5 ms·

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 po

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 1y ago
Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.
- tombert 1y ago
  Wait, is that true? What law is that?
  - TehCorwiz 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    It's not directly or criminally illegal. It's civilly illegal in the sense that Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders in their business decision making. In practice, there are quite broad interpretations of what might be considered "good for your shareholders", but someone's personal interests generally wouldn't qualify as that. If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it. Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
    - tombert 1y ago
      How often is this actually enforced? Elon has been doing a lot of idiotic political stuff that has tanked Tesla's price in the last few weeks. Could someone sue him for that?
      - kube-system 1y ago
        It is routine practice for shareholders to sue when their leadership makes questionable decisions. Usually if you search "shareholder lawsuit [stupid thing company leadership did]" you will find results more often than not. In this case, it's already happening: https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-breach-fiduciary-duties/ https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-...
  - mikestew 1y ago
    It's most certainly not true. It's the ol' "fiduciary duty" canard. Because it's cheaper to make a product by shoving infants into a meat grinder, the company has no choice but to go buy a meat grinder and start stealing babies because they have a "fiduciary duty to shareholders". Shareholders can sue, yes, but in the U. S. you can sue anyone for anything, and "suing" is not the same as "winning".
    - kube-system 1y ago
      I was careful in how I worded my statement. Clearly, "shoving infants into a meat grinder" is to the detriment of shareholders, because shareholders will lose money if the company does that. It is also entirely true that you cannot just do whatever you personally want with shareholder money. The truth here is in the middle. Apple (well, Cook) certainly did not have to donate to him. But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
      - pseudalopex 1y ago
        > But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier. This is true. But it has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
- yencabulator 1y ago
  USA, land of the free, where bribery is legally required now?
  - kube-system 1y ago
    That is neither what I said nor is it what I'm suggesting. I am saying that their practical ability to "oppose the admin" is limited.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > now Now ?

kube-system 1y ago

Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.

tombert 1y ago
Wait, is that true? What law is that?
- TehCorwiz 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
- kube-system 1y ago
  It's not directly or criminally illegal. It's civilly illegal in the sense that Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders in their business decision making. In practice, there are quite broad interpretations of what might be considered "good for your shareholders", but someone's personal interests generally wouldn't qualify as that. If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it. Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
  - tombert 1y ago
    How often is this actually enforced? Elon has been doing a lot of idiotic political stuff that has tanked Tesla's price in the last few weeks. Could someone sue him for that?
    - kube-system 1y ago
      It is routine practice for shareholders to sue when their leadership makes questionable decisions. Usually if you search "shareholder lawsuit [stupid thing company leadership did]" you will find results more often than not. In this case, it's already happening: https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-breach-fiduciary-duties/ https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-...
- mikestew 1y ago
  It's most certainly not true. It's the ol' "fiduciary duty" canard. Because it's cheaper to make a product by shoving infants into a meat grinder, the company has no choice but to go buy a meat grinder and start stealing babies because they have a "fiduciary duty to shareholders". Shareholders can sue, yes, but in the U. S. you can sue anyone for anything, and "suing" is not the same as "winning".
  - kube-system 1y ago
    I was careful in how I worded my statement. Clearly, "shoving infants into a meat grinder" is to the detriment of shareholders, because shareholders will lose money if the company does that. It is also entirely true that you cannot just do whatever you personally want with shareholder money. The truth here is in the middle. Apple (well, Cook) certainly did not have to donate to him. But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
    - pseudalopex 1y ago
      > But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier. This is true. But it has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
yencabulator 1y ago
USA, land of the free, where bribery is legally required now?
- kube-system 1y ago
  That is neither what I said nor is it what I'm suggesting. I am saying that their practical ability to "oppose the admin" is limited.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > now Now ?