Tim Cook Angrily Rejects Political Proposal Asking for Profits-First Policies

[G51989]

Got some evidence to back up that opinion? Please cite it.

Another question. If this right wing Think Tank is so powerful and correct. Why don't they make 10+ billion dollars in profits per quarter? Like APple does, Microsoft and Google aren't far behind. If this think tank is so correct, why dont they make IBM, Google, Apple and Microsoft level profits? Could it be they are just jealous of companies that ignored their ******** ideals and ended up being the best of the world? While the right wing think tank is ignored and dies? If these big tech companies followed this right wing think tanks ideals, they would shiveral and die.

 

[bobenhaus]

Yes, but the top 2 profit producers after its all said and done are Apple and Exxon.

Some ****** right wing think tank thinks they know better than Apple? Where is their multi billion a year profit? Where are there world changing products? Where are there multi million units a year products?
If they know better than Apple they should be making it, but it seems like Apple is making world leading profits, and this right wing think tank has made zero profits. So, Right wing Think tank = losers who have done nothing. Apple = World changing company who beats almost every company in the world.

Yeah I think some people are confused and thinking Apple don't care about profit. Also people are bashing the stockholders for owning apple stuck. I'm really starting to get concerned about how the youth understand business nowadays

 

[samiwas]

Yeah I think some people are confused and thinking Apple don't care about profit. Also people are bashing the stockholders for owning apple stuck. I'm really starting to get concerned about how the youth understand business nowadays

Of course Apple cares about profit. Every company cares about profit. But there are companies (and apparently Apple is one of them) who aren't 100% driven by profit. There are things other than profit that you can strive for in your business, believe it or not.

I'm starting to get concerned with how many people actually think like the NCPPR. There are plenty of people out there, some who frequent this board, who believe that the one and only reason for a business to operate is to generate profit, and that anything that might reduce that profit is bad business. I've even heard the phrase "a living wage is a handout" and "paying better wages reduces profits, and that's not good business". This kind of thinking is completely detrimental to the economy as a whole.

 

[thekev]

Yeah I think some people are confused and thinking Apple don't care about profit. Also people are bashing the stockholders for owning apple stuck. I'm really starting to get concerned about how the youth understand business nowadays

Do you think it's necessary to distort the words of others to make a point? You just implied something that never came up in the thread.

 

[bobenhaus]

Do you think it's necessary to distort the words of others to make a point? You just implied something that never came up in the thread.

Sorry my bad if I update anyone. I was just trying to make conversation and I get passionate at times. I'm very proud of Apple as a company and what they have done for the world. But sometimes I think people don't understand me and what I'm trying to talk about. I'm not the best at communicating. Thanks for listening.

 

[mrxak]

Building and managing the company image does help profitability. I'm sure when there's an energy crisis and Apple's servers are working off of solar power and hydrogen, there will be plenty of ROI.

As a shareholder, I'm glad Apple focuses more on long-term profits instead of short-term.

 

[thekev]

Sorry my bad if I update anyone. I was just trying to make conversation and I get passionate at times. I'm very proud of Apple as a company and what they have done for the world. But sometimes I think people don't understand me and what I'm trying to talk about. I'm not the best at communicating. Thanks for listening.

Being passionate is good. It just irks me in a unique way when it looks like it was distorted to make the point. You aren't the first in the thread to argue that Apple should care about their profits. Without that you don't have a business, especially not a publicly traded one. Even non-profits have to analyze these things, because their spending influences the results that can be delivered within a given pool of resources. Apple's behavior for the most part doesn't suggest anything resembling reckless spending unless I've missed something. They don't buy up their largest competitors. Other companies are envious of their margins. The comments like the ones cited in the article mostly annoy me because they focus solely on short term ROI, and dismiss anything that can't be easily quantified. What amuses me slightly is that the person mentioned in the article asked about their sustainability programs, yet didn't inquire about the potential cost of the spaceship campus.

I'll also point out that Apple has always sought media attention. PR is likely to play a role in determining which projects are greenlit, whether it comes to sustainability projects or others. Cook referred to accessibility for the blind.

 

[kobalap]

Not all conservatives are that narrow-minded. And not all of them are the same cookie-cutter mold.


I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I also (occasionally) find myself siding with social progressives (e.g. human rights, social freedoms, environmental causes, etc). It's a hard balancing act at times, but mainly because the USA is so politically bi-polar (most people side with either the hard right, or the hard left, the pragmatic moderates are ignored or marginalized).

What exactly is a fiscal conservative with progressive views on social issues?

Someone who won't put his money where his mouth is?

----------

Got some evidence to back up that opinion? Please cite it.

Go to their website.

 

[terraphantm]

Those same scientists that, in the 70's said we were heading for an ice age?

How do we/they explain the previous times in Earth's history when we were warmer than now without human involvement?

How do they explain the effects of the Sun and the Earth's not exact rotation around the Sun that also affect climate?

How about addressing the single biggest thereat to the planet - exploding population. The Earth can barely support the current level of Humans. How to address de-population?

How can 130 some years predict climate when the Earth is billions of years old?

How do they explain the "cooking of the books" that went on a couple years ago.

When you get anyone chasing free money they will skew the data to get more of that money.

Do you really think if they examined "climate change" and came out that man had no effect they would still be employed?

It's paradoxical, but global warming can trigger an ice age. Try reading a little.

Now I do think it's plausible that normal geologic events may eclipse the changes we cause -- after all, global temperatures cooled pretty dramatically with the eruption of Krakatoa and that wasn't even that long ago. But to say we are having 0 impact is ignorant at best.

That said, I'm not the type of person who would call for massive changes that would cause major disruptions. But there's nothing wrong with fostering efficient technologies. Not to mention that pollution has problems beyond global warming. I personally like being able to breathe air without suffering from asthma attacks (used to get them all the time in Houston until I moved away... area I live now is much cleaner)

What exactly is a fiscal conservative with progressive views on social issues?

Someone who won't put his money where his mouth is?

Someone who thinks that some basic human interests trump financial interests, without simultaneously believing that every single freaking special interest has to be an item for the government to get involved in

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

What exactly is a fiscal conservative with progressive views on social issues?

Someone who won't put his money where his mouth is?

1) Someone who believes that the budget should be roughly balanced, with the minimum quantity of government debt necessary to stabilize the financial markets, with massive borrowing only during periods of financial instability and massive contraction.

2) Someone who believes that public servants should be paid moderately, and held to high standards of work ethic and accountability.

3) Someone who thinks that normal producer-consumer economic activity should be done by private industry unless pragmatic considerations dictate otherwise. (e.g. public city streets)

There are lots of us out here, actually.

Someone who thinks that some basic human interests trump financial interests, without simultaneously believing that every single freaking special interest has to be an item for the government to get involved in

Agreed. When possible, the government's involvement should be limited to maintaining a level playing field.

 

[Solomani]

What exactly is a fiscal conservative with progressive views on social issues?

Someone who won't put his money where his mouth is?

A fiscal conservative (not necessarily political conservative) is someone who believes in being responsible with his personal finances, someone who doesn't like to be in debt, someone who actually pays off his credit card bills every month, someone who actually believes in saving for a rainy day rather than blowing all his money like there's no tomorrow, someone who plans ahead to be self-sufficient during retirement years. Hence, a fiscal conservative believes in (financial) responsibility and accountability, so he ALSO expects people around him --- especially his bank, his accountants, or anyone that is handling his money (including the government that takes money for my Social Security), to be held accountable. I take it you have no respect for any of these values. Millennial much?

A fiscal conservative, as described above, is not necessarily an evil or miserly person. There are certainly times when we give back to society be it supporting charitable causes, or supporting local projects that will enhance and benefit society or our local communities, or benefit our grandchildren's future. Even small tasks such as recycling plastic bottles or using Recyclable Shopping Bags, helps the future of our communities, and has long term benefits for our community.

Certainly there are fiscal conservatives who are misers and scrooges, who only care about hoarding riches for personal gain. Then again, for you to say so implies that you are making a gross stereotype.

 

[gnasher729]

And yet somebody pointed out to me how they moved Mac Pro manufacturing from China to the US. So apparently it isn't "impossible to refute". And are you really going to argue that China doesn't have drastically low wages and multitudes of human rights violations?

Well, here's the difference: When people make intentionally vague accusations, I don't guess what they are actually talking about. That you were talking about China is news to me.

You didn't talk about "low wages", you talked about raising wages. Are you really going to argue that salaries for people working indirectly for Apple haven't gone up massively in the last years? And what examples are there of human rights violations at places where work is done for Apple, where Apple hasn't acted?

----------

Walmart makes the most money than any company in the world. Around 450Billon last year. Oh and Samsung makes more money than Apple/Google combined. Also hording 160Billion doesn't mean profitable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

Enjoy.

You are confused. Walmart has more revenue, but not more profits. They sell lots of things at very low margins. But their revenue comes from buying things at some price, then selling at a slightly higher price. Like when PCWorld sells a Mac, they actually make more revenue from that sale than Apple does (they buy it for $900 or whatever number and sell it for $1000, making $1000 revenue, while Apple only made $900 revenue. Apple however made a lot more money).

 

[alephnull12]

What a waste of money and resources.

Vanity is a bummer.

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]

Image​

During Apple's annual shareholder's meeting today, CEO Tim Cook angrily rebuffed a representative from the National Center for Public Policy Research or NCPPR -- a conservative think tank -- that asked the company to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs, such as solar energy facilities, and to embrace a corporate policy that focused on profits above all else.

The representative asked Cook about the impact of the company's renewable energy programs on its bottom line, and also asked Cook to commit to only undertaking projects that were explicitly profitable.

The CEO did not take this well, according to a report from MacObserver, which said that Cook's body language changed significantly and his gentle and controlled speaking style gave way to a rapid-fire response.
Finally, Cook looked at the questioner and said "if you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."

Following the meeting, the NCPPR released an incendiary press release that is heavily critical of Cook, claiming that shareholder value is destroyed in favor of efforts to combat climate change.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Tim Cook Angrily Rejects Political Proposal Asking for Profits-First Policies

 

[skunk]

What a waste of money and resources.

Vanity is a bummer.

Ah, it's so refreshing to find someone around here who can string a cogent argument together.

 

[rdowns]

Walmart makes the most money than any company in the world. Around 450Billon last year. Oh and Samsung makes more money than Apple/Google combined. Also hording 160Billion doesn't mean profitable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

Enjoy.

Revenue does not equal making the most money. Apple is more profitable than Samsung, and way more profitable than Walmart.

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/magazines/fortune/2013/07/08/global-500-most-profitable.fortune/16.html

 

[chairguru22]

Who the hell is NCPPR? Tim Cook runs a company with the largest market cap. I think he knows what he's doing... who the hell is NCPPR again?

 

[Smartass]

Damn Tim

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I like how they call it a "the theory of so-called climate change". What's next, the "the theory of so-called gravity"?

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I like how they call it a "the theory of so-called climate change". What's next, the "the theory of so-called gravity"?

Gravity is just a theory.

 

[gnasher729]

Walmart makes the most money than any company in the world. Around 450Billon last year. Oh and Samsung makes more money than Apple/Google combined. Also hording 160Billion doesn't mean profitable

The confusion between revenue and profits...

My dictionary says (quote) "The words horde and hoard are quite distinct"...

Hoarding 160 billion dollars doesn't mean profitable right now, but Apple must have been bloody extremely profitable in the past to get that amount of cash. Now if Steve Jobs had inherited $300 billion from his rich parents and Steve Cook had reduced the amount to merely $160 billion, that would be unprofitable. That's not what happened.

----------

Revenue does not equal making the most money. Apple is more profitable than Samsung, and way more profitable than Walmart.

Fact is that Walmart is in the retail business. Retail business buys stuff at a high price and sells it at a slightly higher price. Of the many billions revenue, a huge proportion is sent straight to the supplier of the goods. A huge proportion is salaries, because Walmart is in a business where the goods sold are not very expensive, so the percentage of salary cost is high. Nothing wrong with the business, but looking at revenue gives you a totally wrong picture.

 

[samiwas]

Fact is that Walmart is in the retail business. Retail business buys stuff at a high price and sells it at a slightly higher price. Of the many billions revenue, a huge proportion is sent straight to the supplier of the goods. A huge proportion is salaries, because Walmart is in a business where the goods sold are not very expensive, so the percentage of salary cost is high. Nothing wrong with the business, but looking at revenue gives you a totally wrong picture.

A huge proportion of Wal-Mart's revenue is not salary. If every employee made $10 an hour and worked 40/52, it would still be less than 10% of revenue. Maybe 10% is huge to you.

As for "nothing wrong with the business", well, that's another discussion.

 

[Smith288]

This is the difference between the GOP and the rest of humanity.

Oh shut up. Nothing like a giant paintbrush to paint people with...

 

[iJohnHenry]

Oh shut up.

"Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!!!"

 

[Smith288]

Way to go Tim!

Note to the NCPPR, really? And your website looks like is was made in the 90s, kind of bad when you go up against a tech company and bash their forward thinking.

NCPPR isnt in the business of web design/technology. They are representing a certain segment of investors who want to ensure their investment isn't being wasted on what they believe to be bad policy. No different than some liberal outfit representing a liberal swath who want to ensure Apple continues green policy over ROI.

Apple enjoys a very successful investor base and have to play a tricky game of juggling between these divergent types of thinking.

Alienating a large segment of their investors could damage their value if enough consider idealism over ROI is not worth the investment.

Investment is about making money. Getting in a tizzy because someone wanted to make sure their investment isn't being thrown in the trash can for silly policy (in their mind) just seems silly.

 

[citizenzen]

NCPPR isnt in the business of web design/technology.

They are in the business of influencing people. And part of that ability is your image and how it enhances or sabotages credibility.

Just as they don't wear shorts and a T-shirt when meeting a client, their website should reflect professionalism and enhance their image, as it will be the way that most people are introduced and interact with their organization.