2 ms·

> he sold out his customers I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual. Even the visit to the WH di

by isodev 25d ago

> he sold out his customers I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual. Even the visit to the WH dinner - it is the company, Apple, via various structures committed to doing those things with various VPs and staff onboard brainstorming and supporting along the way. So "John" may bring some nuances but let's not be under the illusion that a huge corporation like Apple would suddenly bounce off to a different track.

disgruntledphd2 25d ago
> I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual. No, the responsibility lies with the culture of growth at all costs. Margins and revenues must continue to increase, whatever else happens. If you want to blame someone, blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options. That's what incentivises this kind of behaviour. As an aside, it's amusing to me that Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products.
- isodev 25d ago
  > blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options Yes, I do agree that extreme forms of capitalism are responsible for ruining practically every aspect of modern tech. > Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products Indeed. It wasn't obvious at the time, but with hindsight we can see that the push for privacy was only in areas where Apple wanted to counter Meta/competitors or gain advantage in specific verticals. It was never "user focused".
jfb 25d ago
Absolutely true. Cook is an officer of the company, and has a responsibility to the company itself; and the current incentive structure that Apple operates in dictates a drive towards rents. Change needs to be exogenous, but there is a certain amount of pushback that even a fiduciary can use, and the evidence here is, to me, damning.

by isodev 25d ago

disgruntledphd2 25d ago

> I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual. No, the responsibility lies with the culture of growth at all costs. Margins and revenues must continue to increase, whatever else happens. If you want to blame someone, blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options. That's what incentivises this kind of behaviour. As an aside, it's amusing to me that Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products.

isodev 25d ago
> blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options Yes, I do agree that extreme forms of capitalism are responsible for ruining practically every aspect of modern tech. > Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products Indeed. It wasn't obvious at the time, but with hindsight we can see that the push for privacy was only in areas where Apple wanted to counter Meta/competitors or gain advantage in specific verticals. It was never "user focused".

jfb 25d ago

Absolutely true. Cook is an officer of the company, and has a responsibility to the company itself; and the current incentive structure that Apple operates in dictates a drive towards rents. Change needs to be exogenous, but there is a certain amount of pushback that even a fiduciary can use, and the evidence here is, to me, damning.