3 ms·

I'm sure the people you worked with still care about privacy, but these decisions get made at the top regardless of what rank-and-file employees think. Apple em

I'm sure the people you worked with still care about privacy, but these decisions get made at the top regardless of what rank-and-file employees think. Apple employees donated nearly 20:1 for Harris over Trump, so we can safely assume they weren't supportive of Tim Cook presenting him with gaudy personal gifts or allowing Stephen Miller to curate the App Store. I suspect Cook personally loathes Trump, in contrast to other CEOs like Zuck, and now Benioff, who are clearly all in. He may even sincerely care about privacy himself, however he's shown zero backbone.

Aurornis 1y ago
> Apple employees donated nearly 20:1 for Harris over Trump, so we can safely assume they weren't supportive of Tim Cook presenting him with gaudy personal gifts Every company works with whoever gets elected. This isn’t new. It isn’t indicative of political support. It’s just how business is done.
- benzible 1y ago
  This isn't 'business as usual' on multiple levels. First, I never claimed Cook "supports" Trump - as I said, I suspect he personally loathes him. The point is that corporations are making unprecedented concessions to avoid Trump's wrath. Second, companies push back on government constantly when it serves their interests. Apple previously fought the FBI over privacy, but more typically companies push back or evade the law for financial benefit, not principles. When penalties are low enough they accept them as the cost of doing business, e.g. Meta's consistent, willful FTC consent decree violations. Third, openly bribing a sitting president with a 24-karat gold gift is not normal corporate behavior. The Trump administration has used state power to control private enterprise in a completely unprecedented way: tariff threats as extortion, DOJ investigations targeting companies over DEI programs, prosecution of high-profile figures who resist - mostly political enemies so far but Zuckerberg faced threats of "life in prison" before he showed sufficient fealty. I'm waiting for the whataboutism replies here, and executive overreach was a thing in the past, but Trump has fundamentally changed the character of the US system of government. The enabling environment is unprecedented: a Congress with zero interest in oversight and a Supreme Court granting immunity for official acts. When you combine unlimited executive power with no checks, corporate capitulation isn't "just business" - it's rational fear of an authoritarian using every lever of government to punish dissent.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  That makes it that much easier to stop supporting them, in my eyes. Tim has the option to draw the line in the sand, but he's reliant on protectionist US control more than ever now.
- Lord-Jobo 1y ago
  The idea that a corporation, a private entity, can flex so much influence over our government is a direct threat to the entire model of government that has lead to America's greatest successes. There is a triangular structure, where government, corporations, and labor all keep each other in check. The balance between these three represents the golden age of America in many metrics, although attributing that age to JUST this balance is silly. Happiness, income inequality, trust in institutions, etc. all of it follows this trend. Even life expectancy is dropping! Literacy rates are declining! Why? A huge part is that this balance is completely shattered. Labor has almost no influence, with corporations consuming 80% of it. Now we are rubbing up against a true fueudal Corporatocracy and the tip of the spear is not shy about that (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel) >"It’s just how business is done" I will not just roll over and accept this. It's worse than it ever has been, and the last time it got bad we had a severe economic collapse that led to starvation in the streets. How will it go next time, with the core problem being 100x larger and globally networked? Maybe we should address the problem before catastrophe?
  - rangestransform 1y ago
    Without commenting on the other implications, I like that Apple can successfully push back against the surveillance state, because the citizenry certainly aren’t going to do it. “Think of the children” works on too much of the citizenry for them to maintain a principled stance on surveillance.
vlovich123 1y ago
I have literally 0 times in my career observed a change like this come from the top. Maybe it happens but somehow I doubt it. A non trivial part of the market cap of Apple is built around trust, privacy, and security. You may think whatever you want of the quality of the people at any level, but I’d imagine they’re all aligned on protecting the brand be their financial future. They aren’t driven by short term bets and thinking.
- benzible 1y ago
  I'm sure that's true, but your personal experience as [presumably] rank-and-file wouldn't have given you visibility into C-suite machinations. The ruling in the App Store case this year documented that Cook personally overruled Schiller's compliance recommendations, made the decision to violate the judge's court order on fees, and then tried to hide those meetings from the court - resulting in contempt findings and a criminal referral. Those are top-down decisions, on the record, with executives lying about it, which wouldn't have been known outside the inner sanctum but for this case. Not at all consistent with "trust", in a matter that directly harms consumers. Regarding the basis of Apple's market cap, I would suggest that profitability ranks a bit higher than privacy. Apple's potential tariff burden was $44 billion annually, reduced to $7 billion after Cook plied the mad king with flattery, gold and cash. Apple had lost $300 billion in market value before Trump exempted smartphones, then immediately regained its $3 trillion market cap. Privacy is nice brand positioning, but the truth behind it was always that Apple wasn't beholden to "surveillance capitalism" like the other tech behemoths as hardware was their primary profit center. This allowed them to take the high ground on this one, while coincidentally kneecapping Meta and others with App Tracking Transparency - which cost Meta an estimated $10 billion in 2022 alone and hit Google as well. But ATT only blocks third-party tracking across apps and websites - it doesn't apply to Apple's own growing advertising business, which uses first-party data from the App Store, Apple News, etc. Apple claims they don't "track users across apps and websites owned by other companies" - but they absolutely track within their own walled garden for their expanding ad business. And the iOS 26 removal of Pegasus/Predator detection artifacts right as ICE activates Paragon spyware contracts? Maybe a coincidental bug, maybe what happens when keeping Trump happy is worth tens of billions.

Aurornis 1y ago

> Apple employees donated nearly 20:1 for Harris over Trump, so we can safely assume they weren't supportive of Tim Cook presenting him with gaudy personal gifts Every company works with whoever gets elected. This isn’t new. It isn’t indicative of political support. It’s just how business is done.

benzible 1y ago
This isn't 'business as usual' on multiple levels. First, I never claimed Cook "supports" Trump - as I said, I suspect he personally loathes him. The point is that corporations are making unprecedented concessions to avoid Trump's wrath. Second, companies push back on government constantly when it serves their interests. Apple previously fought the FBI over privacy, but more typically companies push back or evade the law for financial benefit, not principles. When penalties are low enough they accept them as the cost of doing business, e.g. Meta's consistent, willful FTC consent decree violations. Third, openly bribing a sitting president with a 24-karat gold gift is not normal corporate behavior. The Trump administration has used state power to control private enterprise in a completely unprecedented way: tariff threats as extortion, DOJ investigations targeting companies over DEI programs, prosecution of high-profile figures who resist - mostly political enemies so far but Zuckerberg faced threats of "life in prison" before he showed sufficient fealty. I'm waiting for the whataboutism replies here, and executive overreach was a thing in the past, but Trump has fundamentally changed the character of the US system of government. The enabling environment is unprecedented: a Congress with zero interest in oversight and a Supreme Court granting immunity for official acts. When you combine unlimited executive power with no checks, corporate capitulation isn't "just business" - it's rational fear of an authoritarian using every lever of government to punish dissent.
bigyabai 1y ago
That makes it that much easier to stop supporting them, in my eyes. Tim has the option to draw the line in the sand, but he's reliant on protectionist US control more than ever now.
Lord-Jobo 1y ago
The idea that a corporation, a private entity, can flex so much influence over our government is a direct threat to the entire model of government that has lead to America's greatest successes. There is a triangular structure, where government, corporations, and labor all keep each other in check. The balance between these three represents the golden age of America in many metrics, although attributing that age to JUST this balance is silly. Happiness, income inequality, trust in institutions, etc. all of it follows this trend. Even life expectancy is dropping! Literacy rates are declining! Why? A huge part is that this balance is completely shattered. Labor has almost no influence, with corporations consuming 80% of it. Now we are rubbing up against a true fueudal Corporatocracy and the tip of the spear is not shy about that (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel) >"It’s just how business is done" I will not just roll over and accept this. It's worse than it ever has been, and the last time it got bad we had a severe economic collapse that led to starvation in the streets. How will it go next time, with the core problem being 100x larger and globally networked? Maybe we should address the problem before catastrophe?
- rangestransform 1y ago
  Without commenting on the other implications, I like that Apple can successfully push back against the surveillance state, because the citizenry certainly aren’t going to do it. “Think of the children” works on too much of the citizenry for them to maintain a principled stance on surveillance.

vlovich123 1y ago

I have literally 0 times in my career observed a change like this come from the top. Maybe it happens but somehow I doubt it. A non trivial part of the market cap of Apple is built around trust, privacy, and security. You may think whatever you want of the quality of the people at any level, but I’d imagine they’re all aligned on protecting the brand be their financial future. They aren’t driven by short term bets and thinking.

benzible 1y ago
I'm sure that's true, but your personal experience as [presumably] rank-and-file wouldn't have given you visibility into C-suite machinations. The ruling in the App Store case this year documented that Cook personally overruled Schiller's compliance recommendations, made the decision to violate the judge's court order on fees, and then tried to hide those meetings from the court - resulting in contempt findings and a criminal referral. Those are top-down decisions, on the record, with executives lying about it, which wouldn't have been known outside the inner sanctum but for this case. Not at all consistent with "trust", in a matter that directly harms consumers. Regarding the basis of Apple's market cap, I would suggest that profitability ranks a bit higher than privacy. Apple's potential tariff burden was $44 billion annually, reduced to $7 billion after Cook plied the mad king with flattery, gold and cash. Apple had lost $300 billion in market value before Trump exempted smartphones, then immediately regained its $3 trillion market cap. Privacy is nice brand positioning, but the truth behind it was always that Apple wasn't beholden to "surveillance capitalism" like the other tech behemoths as hardware was their primary profit center. This allowed them to take the high ground on this one, while coincidentally kneecapping Meta and others with App Tracking Transparency - which cost Meta an estimated $10 billion in 2022 alone and hit Google as well. But ATT only blocks third-party tracking across apps and websites - it doesn't apply to Apple's own growing advertising business, which uses first-party data from the App Store, Apple News, etc. Apple claims they don't "track users across apps and websites owned by other companies" - but they absolutely track within their own walled garden for their expanding ad business. And the iOS 26 removal of Pegasus/Predator detection artifacts right as ICE activates Paragon spyware contracts? Maybe a coincidental bug, maybe what happens when keeping Trump happy is worth tens of billions.