If he doesn't subscribe to limiting technology, then why limit his nephew's access to it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42774368
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Discusses Overusing Technology in New Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42774368
Dealing with addiction-based sales tactics and other shortcomings with the argument "others do it too", is how kids react on being caught stealing and some adults driving through red light "because others do that too". Go after them on their websites instead of glossing over or gullibly following detestable behavior at MR.
Last edited:
Sorry this one is on the entire tech industry. Leading the way is Facebook. Every phone and computer manufacturer is part of this. Apple’s part of this is squarely on Steve for corporate hypocrisy. Tim is addressing this or at least discussing it. Pinning the corporate hypocrisy moniker JUST on Apple is halarious, when the entire industry is contributing. And you analogies are getting pretty funny, but not germane to the topic.
But ya interesting there are those who give Cook little or no credit while at the same time blaming him for the ills of Apple that he inherited.
Last edited:
Your discussion technique seems rather opportunistic:
"Sorry this one is about the entire tech industry" => when it suits you, you generalize
"I just want to check what thread this is. Is it "the Steve Jobs turnover thread"? " => when it suits you better, you particularize
You pretend that mobile phone addiction (as well as some other unwanted side-effects) are things that were placed upon Apple/Cook - making them a more a subject to the matter than a causing actor.
That's wrong, because they're earning more from the AppStore games and apps than the entire film industry, and actively propell the whole phenomenon as part of their sales strategies.
For which they facilitate/use FaceBook, Twitter, SnapChat.
All their talk is just fluff until they really take action (which they could have done if it wouldn't cost them business)
And nobody forced Cook to succeed Jobs - he inherited that because he wanted it - including liabilities.
It remains to be seen what will happen. Until today, he only facilitated/fostered addiction and deserves no credit in this respect.
I expect a "usage management app" = > that works as a stoplap for complainers. That's his kind of tenure.
Last edited:
Unfortunately deflections still abound.
1. Phone addiction existed before cook.
2. Imo, the biggest addictive site is Facebook, platform independent.
3. Tim Cook acknowledged the issue and therefore automatic “corporate hypocrisy “ given he inherited this from Jobs.
4. Using words such as “opportunistic “ or “pretend” does not reduce that your post is still deflections.
5. That game writers, write such addictive cross-platform Games such as candy crush is not an Apple responsibility.
6. The amount of cash earned from the App Store is just another deflection.
7. That you don’t give Cook credit and yet blame him for jobs mistakes is conformational bias.
The real deflection (and common PR practice) is in dodging away from the consequences:
1. Phone addiction existed before cook
It was up to him to deny for the job, or either accept it and create restrictions on use, number of Appstore transactions, limit FaceBook/Twitter and alike. But he didn't, as he used it for maximum sales/profit, using fasion/addictive habituation and other mechanisms to the max in his race to become the largest platform in the world.
2. Imo, the biggest addictive site is Facebook, platform independent
Well, the Appstore is the biggest entertainment industry now. Which Cook both can/could have restricted/abandoned/temporised/warned for - which he didn't. Apple tried various social networks/places itself. Big companies that accelerate Apple business generally are facilitated and prioritised as key partners - even if they offend rules like Uber and get warned, while others get abandoned from the Appstore.
3. Tim Cook acknowledged the issue and therefore automatic “corporate hypocrisy “ given he inherited this from Jobs
Only after being confrontedby shareholders, when he was forced to acknowledge. Acknowledgment seems to have become a virtue by itself - generally using terms like "unintentional" to comfort the public.
4. Using words such as “opportunistic “ or “pretend” does not reduce that your post is still deflections.
Common words, that become an obstacle for you when revealing business tactics commonly considered non-ethical.
5. That game writers, write such addictive cross-platform Games such as candy crush is not an Apple responsibility.
They started it, largely profit from it and games were essential in accelerating their business. By now they are the biggest entertainment industry in the world for Apple alone.
Apple is in it until its neck (until the moment they decide to go into lumber or something..)
6. The amount of cash earned from the App Store is just another deflection.
Like everything that doesn't suit you because you're in denial. Realizing that this is the biggest entertainment industry in the world, it is key for the future of a new generation.
Calling that a deflection only says something about your dodging behavior
7. That you don’t give Cook credit and yet blame him for jobs mistakes is conformational bias.
I give Cook credit for creating the biggest company in the world.
For me, he shouldn't have done that because as a customer I was better off with the smaller Apple.
But I also have to hold him liable for side-effects and business tactics used (yes, also in other sectors but I leave that to other blogs) that he knew, he didn't reveal, and (mis-)used in my opinion, as it served only his company's but not the customers' purpose.
Job's objective was to make the best products in the world, Cook's objective is to make the most money out of it. Indeed I have more sympathy for the former. Job's business model was less about economic exploitation with all the consequences, which preserved innovation and quality.
I am hardly impressed by PR narrowing perspectives, anyway.
Actually I despise half-truths. Have a good day.
Last edited:
1. Cook did not have to turn down a job because he inherited a big problem from Jobs. Nor does he have to implement restrictions because there was acknowledgement of a problem.
2. Saying the app store is the biggest entertainment industry is a deflection from the true problem of Facebook platform independent.
3. Confronted by shareholders, not quite. Was Zuckerberg confronted by shareholders for:
a. making the most addictive social platform in the world, or
b. removing the word privacy from the dicationary?
4. Verbally dismissing my points, doesn't make your conformational bias go away.
5. "They" didn't start anything. "They" offered a (more or less) secure platform for distribution of one's creative apps. Yes Apple profits from it (my portfolio is happy), as facebook profits from advertising. Can't ding apple for having a business model. Oh wait, some can.
6. Another deflection.
7. Yea! You gave Cook credit.
Whatever you believe of the respective CEOs mission, Cook is doing the job he thinks he should be doing. I'll give Cook a lot of leeway, because it's tough make up for the inherited ill's of Apple, of which this is one. Texting while behind the is another. Of course it was Cook who started using Foxconn to assemble iphones, right?
I'm with you on half truths. Have a great day.
1. Cook did not have to turn down a job because he inherited a big problem from Jobs. Nor does he have to implement restrictions because there was acknowledgement of a problem.
2. Saying the app store is the biggest entertainment industry is a deflection from the true problem of Facebook platform independent.
3. Confronted by shareholders, not quite. Was Zuckerberg confronted by shareholders for:
a. making the most addictive social platform in the world, or
b. removing the word privacy from the dicationary?
4. Verbally dismissing my points, doesn't make your conformational bias go away.
5. "They" didn't start anything. "They" offered a (more or less) secure platform for distribution of one's creative apps. Yes Apple profits from it (my portfolio is happy), as facebook profits from advertising. Can't ding apple for having a business model. Oh wait, some can.
6. Another deflection.
7. Yea! You gave Cook credit.
Whatever you believe of the respective CEOs mission, Cook is doing the job he thinks he should be doing. I'll give Cook a lot of leeway, because it's tough make up for the inherited ill's of Apple, of which this is one. Texting while behind the is another. Of course it was Cook who started using Foxconn to assemble iphones, right?
I'm with you on half truths. Have a great day.
Facebook's dependability implies that Apple could limit FaceBook - and not the other way.
If I could accomodate your intrinsic Cook-compassion and blame towards Facebook (before SnapChat, Twitter,...) by substituting them by Mr. CEO and The external Social Platform I would - but that does't solve anything - and is typically the name avoidance that their PR does - so why bother...
You want to attempt to blame Cook for tech addition, a trend started by Jobs. This is not an apple problem. The rhetoric is a prime example of blame shifting. You haven't offered a clear definition of the problem at hand what solution that Apple, single-handedly, should solve and for who.
Because Tim Cook has stated he doesn't believe that tech should be overused, doesn't mean that someone else should ascribe to that philosophy. (As evidenced by people who post their minute by minute travails on Facebook.)
You still miss my point.
Tech addiction indeed is a general problem (probably one of the largest social problems worldwide soon)
Many companies have institutionalized it, profit from it, use it and have become dependent on it.
Jobs indeed (merely) invented that model, but he had product innovation/quality priorities over maximizing volume. So he didn't exploit it to become market leader - as currently Cook does.
People then used their idevices next to other hobbies => while now they use it instead.
Currently Apple is say 50 times larger and has become addicted by itself to that addiction model because it chose to make itself dependent on the single product category that instigated it.
Its CEO (next to all the credits he receives) is responsible for that.
Now if Cook stated that tech shouldn't be overused, he has to change these basics: Apple's financial dependency on iDevice products and its business strategy, ecosystem and tactics.
Meaning he must reinvent the largest company on the planet. Not being the greatest inventor/innovator/reformer, that will become a dauntin, if not impossible, task for him.
Until the moment he has accomplished that, his words remain empty phrases and if he doesn't even try, they are just hypocrisy.
Now indeed, other companies also have to take their share of responsibility, but have less volume and impact. Other than Apple, they're not market leaders, have less advanced ecosystems, sell less apps, and their contribution to habituation/addiction can be expected to be (comparatively) less.
Oh, and FaceBook can indeed be blamed for this - plus a myriad of different things.
But that does not exculpate Apple and doesn't benefit Cook, you or me.
Best idea is to post your suggestions on FaceBook, instead of just pointing at them, which is pretty cheap. Another advantage is you won't find me there
Last edited:
I don't agree with any of premises. Read on, I want to break this down.
This has nothing to do the big social problem you just mentioned. As an aside, Tim was smart enough to know how to grow Apple as well as apply product/innovation to the line.
Do you have some verifiable information to prove this opinion. I'll speak for me, this is a false statement.
You mean similar to what was happening to apple in 2011 when Jobs passed away? Jobs created this and Tim inherited a wildly successful company and smartly grew it.
Cook doesn't have to change anything. This has nothing to do with the basic issue of tech addition.
Has nothing to do with the premise and more to do with "TC bashing".
This is just another “internet opinion”. Cook can lead the company the way he wants to. Those who don’t like the way Apple is being run are eclipsed by those who do and buy the products. This is evidenced by the revenue and valuation.
What companies are those? Let's discuss.
I don't use facebook, I thought you might have. I would definitely friend you.Other than Apple, they're not market leaders, have less advanced ecosystems, sell less apps, and their contribution to habituation/addiction can be expected to be (comparatively) less.
Oh, and FaceBook can indeed be blamed for this - plus a myriad of different things.
But that does not exculpate Apple and doesn't benefit Cook, you or me.
Best idea is to post your suggestions on FaceBook, instead of just pointing at them, which is pretty cheap. Another advantage is you won't find me there
But yes, it does excuse Apple, Samsung, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, Tmobile, Microsoft, ICANN, and every other regulatory agency and company in the world, except Facebook.
This begins at home and parents however, are not excused. So stop blaming apple for what parents (and adults) should and should not be doing.
Last edited:
Ahhh...so parents & FaceBook exclusively are the cause.
From that perspective, parents also are the causers of every form of unjustice, conflict and war (coincidentally disengaging the non-parenting T. Cook, who can do no wrong...)
Which is not "just an internet opinion" but a mere complete vision that I advise you to implement as a Minister of Education in the National Government.
Last edited:
You mean to say Apple, after Tim Cook became ceo, single-handedly is the root cause of the entire issue and Apple should be blamed for not curing cancer, stopping wars etc.
Some ad-Homs always liven things up.
I spent ample time to explain the concatenation of liabilities. Apple, sadly or not, is an integral part of it.You mean to say Apple, after Tim Cook became ceo, single-handedly is the root cause of the entire issue and Apple should be blamed for not curing cancer, stopping wars etc.
Yes, you spent Ample time...I’ll give you that. However I don’t agree with your thought process/opinions/conclusions and therefore your entire premise. And I also believe you give Steve jobs too much credit and no liability for this issue while Tim Cook gets very little credit and all the liability. No, Steve doesn’t deserve as much credit and more of the liability and Tim deserves more credit and less of the liability.
I'd imagine the parents would be happy to have the CEO of the biggest tech company in the universe decide what's good for their kids when it comes to tech.
Cook has done far and far better than any previous Steve successors (Amelio, Spindler, Sculley,....) and financially far better than Steve (or anyone on the planet...) but now he gets confronted with a few big (global) challenges.
Fair to say, he acknowledged this one (other than you) but I don't see him solving it.
Last edited:
Cook will not “solve” this issue because it is not apple’s issue to solve(similar to texting behind the wheel). I do not believe he has to solve it, only educate about it(again similar to texting). He’s running a business where he has global business challenges to solve, and not resolve deep anti-social behaviors that are best left to psychological analysis. Fair to say the conversation is good, however and he will not be “dinged” by not solving this issue(other than you).
Last edited:
We may agree about what probably will happen: at some point an "over-usage" control/switch will appear that may work for the good-willing, who are not very prone to the problem anyway...
More to ease shareholder concern than a real measure.
More courageous would be to implement it as parental control
Last edited: