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.
Tim Cook Angrily Rejects Political Proposal Asking for Profits-First Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So with this, we can expect higher wages for people making the products, maybe moving production to a place that doesn't have so many human rights violations? 
I for one am very happy to see a CEO of a very major company, seeing beyond the short term profit at all costs.
So with this, we can expect higher wages for people making the products, maybe moving production to a place that doesn't have so many human rights violations?
You mean like producing a major product in the USA? *cough* Mac Pro *cough*
----------
Climate change deniers are equivalent to the religious leaders who convicted Galileo of heresy for daring to claim the earth revolves around the sun!
That is easy. "Get the F#%)# out of my sight before I gouge your eyes out, and then you can tell me how much you care on ROI for tools for the blind."
And what do we do with the ignorant ones that believe earth is just 2000 yeas old?
It's the same percentage as scientists who accept evolution.
Are you likewise skeptical about evolution?
Those probabilities can be empirically measured. At a simplistic level, probabilities are nothing more than examining signal to noise (or variance). The only issue is that this stuff gets a bit hairy because
A) of use of time-series models, where measurement of standard errors is a bit trickier; and
B) the use of more complex models to account for more factors, which raises the question of whether those "factors" are justified ex ante, or are really added in ex post to keep the theory alive.
While I'm with you there, I'm also of the opinion that if something is a potentially large danger and the evidence is inconclusive, it's better to act preventatively until the picture becomes less murky. We do this in many aspects of society today (e.g., product recalls). What's the problem with saying that there's a good chance climate change theories are right? We as a society waste some money on precautionary measures that ultimately prove not to be needed? Shareholders don't derive maximum value? Big freaking whoop.
Credit where credit is due. I will also admit that I was wrong about something. I thought that they moved the Mac Pro production in the US for a few reasons. I thought that they were going to use it to raise the price, and that it wasn't going to be anything big. I was wrong on both counts.
This is something that I like, something that shows that he isn't a horrible individual that is running a company.
Warning! Irony Ahead. It would help if you read my posting. Nowhere did I claim that global warming is fallacious. But where we are today regarding the threat is far different from that when the Chicken Littles were screaming "The sky is falling!" 15 years ago. The scientists didn't have enough data then (as I and other skeptics claimed at the time!) and so now they collectively have egg on their faces and are trying to regain credibility by shutting down the debate.
Catastrophic AGW is not a problem nor will it be by century's end, which is why the IPCC quietly lowered their temp scenarios in AR5.
Oh dear, I'm dealing with a pedant. When you boil your comment down to the essence, yes I meant "disproving" (it was about 1 AM at the time, sorry my spelling wasn't up to par), and you've been unable to grasp that over the last 15 years, global warning has inexplicably paused. You seem willing to accept any scientist's excuses just as the religious accept what their priests tell them when prophecies fail to happen as predicted. Maybe it's time to examine your beliefs.
Credit where credit is due for yourself, then. Not many people are big enough to admit they were wrong about something and how it's not the end of the world to change views/opinions.
Bravo for Mr. Cook. He is one of the few CEOs who understand that a rapacious corporate governance focused only on profit not only harms the planet, customers and workers but is in the end unsustainable as a corporate model.
Can you please cite an example of what you're claiming here?
Are you sure you're remembering things correctly?
Evidence that backs you claim would help make your point.
As entertaining as this climate change debate is, I'm not seeing its relevance to NCPPRs request. Tim didn't say anything about climate change. Heck, Apple's main energy page only mentions the word 'carbon,' twice:
https://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/
The only reason it even came up is because NCPPR mentioned it. But there are many advantages to renewables:
Stable / predictable supply
Reduced consumption pollution
Energy independence
Public image
Carbon emissions
Geopolitical stability
Reduced extraction pollution
Reduced costs (after self pay)
While it is important, climate change is but one aspect of one of these advantages. Apple's reasons for going renewable (that NCPPR is reportedly objecting to) may well include all of them. For a shareholder (or us) to question Apple's use of renewable energy, would require a much broader debate.
Edit to add: a major reason not doing these things is cheaper is that much of difference in the costs of producing traditional energy are externalized. People and organizations not included in the profit calculation end up covering the cost of the side effects.
https://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/
The only reason it even came up is because NCPPR mentioned it. But there are many advantages to renewables:
Stable / predictable supply
Reduced consumption pollution
Energy independence
Public image
Carbon emissions
Geopolitical stability
Reduced extraction pollution
Reduced costs (after self pay)
While it is important, climate change is but one aspect of one of these advantages. Apple's reasons for going renewable (that NCPPR is reportedly objecting to) may well include all of them. For a shareholder (or us) to question Apple's use of renewable energy, would require a much broader debate.
Edit to add: a major reason not doing these things is cheaper is that much of difference in the costs of producing traditional energy are externalized. People and organizations not included in the profit calculation end up covering the cost of the side effects.
Last edited:
The media reporting on this is quite amusing. Cook never said if you don't believe in climate change don't invest in Apple. In fact Cook never even used the words climate change or global warming. All he said was is if you have a problem with Apple doing something even if there isn't a quantifiable ROI then you shouldn't be in the stock. Big difference.
You claim that global warming has paused for the last 15 years. The Met Office makes it clear that it has not - merely that the global mean temperature has remained fairly steady. That's quite different.
Yes, you are. I find that when dealing with scientific facts, being pedantic is rather a beneficial trait.
Here's one - from a conservative think tank, no less: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2011/conclusion.html
Wow, talk about ignorance! According to the Bible, the earth is nearly 6,000 years old!
Wow, talk about ignorance! According to the Bible, the earth is nearly 6,000 years old!
Actually, no. The Bible doesn't mention the age of the earth anywhere within it. That 6000 year quote comes from someone who decided to go through the begats and whatnots to add all the numbers and figures together to peg the date the earth was created.
It's a shaky number based on an equally shaky proposition.
Bullcrap...it's all about the ROI...but that's not a bad thing! All these green initiatives, supplier responsibility programs, etc. enhance apple's image and, in turn, increase profits. The fact that everyone on this forum is lauding Tim's behavior is proof that these programs improve Apple's image. Tim's response was brilliant, since it gives the impression that Apple puts people over profits.
And maybe they do...and I'm not saying that Tim doesn't genuinely care about the environment and humane issues. I'm saying that, in addition to the positive impact on environment and treatment of human beings, there is clearly a business incentive behind these programs.
It's more proof that profit-driven businesses are incentivized, by profit, to do the right thing. Of course, it is pretty much impossible to definitively calculate the ROI on such programs, which is why narrow-minded, conventional business practices would dictate that such programs are not worth implementing. As a result, these conventional businesses would lose in the free market against those like Apple.
And maybe they do...and I'm not saying that Tim doesn't genuinely care about the environment and humane issues. I'm saying that, in addition to the positive impact on environment and treatment of human beings, there is clearly a business incentive behind these programs.
It's more proof that profit-driven businesses are incentivized, by profit, to do the right thing. Of course, it is pretty much impossible to definitively calculate the ROI on such programs, which is why narrow-minded, conventional business practices would dictate that such programs are not worth implementing. As a result, these conventional businesses would lose in the free market against those like Apple.
It was my first thought, dam it's so cliche but I do wonder what he would have said, it certainly makes happy reading to see Tim Cook react like this. Not something Samsung would do
It was my first thought, dam it's so cliche but I do wonder what he would have said, it certainly makes happy reading to see Tim Cook react like this. Not something Samsung would do
We can assume that Jobs and Cook are equally clever, but Jobs let's say tended to be less polite than Cook and he most definitely couldn't stand bozos. So everyone who likes Cooks reaction would have liked Jobs' even more
- Status