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're right. It's a total non-issue in places like China and India where about a third of the world's population lives.
Tim Cook says: Sell all your Apple shares.
I say: You are so absolutely clueless, it hurts.
You get "Junk Science" when companies are fighting for their profits, with complete disregard of the humans they are hurting.
An honorable and respectable way to do business, and not just lip service to give the appearance of caring, like you see with many other companies, where the sole motive is pacifying their critics, and thus hoping to hold on to, and increase, their profits.
Massive numbers of people dying from leukaemia at Samsung's factories and nobody cares about it. Massive outcry against Apple when an actor makes up stories about witnessing hundreds of child workers at Foxconn. That's life.
HOWEVER long term, Apple's strategy will be winning.
I don't know if I'd characterize "do things only for profit as a corporation" as any sort of a libertarian view. A libertarian would more likely say "do whatever you chose and I get to decide if I buy your stock or product..." Somehow libertarian has come to mean right wing crazy, probably because politicians of a libertarian bent have taken up right wing causes to win elections, even though many libertarian precepts would run counter to right wing positions. A libertarian could support social issues and stances, just would not want the government to force someone to take such positions.That's not to say there aren't wacko libertarians but they would come at both ends of the spectrum, not just the right wing.
This is exactly why I'm so skeptical of the climate change bandwagon. I can guarantee that 97% of the world's scientists have NOT dug deeply and exhaustively into all of the data that's been collected. So how is it they seem to "agree" or are they just along for what looks like a popular ride? Anytime I see percentages like that around something so controversial and nebulous, I can only think we're just watching a parade if not a charade. And what about that other 3%? What are they not seeing? Let's remember the theory of relativity didn't result from some poll.
They would have probably been just another insignificant also-ran, drowning in a sea of other insignificant also-rans, rather than one of the most influential technological companies they have become. Their gorgeous, well-designed products, with immaculate attention to detail, speak for themselves, and are indeed what set them apart.
As a company, Apple has never been known to sacrifice design or quality for profits. At every keynote, it is undeniably evident that for many in the company, their jobs are a labor of love, and profit is a distant factor.
No, Apple's charter is _not_ to improve shareholder value. There are people trying to make you think that a company's purpose is to "improve shareholder value", but it actually isn't. A company picks whatever they want as their goals. Making a bit of money helps a lot to achieve your goals, but need not be the goal.
As in Apple, the _goal_ is to improve the live's of people by making the best products they can and selling them. Profit is not the goal, but a welcome side effect if you are good at meeting the original goals. Apart from that, Apple's strategy was quite obviously very good at improving shareholder value, so whatever idiotic suggestions these eco-terrorists (calling them "right wing" or "conservative" is an insult to any right wing or conservative person) come up with, Tim Cook has clear evidence that Apple knows better how to improve shareholder value.
The problem the Republicans have is they, once again, overestimated the ability of the main stream establishment to control the fringe elements of their party. They figured, like they did with the religious right, they could court the fringe and get their vote and still run centrists. Unfortunately, they failed at that and all of a sudden found themselves running candidates that no doubt had the leaders face palming every time they heard what their candidates said. Their fundamental problem is they fail to understand that zealots care only about their issue, view compromise at defeat and are willing to go down in defeat as long as they maintain ideological purity. While they may enjoy short term success they risk become irrelevant in the long term as their party becomes viewed as unfriendly to more mainstream voters.
Quite frankly, when Barry Goldwater is viewed as not a "true" conservative you have a serious problem with how you define conservative.
The shareholders may not like this, but from a customer's point of view, Tim, with his firm stand against profits above all else, has done more today --at one single shareholder meeting-- to put the minds at ease of those who were worried about a change of direction at Apple, than he has done since August 2011 when he took over as CEO.
Those of us who appreciate meticulous, no-compromise engineering, can breathe a sigh of relief.
We are still in good hands!
Huge collection of all the usual climate-change denier claptrap.
Please give us a reference to scientists predicting an ice age in the 70's.
There have been long term changes in the past over millions of years. A rate of change that would be unnoticeable. Now we have massive change over a few decades. That is worrying. No, it means you should be ******** yourself.
Earth rotation: What is there to explain? You don't make sense. Some minor effect that can be ignored.
So you want to reduce the numbers of humans? Why? Because you actually _admit_ there is climate change? You must be admitting it, otherwise why talk about population? Is that the usual confusion of climate-change deniers?
130 years of industrialisation - something that hasn't happened in the billion years before.
But now the big one: Cooking the books. The consensus is that the "cooking the books" accusation is the result of 1. emails stolen through computer hacking (and it is hard to understand that nobody went to court for this so far), 2. deliberate misinterpretation of the contents of those emails, and 3. deliberate misinformation on the hand of climate change deniers. No "cooking the books" ever happened except for those who can't accept the truth.
----------
Sell your Apple shares, sell your Apple hardware, and join the NCPPR.
I disagree. A publicly traded company has one purpose - maximize the long term return to shareholders; making a profit is the key part of that purpose. They can undertake actions and adopt stances that they believe further that goal, the "Triple Bottom Line" is one way of doing that. Apple may deeply believe in its values and mission, but unless they actually make money they won't succeed. Apple's investors, as much as they may like what Apple stands for, aren't going to stick around if the stock starts a long term downward spiral. Tim Cook didn't improve Apple's supply chain to make life better; he did it to cut costs and enable Apple to quickly respond to market conditions. That, in turn, results in more profits and enables Apple to live its values and carry out its mission. Apple has never been unwilling to forgo layoffs when its profitability, and thus survival, was at stake despite the social impact of those layoffs. While it is great Apple is retuning some manufacturing to the US, they do so because it is more profitable than other options.
Do I think Apple does things because the are the right thing to do? Sure, however, profitability is right up there with doing the right things and not some welcome side effect.
Well, that makes me proud to own their products and their stock. I wholeheartedly agree with Tim.
Just saying: Seasons are caused by the effect that the earth's rotation axis is tilted about 23 degrees. That's the biggest effect that causes summer and winter, and is also responsible that summer and winter in Australia are six months later than in the Northern hemisphere.
The curve of earth around the sun is an ellipse, not a circle. Over the year the distance between earth and sun increases and decreases again. This is a very minor effect. However, we are closest to the sun in January. As a result, winters and summers in the Northern hemisphere are less extreme than in the Southern hemisphere; being near to the sun in winter counteracts the effect of the earth's axis tilt in the Northern hemisphere, in the Southern hemisphere it is the opposite. As I said, a minor effect.
All other effects are practically immeasurable.
----------
That is often claimed, but it is absolutely not true. A corporation has the purpose of doing what it has written down in its charter, which can be anything they like. A shareholder is free to ignore that purpose and buy/sell shares to make profit only, or they may look at the charter and buy shares in order to give the company money to support that charter.
Bravo, Tim. 
Regarding climate change... it could be one of those things where yes, we're on a cycle of warming, but we also aren't helping things either. That's basically the stance I've taken. I think as it becomes possible, we have a responsibility to future generations to take actions that are less polluting. That doesn't mean making our lives intentionally difficult, but that means if options are there that we can afford, we should take the less polluting option.
To me it seems like a pretty simple concept.
Regarding climate change... it could be one of those things where yes, we're on a cycle of warming, but we also aren't helping things either. That's basically the stance I've taken. I think as it becomes possible, we have a responsibility to future generations to take actions that are less polluting. That doesn't mean making our lives intentionally difficult, but that means if options are there that we can afford, we should take the less polluting option.
To me it seems like a pretty simple concept.
Tim realizes that profit and moral bankruptcy are not in any way related. I am definitely a conservative, in the original sense of the word. But the conservative party in the US is very bizarre, like some sort of advocacy group for the ultra-wealthy that gets power by energizing the uneducated and elderly segment of the population against their own self-interest with fear and religion. It will be another fascinating study of human susceptibility to propaganda in future years.
I built up my company myself, run it my way, and strive to keep my large profits from being wasted by corrupt governments. That is conservative. If I lived under US conservatives, I would not be able to compete due to favoritism and tax breaks for large corporations, demoralize my staff by paying them the least amount possible, and have less personal satisfaction because I could not provide free services to non-profits of my choosing.
I built up my company myself, run it my way, and strive to keep my large profits from being wasted by corrupt governments. That is conservative. If I lived under US conservatives, I would not be able to compete due to favoritism and tax breaks for large corporations, demoralize my staff by paying them the least amount possible, and have less personal satisfaction because I could not provide free services to non-profits of my choosing.
You know, if you said something like "unproven" you wouldn't come off as so unwilling to even look at the evidence.
Right On...Dude!!!
I know my post is lost way back here after all the other supportive posts, but I have to say..."Right on....Dude!!! You are the man!!!!"
The world, and this country, would be a better place if all corporations (can congressmen) adopted Tim Cook/Apple's approach to social responsibility.
Nuff said.
I know my post is lost way back here after all the other supportive posts, but I have to say..."Right on....Dude!!! You are the man!!!!"
The world, and this country, would be a better place if all corporations (can congressmen) adopted Tim Cook/Apple's approach to social responsibility.
Nuff said.
What a guy
I gotta say, this is the reason why I buy Apple products. It really is this kind of behaviour, where the planet and customers come first, not stockholders and other profiteers. Tim was right to say this and I'm glad that he decided to tell them to sell their shares. I am even now convinced to buy Apple shares.
I like to hear passion out of this guy and this instance is no exception; the customer and the planet are most important and show me that Apple really isn't all about just the money but also the people*that they 'serve'.
I hope people agree with me. This has reinstalled the confidence I lost when Steve Jobs died (not a lot however), however I think that since Cook has his morals in the right place, the company will go far.
~James
----------
If someone does not believe in the morals set out in the company charter, they should not buy shares. Cook has made it clear that those who do want shares for the sole intention of making money should not be buying Apple shares. Its not like Apple is loosing money or is not having significant market share, the environment is just a place where they are particularly interested, so that they can show that they are not just a profit making company, but one which follows and upholds the values that Steve Jobs set out. Those guys should count themselves lucky, if Steve Jobs had been there he probably would have had a massive rage and shouted at them... They got it lucky there!
----------
I'm gonna buy stock quick then! I wanna be a part of this awesome company!
I gotta say, this is the reason why I buy Apple products. It really is this kind of behaviour, where the planet and customers come first, not stockholders and other profiteers. Tim was right to say this and I'm glad that he decided to tell them to sell their shares. I am even now convinced to buy Apple shares.
I like to hear passion out of this guy and this instance is no exception; the customer and the planet are most important and show me that Apple really isn't all about just the money but also the people*that they 'serve'.
I hope people agree with me. This has reinstalled the confidence I lost when Steve Jobs died (not a lot however), however I think that since Cook has his morals in the right place, the company will go far.
~James
----------
If someone does not believe in the morals set out in the company charter, they should not buy shares. Cook has made it clear that those who do want shares for the sole intention of making money should not be buying Apple shares. Its not like Apple is loosing money or is not having significant market share, the environment is just a place where they are particularly interested, so that they can show that they are not just a profit making company, but one which follows and upholds the values that Steve Jobs set out. Those guys should count themselves lucky, if Steve Jobs had been there he probably would have had a massive rage and shouted at them... They got it lucky there!
----------
I'm gonna buy stock quick then! I wanna be a part of this awesome company!
- Status