3 ms·

Um, yes? Apple is a for-profit computer corporation. It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good, and doesn't when it doesn't. Whatever t

Um, yes? Apple is a for-profit computer corporation. It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good, and doesn't when it doesn't. Whatever their marketing might say about "we make sure that Santa only gets presents for nice little girls and boys", that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works.

latexr 1y ago
> Apple is a for-profit computer corporation. Yes yes, “tHe CeO hAs A fIduCiARy ReSpOnSiBiLiTy To ShArEHoLdErS”. We’ve all heard that bootlicker’s credo which aims to excuse any asshole from their own humanity. > It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good Funny you mention that. Tim Cook famously shouted “screw the bloody ROI” at one point. Using the ROI as an excuse is not a good argument. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... > Whatever their marketing might say (…), that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works. That is not an excuse. Just because “everybody does it”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when they do it. That criticism and actions against it do bear fruit on many occasions. The attitude of shrugging one’s shoulders is what lets the world sink further into shit.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > ... doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when ... In one sense, you're free to criticize corporate exec's 24/7, for everything from their haircuts to how they tie their shoes. With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech". But in another sense...complaining from the internet peanut gallery that the rich and powerful are running the real world according to Munger's Law ("Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome"), instead of obeying your notions of propriety...that is not particularly insightful, entertaining, or useful.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech". Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the government and we don’t live in the same country, free speech has zero relevance here. > complaining from the internet peanut gallery You might have a point if that were the extent of what I did. But it’s not, so you don’t. Even so, peanut gallery or not, I’d take speaking one’s mind about what one perceives to be wrong over simply shrugging one’s shoulders. Or worse, actively discouraging the one’s trying to do anything about it even when agreeing with the goal. We saw a lot of that over the last attempt to pass Chat Control. Several people on HN being against it but being actively lame and saying it wasn’t worth fighting it. And then the law didn’t go through (again), because the ones who actually do something decided to ignore the naysayers who did nothing but talk down everyone’s efforts. > instead of obeying your notions of propriety Not my notions, his stated notions. Tim Cook’s the one who keeps touting to live by Martin Luther King’s words of “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”. He’s the one who came out publicly to “do his part to help others”. If Tim Cook wants to be a spineless stooge kowtowing to every bully, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t pretend and hide his cowardice behind the words of someone who actually was brave enough to take a stand and face consequences.
    - bell-cot 1y ago
      (As a generality, "free speech" is a much shorter & stronger argument than "I am allowed to criticize Tim because [logic, more logic, therefore, yet more logic, QED]"-type stuff. Not that it matters much, in the current context.) Your notions of propriety seem to involve lots of truth-telling, logical consistency, and courageously adhering to consequences of previous statements. (And smack-talking folks who don't follow those notions:) Vs. 99.9% of real-world business and political leaders might freely say that they follow such lofty principals...but actually do otherwise whenever a cost/benefit optimization suggested less-lofty behavior. In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to defy a relatively Elbonian gov't, or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
      - 1y ago
oompydoompy74 1y ago
Then maybe we should make sure that giant corporations, governments, and other monopolies of power can’t exist. Unfortunately we’ve let it get too far, so tearing down these institutions is going to be painful.
- 6510 1y ago
  If a company wants to control some previously not controlled thing this control automatically transfers to everyone with control over the company. This is not a static set of people/entities with a static agenda. It's a complete chaos worse than having a single dictator in charge.

latexr 1y ago

> Apple is a for-profit computer corporation. Yes yes, “tHe CeO hAs A fIduCiARy ReSpOnSiBiLiTy To ShArEHoLdErS”. We’ve all heard that bootlicker’s credo which aims to excuse any asshole from their own humanity. > It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good Funny you mention that. Tim Cook famously shouted “screw the bloody ROI” at one point. Using the ROI as an excuse is not a good argument. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... > Whatever their marketing might say (…), that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works. That is not an excuse. Just because “everybody does it”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when they do it. That criticism and actions against it do bear fruit on many occasions. The attitude of shrugging one’s shoulders is what lets the world sink further into shit.

bell-cot 1y ago
> ... doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when ... In one sense, you're free to criticize corporate exec's 24/7, for everything from their haircuts to how they tie their shoes. With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech". But in another sense...complaining from the internet peanut gallery that the rich and powerful are running the real world according to Munger's Law ("Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome"), instead of obeying your notions of propriety...that is not particularly insightful, entertaining, or useful.
- latexr 1y ago
  > With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech". Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the government and we don’t live in the same country, free speech has zero relevance here. > complaining from the internet peanut gallery You might have a point if that were the extent of what I did. But it’s not, so you don’t. Even so, peanut gallery or not, I’d take speaking one’s mind about what one perceives to be wrong over simply shrugging one’s shoulders. Or worse, actively discouraging the one’s trying to do anything about it even when agreeing with the goal. We saw a lot of that over the last attempt to pass Chat Control. Several people on HN being against it but being actively lame and saying it wasn’t worth fighting it. And then the law didn’t go through (again), because the ones who actually do something decided to ignore the naysayers who did nothing but talk down everyone’s efforts. > instead of obeying your notions of propriety Not my notions, his stated notions. Tim Cook’s the one who keeps touting to live by Martin Luther King’s words of “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”. He’s the one who came out publicly to “do his part to help others”. If Tim Cook wants to be a spineless stooge kowtowing to every bully, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t pretend and hide his cowardice behind the words of someone who actually was brave enough to take a stand and face consequences.
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    (As a generality, "free speech" is a much shorter & stronger argument than "I am allowed to criticize Tim because [logic, more logic, therefore, yet more logic, QED]"-type stuff. Not that it matters much, in the current context.) Your notions of propriety seem to involve lots of truth-telling, logical consistency, and courageously adhering to consequences of previous statements. (And smack-talking folks who don't follow those notions:) Vs. 99.9% of real-world business and political leaders might freely say that they follow such lofty principals...but actually do otherwise whenever a cost/benefit optimization suggested less-lofty behavior. In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to defy a relatively Elbonian gov't, or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
    - 1y ago

oompydoompy74 1y ago

Then maybe we should make sure that giant corporations, governments, and other monopolies of power can’t exist. Unfortunately we’ve let it get too far, so tearing down these institutions is going to be painful.

6510 1y ago
If a company wants to control some previously not controlled thing this control automatically transfers to everyone with control over the company. This is not a static set of people/entities with a static agenda. It's a complete chaos worse than having a single dictator in charge.