I hope someone has already written something along these lines (I'm presuming someone has since it's terribly obvious) but in case no one has. Focusing purely on profits first seems a terribly self-defeating approach. It MAY benefit stock holders in the short term, but in the long term it's bound to fail. Most investors are in stocks for the long term. If a company were to focus on profits it would have no qualms violating the law for the sake of profits. That would lead to long term failure. Destruction of the environment is just as dangerous in the long term, as is failing to address the needs of certain segments of society (the disabled). We investors should support those companies that have our long term interests and profits in mind. I'm happy to see a company with an eye on long term profitability.
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
You can read about NCPPR here on their own website:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/
Or here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCPPR
I don't see anything about representing investors. The are a public policy "research" organization. They are in favor of "freedom". Apparently this includes being against Apple talking about being green. I guess Apple talking about being green threatens what they call "freedom".
Let's get real for a second. They are trying to create a controversy regarding ROI because they think that talking green is bad:
NCPPR is proud to part of the climate denial fraternity, and, it isn't Apple's ROI that they are worried about. Give NCPPR its due.
The funny part in all this is that investors don't follow profit. They are supposed to follow profit (that in turn gets paid out, powering higher stock value), but investors are in a constant battle to get in front of other investors. So it becomes about the predictors of profit, instead of profit itself. At the top of the list is growth. Amazon sucks at profit, but investors still love them:
http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-vs-amazon-quarterly-profits-compared-chart/
They deliver regular rapid growth with profit stealing low margins and investors thank them. Because at some theoretical future point, they get to raise prices and keep all those customers and pay some future dividend that helps the stock price. Anticipation of something that can never happen keeps amazon going.
Meanwhile, apple, who's making massively more money (the kind that matters, profit), isn't taking over the next big market segment, generating growth, so their stock value isn't moving. Investors would actually like it if apple cut their margins 90%, went after blind growth and joined the rest the high flying stocks. It would excite investors without doing damn all to help profit or ROI.
I haven't read every comment in this thread (there are a lot), but am I the only one who recognizes that Solar Cells provide virtually free power? Yes, you have up front costs, but in the long run you're getting something for a LOT less than fossil fuels cost. How's that for return on investment?
For those who don't get it. Let me lay it out for you. If you use fossil fuels to power these facilities you have to pay a fortune for those fossil fuels for the entire time the facility is in existence. The cost of fossil fuels will only rise over the next century (law of supply and demand - supply is declining, demand is going up - cost will also go up). Solar cells are an expensive investment right now, but they'll eventually lead to virtually free power. Over the next century that's an INCREDIBLE ROI.
Duh.
For those who don't get it. Let me lay it out for you. If you use fossil fuels to power these facilities you have to pay a fortune for those fossil fuels for the entire time the facility is in existence. The cost of fossil fuels will only rise over the next century (law of supply and demand - supply is declining, demand is going up - cost will also go up). Solar cells are an expensive investment right now, but they'll eventually lead to virtually free power. Over the next century that's an INCREDIBLE ROI.
Duh.
Tim Cook is likely a true believing moron but the above post is correct. Apple has or thinks it has a customer base that is motivated by such things as this. Apples actual demographic has probably diverged since the iPhone and there are an incredible number of people who put such politics (agree or disagree) so low that it never impacts purchasing decisions. I cannot imagine caring how Apple wants to spend chump change like this when buying a phone.
The bigger problem is that is more evidence of Cook being a decent manager but lacking vision. It's not vision when you do what's trendy and popular where you live - that's status quo. Cook is a status quo guy. He continues to say and do things that worry me for the future of Apple. I don't own stock but I like great stuff and I want a future where there is more not less. Cook is not the man to recognize great stuff.
----------
Math and common sense says you are wrong. Solar cells have incredible niche uses but are not very cost effective. Or else we would all use them. Duh.
----------
Someone who won't put other people's money where their mouth is.
Isn't this basically what a libertarian is?
Nonsense. The NCPPR was only representing themselves. They were there to grandstand their broken (and clearly largely unaccepted) ideology as the forum with Tim provided an opportunity for publicity that they are impotent to generate themselves. They knew what the response would be. They had their hilariously awful press release ready.
You are being trod on by your ideology.
To right...
They are protecting old money, that is their Long-term aim. Apple, Google and the whole tech industry is very much new money. If new money put cash, skills and time into new energy they are a massive threat. An energy independent Apple doesn't need their products. It's not so much about any moral stand it's about curbing new moneys ability to threaten their business.
If they want to keep new money on a short leach.
Thanks for posting that link, it corroborates my claim that consensus isn't science.
"What can we conclude?
1. There is no convincing scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. "
1. There is no convincing scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. "
First, if he's right, then why has there been a pause in global warming, even though CO2 continues to rise?! That's a powerful argument against AGW as the theory is currently constituted.
Second, of course there are other theories! Natural variation, cosmic rays, etc.. Also, GCMs don't handle the physics of clouds. It may turn out, when there's enough data so the models can factor in clouds, that they are what is preventing us from warming.
That link merely points out the foolishness of "consensus". Really, what does the American Medical Association know about climate?
It's an attempt to smother debate by Argumentum ab auctoritate, which is yet another sign that the AGW alarmists know they're losing.
I think the NCPPR needs to take a long hard look at what companies can do well only on ROI. I mean come on apple is one of the most desirable and most profitable in the world and competes in a space where lost leaders are the norm. Apple isn't making a killing because it's looking at ROI, instead it cares about making the best possible products. Profits don't come because you shave a few corners.
I see pretty much the only reason to buy something is because you believe the in the brand and a company needs to stand fast on that brand even if they actually do the opposite behind closed doors.
These guys seems like they have no clue how business actually works.
Being green is a hugely important thing, as such a huge wasteful industry like tech you really need to feel good doing business and making a difference to the world seems like a great leveller for both apples employees conscience and any one who wants to invest in stock or tech ecosystems.
I see pretty much the only reason to buy something is because you believe the in the brand and a company needs to stand fast on that brand even if they actually do the opposite behind closed doors.
These guys seems like they have no clue how business actually works.
Being green is a hugely important thing, as such a huge wasteful industry like tech you really need to feel good doing business and making a difference to the world seems like a great leveller for both apples employees conscience and any one who wants to invest in stock or tech ecosystems.
Are you serious? What's cost-effective for a billion-dollar company and what's cost-effective for a homeowner are frequently very different things. The fact that 'all of us' aren't using solar cells (to power our homes?) doesn't say anything at all about the cost-effectiveness of them in other cases.
This supposed "pause" was explained to you on page 7 of the thread by multiple posters. The fact that you are still claiming it is a powerful argument that you didn't read the references.
Market forces and responses have nothing to do with Math, Science or "Common sense" and everything to do with greed and inertia.
If that wasn't the case we would have a power system that since the 60's was dominated by Thorium, Solar and Wind* power after the "Oil Crisis". Also the system would have become De-centralized instead of centralized.
*Yes, yes I know Wind is Solar.
Cloud computing depends on a constant and 99.99999999% uninterruptible electricity. The only way to get tht is to invest heavily in technology. The fact that it is "green" gives Apple an amazing marketing edge. However, right wingers see red whenever they are faced with green technology. This is more of an issue of a bunch of people too stupid to see the truth and only too willing to cry 'the sky is falling' he in reality, Apple is doing everything it can to prevent the 'clouds' from falling. Sigh. When ideology trumps common sense.....
Also, it's time to stop whining about "investors". The only people who invest in a company are those who buy stock issued by Apple. All subsequent purchasers of that stock are gambling that the company will increase sales and therefore profits.
You're confusing media sensationalism for actual science.
You are unwittingly contradicting yourself here. The physical evidence left behind in things like rocks and trees allows us to look back much father than 130 years. That evidence also gives us a very good idea as to why it was warmer during certain parts of history... For instance, high volcanic activity releasing lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere... which we can then compare and contrast to our current situation.
The conversion of a climate-change skeptic
(the rest is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The project website has, in addition to papers and more detailed information, a compact summary page that is very accessible:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
(the rest is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The project website has, in addition to papers and more detailed information, a compact summary page that is very accessible:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Last edited:
Good for you, Tim Cook, for speaking up. I, for one, am tremendously happy to hear you say that Apple *will* throw away the ROI for the right reasons. I am sure Apple doesn't do it every time and for no reason, because somehow, Apple has managed to pile up gobs of cash, but the environment and the physically challenged are very good reasons.
Can you tell me if anal retentive is hyphenated?
As for your argument that the Met Office "makes it clear that" global warming has not paused, it is incorrect.
The Met Office acknowledges that, by the standard that's been used up to now to show that global warming was underway, i.e., the surface temperatures, temperatures have been flat for 15 years.
Then they proceed to tap-dance between raindrops trying to act as if the last 15 years haven't come as a total shock to AGW alarmists.
I'm characterizing how the Met Office comes across in that article. They admit that global warming has paused, then they try to move the goal posts by saying surface temps aren't conclusive anymore.
----------
No, if you read the references, you'd know that there are at least a dozen "explanations" as to why global warming has paused. None of them were in the GCMs 15 years ago or this pause wouldn't have come as such a surprise to the AGW alarmists.
So the science wasn't correct then and probably isn't correct now. How the alarmists keep their flock faithful is beyond me.
They got General Electric to "Formally Agrees to End Projects Designed Solely to Seek Carbon Dioxide Reductions Due to Climate Change Concerns".
So there.
When the climate changes in your area, do you get sick? allergies? Change of atmospheric pressure affect you?
You would be lying if you said "no" to any of these questions. When a change in climate happens, do not other illnesses go up in your area? Flu?
When you are affected by those, do you not seek medical attention, even in the form of OTC medications? If so, then you're damn right that the American Medical Association knows something about climate change, because your bloody health is affected by climate change.
Like I've told you many times before, and I'll say it again:
You don't have a bloody idea what you are talking about.
BL.
Let's set the Wayback Machine to 1988!
[T]oday Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere....
...
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.
...
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.
The sky is falling!!
Now, fast forward to 2001.
The IPCC has just released their third assessment report (TAR):
The worst-case scenario supposed that global emissions of CO2 might rise faster than previous reports had considered. If that happened, the range of warming that the IPCC predicted for the late 21st century ran from 1.4°C up to a shocking 5.8°C (10°F). This range was not for the traditional doubled CO2 level, which was now expected to arrive around midcentury, but for the still higher levels that would come after 2070 unless the world took action....
The IPCC delegates could not agree on a precise statement about the probability that warming would truly fall within the range 1.4-5.8°C. But they did say it was "likely" that the warming during the next few decades would be 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade. They defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of being true. One approach to defining the meaning of such statements was to make a wide variety of computer model runs, and see what fraction fell within the announced limits. Later findings suggested a probable upper limit even higher than the IPCC's.
The IPCC delegates could not agree on a precise statement about the probability that warming would truly fall within the range 1.4-5.8°C. But they did say it was "likely" that the warming during the next few decades would be 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade. They defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of being true. One approach to defining the meaning of such statements was to make a wide variety of computer model runs, and see what fraction fell within the announced limits. Later findings suggested a probable upper limit even higher than the IPCC's.
About 15 years later after a lengthy pause in global warming, where have the Chicken Littles ended up?:
Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3º C.
1.3º C by 2100 (latest IPCC prediction) vs 5.8°C by 2070 (TAR) vs 9°F by 2050 (James Hansen)
These guys don't have a clue, they made predictions that have proved to be wildly wrong, yet the credulous keep believing in them. AGW alarmists could teach televangelists a thing or two.
- Status