5 ms·

I thought this piece was fabulous and a great insight to a man who is finally turning around the company from being completely oblivious to helping the world in

by owenwil 12y ago

I thought this piece was fabulous and a great insight to a man who is finally turning around the company from being completely oblivious to helping the world into a company that cares about the mark it leaves on the world and the actions it can choose to make with its money. Instead of sitting on its money, Cook is choosing to use some of Apple's cash stockpile for good such as by building 100% clean energy datacenters and beginning to open up to donation to charity/education as well as working to force its supply chain to be more fair on the humans it relies on. It's a great new direction for Apple; critics could say it's not enough, but it's better than the company was under Jobs in terms of philanthropy.

robg 12y ago
I thought the most interesting leak from the Apple-FDA meeting notes was the expression that Apple going into health is a "moral obligation".
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Seems egotistical as well as self-serving. "Health" is one of the few industries that will continue to provide solid revenues until the penultimate human perishes from this earth. And I'm not sure what Apple will bring to the table that noone else on earth can bring, other than Apple-branded products. But that's just like my opinion, man.
  - notduncansmith 12y ago
    Have yourself a White Russian and an upvote, sir.
    - notduncansmith 12y ago
      Mm, delicious downvotes. You guys should really watch The Big Lebowski.
  - gress 12y ago
    You could say that about any company or person working in healthcare. This is just a generic attack.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      Does the average person involved in healthcare make the same sort of claims? They may feel pride in productive work that helps people but we are continuously told that a corporation's only function is to maximize shareholder value when they're ducking out on paying taxes but adopt a moral stance when they discuss blue-sky opportunities. It's a specific attack on a specific company that has a long history of hyperbole about its position in this world. I don't swallow things that don't taste good, mang.
      - gress 12y ago
        It's a company that has changed the world repeatedly, and one that has never stated that it's only function is to maximize shareholder value. Misrepresenting it doesn't make your point.
        wavefunction 12y ago
        whatevs
  - gumby 12y ago
    Actually revenues in the "health" industry aren't necessarily solid; there's a huge survivor bias and tons of companies making cures for rare diseases and _not_raking it in. (Note: I have a drug I worked on in clinical trials so I'm not simply pulling these claims out of my backside). But what can Apple "bring to the table?" Well, to quote the variably-attributed saying, "quantity has a quality all its own." Apple can produce something compatible with an ENORMOUS installed base of active users, and can make a difference. Just getting people to exercise more would be great. By the end of the year they could have 10X the number of users fitbit does. Nobody else can do that. Note I'm not trying at all to claim they are angels: they are definitely out to make a buck. And they can make a great product or they could make a lousy one. They've done both. However I think, based on where they are right now, they will try to make something actually useful and beneficial.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      These are great points but I would point out that "solid revenues" and "not raking it in" are not necessarily incongruous or exclusionary. What's wrong with steady and consistent revenues? It's not going to turn you into Mark Zuckerberg but it will sustain a business, employ people usefully, and provide a steady financial base to take chances from.
      - robg 12y ago
        The point is that even for Apple, engaging on healthcare is risky. Yes, margins are available at volume, but it's not their standard modus operandi given the costs of regulation and reimbursement.
ksec 12y ago
I dont have data to support, but I think the idea was to build the largest solar with an huge initial investment. Something not possible for majority of other company. Since most of the Datacenter operation cost are electricity, Apple essentially gets it for free, and the unused electricity are sold back to the grid. On the conservative side I think in the long run ( 10+ years time ) the cost would have roughly the same. Or it is more likely to be a huge saving over time.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by owenwil 12y ago

robg 12y ago

I thought the most interesting leak from the Apple-FDA meeting notes was the expression that Apple going into health is a "moral obligation".

wavefunction 12y ago
Seems egotistical as well as self-serving. "Health" is one of the few industries that will continue to provide solid revenues until the penultimate human perishes from this earth. And I'm not sure what Apple will bring to the table that noone else on earth can bring, other than Apple-branded products. But that's just like my opinion, man.
- notduncansmith 12y ago
  Have yourself a White Russian and an upvote, sir.
  - notduncansmith 12y ago
    Mm, delicious downvotes. You guys should really watch The Big Lebowski.
- gress 12y ago
  You could say that about any company or person working in healthcare. This is just a generic attack.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Does the average person involved in healthcare make the same sort of claims? They may feel pride in productive work that helps people but we are continuously told that a corporation's only function is to maximize shareholder value when they're ducking out on paying taxes but adopt a moral stance when they discuss blue-sky opportunities. It's a specific attack on a specific company that has a long history of hyperbole about its position in this world. I don't swallow things that don't taste good, mang.
    - gress 12y ago
      It's a company that has changed the world repeatedly, and one that has never stated that it's only function is to maximize shareholder value. Misrepresenting it doesn't make your point.
      - wavefunction 12y ago
        whatevs
- gumby 12y ago
  Actually revenues in the "health" industry aren't necessarily solid; there's a huge survivor bias and tons of companies making cures for rare diseases and _not_raking it in. (Note: I have a drug I worked on in clinical trials so I'm not simply pulling these claims out of my backside). But what can Apple "bring to the table?" Well, to quote the variably-attributed saying, "quantity has a quality all its own." Apple can produce something compatible with an ENORMOUS installed base of active users, and can make a difference. Just getting people to exercise more would be great. By the end of the year they could have 10X the number of users fitbit does. Nobody else can do that. Note I'm not trying at all to claim they are angels: they are definitely out to make a buck. And they can make a great product or they could make a lousy one. They've done both. However I think, based on where they are right now, they will try to make something actually useful and beneficial.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    These are great points but I would point out that "solid revenues" and "not raking it in" are not necessarily incongruous or exclusionary. What's wrong with steady and consistent revenues? It's not going to turn you into Mark Zuckerberg but it will sustain a business, employ people usefully, and provide a steady financial base to take chances from.
    - robg 12y ago
      The point is that even for Apple, engaging on healthcare is risky. Yes, margins are available at volume, but it's not their standard modus operandi given the costs of regulation and reimbursement.

ksec 12y ago

I dont have data to support, but I think the idea was to build the largest solar with an huge initial investment. Something not possible for majority of other company. Since most of the Datacenter operation cost are electricity, Apple essentially gets it for free, and the unused electricity are sold back to the grid. On the conservative side I think in the long run ( 10+ years time ) the cost would have roughly the same. Or it is more likely to be a huge saving over time.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]