4 ms·

Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way towards h

Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way towards how I view them.

DalekBaldwin 13y ago
I think you've summed up the goal of this PR piece.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Yes, easiliy confirmed. This is the NYT headline. Senate Vote on Workplace Bias Against Gays a Test for G.O.P.
  - IBM 13y ago
    While it would be a safe stance for Starbucks to publicly take, it is less so for Apple which has a much more diverse customer base. It would be better for Apple's business to not take a position in these issues.
    - mistermann 13y ago
      Starbucks customer base tends to be less-bigoted than Apple's?
      - krakensden 13y ago
        I've always noticed a great deal of overlap.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Really? To which company are the bigots going to turn?
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        I hear KKK is coming out with their own Linux distro and Android fork.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    @IBM, Perhaps it is risky for Apple to take such a stance, but it is most certainly good for Tim Cook!
- pdonis 13y ago
  But if that's the goal, why does the piece end by asking the government to pass anti-discrimination laws? What does that have to do with positive PR for Cook and Apple? As someone else pointed out upthread, if Cook really believes what he's saying, the last thing he should want is for the government to force his competitors to do what's good for their business; he should be happy to let them go out of business, leaving more customers for him.
  - djur 13y ago
    Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. It surprises me how often this argument is trotted out as a matter of fact as opposed to a theoretical outcome of perfect competition.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. Maybe not (at least not immediately), but if something is "good for business", it must confer some competitive benefit. Otherwise what does "good for business" mean, exactly? And the competitive benefit is really enough to ground the question I was asking.
      - djur 13y ago
        "Good for business" is a broad term and (in this case) a political one. It's going to be more true for bigger companies than smaller ones (because bigger companies will be hiring more often for a broader set of positions) and for long-lived companies than fresh startups (because over time, your chance of either making or missing at least one really good hire increases). But if it's generally beneficial to some companies and not detrimental to others, it's "good for business".
        pdonis 13y ago
        Ok, so once again, how does any of this connect with asking the government to force businesses to do certain things?

Tim Cook's point carries over to customers as well. For me, knowing a company is taking a progressive stance on human and civil rights goes a long way towards how I view them.

DalekBaldwin 13y ago

I think you've summed up the goal of this PR piece.

001sky 13y ago
Yes, easiliy confirmed. This is the NYT headline. Senate Vote on Workplace Bias Against Gays a Test for G.O.P.
- IBM 13y ago
  While it would be a safe stance for Starbucks to publicly take, it is less so for Apple which has a much more diverse customer base. It would be better for Apple's business to not take a position in these issues.
  - mistermann 13y ago
    Starbucks customer base tends to be less-bigoted than Apple's?
    - krakensden 13y ago
      I've always noticed a great deal of overlap.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Really? To which company are the bigots going to turn?
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      I hear KKK is coming out with their own Linux distro and Android fork.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  @IBM, Perhaps it is risky for Apple to take such a stance, but it is most certainly good for Tim Cook!
pdonis 13y ago
But if that's the goal, why does the piece end by asking the government to pass anti-discrimination laws? What does that have to do with positive PR for Cook and Apple? As someone else pointed out upthread, if Cook really believes what he's saying, the last thing he should want is for the government to force his competitors to do what's good for their business; he should be happy to let them go out of business, leaving more customers for him.
- djur 13y ago
  Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. It surprises me how often this argument is trotted out as a matter of fact as opposed to a theoretical outcome of perfect competition.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    Just because something is good for business doesn't mean that not doing it will cause a company to go out of business. Maybe not (at least not immediately), but if something is "good for business", it must confer some competitive benefit. Otherwise what does "good for business" mean, exactly? And the competitive benefit is really enough to ground the question I was asking.
    - djur 13y ago
      "Good for business" is a broad term and (in this case) a political one. It's going to be more true for bigger companies than smaller ones (because bigger companies will be hiring more often for a broader set of positions) and for long-lived companies than fresh startups (because over time, your chance of either making or missing at least one really good hire increases). But if it's generally beneficial to some companies and not detrimental to others, it's "good for business".
      - pdonis 13y ago
        Ok, so once again, how does any of this connect with asking the government to force businesses to do certain things?