in a sentiment analysis most places
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Well that would be something. Assuming it's not being delivered via Apple Intelligence summaries.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Some do, sometimes. Steve Jobs used to read and respond to many emails.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dimal 2y ago

Amazon and Meta did too. Then Bezos changed the Washington Post editorial page policy that they could only write about personal liberties and free markets (subtext: not Trump). I wonder what Meta got in return. It seems like this relatively cheap $1M payoff was a subtle “kiss the ring” of the emperor. Good business. Shareholders would approve.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> I wonder what Meta got in return. Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4] [1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-capitol-riot-9939e52679364080c983e0cab739b805 https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies-trump-avoid-antitrust-trial-wsj-reports-2025-04-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies... [3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mark-zuckerberg-trump-eu-meta-b2725325.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit... [4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_bill_repeal.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...