Well... he did come from IBM and spent twelve years there. I suspect anybody working there would lose some passion. Must been hard to be passionate about something for over a decade and start working for a completely different company that competed with them, despite recent collaboration with business.
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 Talks iPhone 6s, Social Responsibility, and More on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just hate the Google voice, the american accent it uses sounds awful. I like my siri with a british accent and wish there was a way to force google to use google.co.uk despite my region being set so (not talking about safari)
Colbert is a comic genius. Love him.
You can see the whole episode here... it's the one with Jake G.
http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/
You can see the whole episode here... it's the one with Jake G.
http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/
I don't have words to describe your ignorance if you think all charities are good.
Nevertheless, I don't have the background on this one to know whether this particular charity giving was good.
He schemed his way into paying the bare minimum child support required by law. He blocked hiring opportunities of ex-Apple employees and tried to instill fear into anyone trying to leave. Screwed over Wozniak. Had no compassion for Foxconn employees or any charitable efforts at all while attempting to appear as an "enlightened" person. Not to mention countless other little things like parking in handicap spots which is somewhere in the ******* 101 guide. I'm sure other CEO's are as bad. They're *******s too.
The notion that you have to be a tyrant to run a successful company is complete bull. The justifications you people will go to to defend man's inhumanity to man is disgusting. If we as a species have to cut ourselves off from being empathetic with one another in order to advance technology, it's not worth it.
Last edited:
His child support issues are none of the public's business. If you feel indifferent then your own personal business should be put out on the web for people to judge.
Really? Seems pretty normal business practice not to bring back former employees especially if they left on a bad note or a conflict of interest, which is generally the only reason to block former employees from coming back. Any link to this information?
Oh here we go, another Woz supporter. If Woz was gonna be successful, he could be successful on his own without Jobs. Oh but did you know (or conveniently forgot) that John Scully screwed over Jobs and got him canned out of the company? Well Jobs came back because Apple wanted him back. If Woz was wanted or needed he would've been back too. Don't give me that about who screwed who. That happens in business.
You have zero idea of how he personally felt about anything. Also do you have any proof that he never made any charitable contributions? Yeah, because he may have made several as an "unknown" donator. It happens often. But please don't allow logical facts to get in the way of you crapping on Jobs.
Wow you sure are focusing a lot on his personal life. You must live the "perfect" life. Never got a traffic ticket, never broke any laws, never lied, donated to many charities (that could be confirmed publicly), never had family issues, always stopped and fed every homeless person you saw on the street. Yeah, I'm sure.
Last edited:
You are unaware that charity as it has existed in Western culture since the 18th century has been little more than hypocritical pandering used by the wealthy as a superstitious stop-gap against retribution for their crimes against humanity. This is what Steve Jobs knew. Revelation of the Method - an occult principal - is a similar concept.
His child support issues are none of the public's business. If you feel indifferent then your own personal business should be put out on the web for people to judge.
Really? Seems pretty normal business practice not to bring back former employees especially if they left on a bad note or a conflict of interest, which is generally the only reason to block former employees from coming back. Any link to this information?
Oh here we go, another Woz supporter. If Woz was gonna be successful, he could be successful on his own without Jobs. Oh but did you know (or conveniently forgot) that John Scully screwed over Jobs and got him canned out of the company? Well Jobs came back because Apple wanted him back. If Woz was wanted or needed he would've been back too. Don't give me that about who screwed who. That happens in business.
You have zero idea of how he personally felt about anything. Also do you have any proof that he never made any charitable contributions? Yeah, because he may have made several as an "unknown" donator. It happens often. But please don't allow logical facts to get in the way of you crapping on Jobs.
Wow you sure are focusing a lot on his personal life. You must live the "perfect" life. Never got a traffic ticket, never broke any laws, never lied, donated to many charities (that could be confirmed publicly), never had family issues, always stopped and fed every homeless person you saw on the street. Yeah, I'm sure.
He created a cabal among the tech giants in SV so that anyone leaving Apple couldn't get a job anywhere else, just watch The Man in the Machine if you don't believe me. Also, he's a public figure so yeah things as scummy as the child support thing are public knowledge. If he had any care at all for the Foxconn suicides he should have raised their wages or made efforts to change the conditions there, but he did nothing, and don't give me that crap that he did things under an "unknown" moniker. There is no logical reason whatsoever for him to be generous and keep it a complete secret. The reality is that he just didn't do anything generous, because that's not the type of person he was. He was a smart ad man who's primary goal was to grow his business and amass personal wealth, like any CEO. He didn't care about people.
You seem like you know so much about a person's life (in actually you don't have a clue, but I'm just humoring you) and you seem so wrapped up with Job's life more than your own. Good to know that he had enough power to shake up your world. You need to chill.
There are many people in this world who donate as a "ghost". They don't like receiving credit or don't want to receive credit. Too bad for you that you think Jobs wasn't one of them. That's your problem if you feel that way. And no, somebody's life in regards to the child support they need to pay is NONE of your business and there's zero reason for you to care. As a CEO his personal business is liable to get leaked to the news. Doesn't mean you have a right to judge him, unless you feel people have a right to judge you?
I don't have a clue? What, and you do? Did you know him personally? There's a good reason for me to care about him being an awful father if the money I spend on his products goes directly into his pocket. It's the same as people who don't want to pay for Tom Cruise movies because he promotes Scientology, and by extension their awful practices.
Why would Jobs not want to receive credit for charity when he very publicly went after the Gizmodo journalist over the stolen iPhone? He only wants to be known for not letting things slide? Again, that makes no sense.
Well-paying jobs for a few hundred thousand people. Actually educating many, many employees there about their rights. Forcing agencies to pay back money they robbed from prospective employees. Stomping down on employment of underage workers. Limiting working hours. And their demand for employees has forced wages up massively in the last years.
This "awful father"s first daughter would quite strongly disagree with you. It seems that she got on quite well with him, and unlike you, hasn't had a bad word to say about him. And there are three more children who also completely disagree with you.
And somehow I think that not a penny that you spend on Apple's products goes into Steve Jobs' pockets.
What did you do at Apple? Just curious, I've worked at companies that I'd never buy stuff from lol
Actually I think it was 3 years ago when the 5 was released, it was a big deal at the time cause you could not use any of the other charging tools (car charger etc) and a lot of people were upset about it at the time and I remember Apple getting a lot of criticism for it. So I thought it was funny. Missed the monologue... I actually fell asleep and woke up just as Tim came out.I agree with you regarding Google Now. I use Siri several times a day and it isn't perfect but I wouldn't want to buy an Android phone because of accurate voice commands.
By the way, prefacing a post that you were an Apple employee and longtime mac user doesn't give you credibility over anyone else - just saying.
I thought that was a little weird actually, the lighting connector was released two years ago and noone complains about it now - Did you see the monologue? Colbert had a good joke about autocorrect that I found very timely
Outside of the US, a LOT of stuff is useless, not just at Apple.
Like going back more than a decade:
1. OnStar is useless in Alaska, and Canada
2. GPS/GLONASS is useless in Alaska, and most of the world that is more than 60 degrees north or south. There's not enough Satellites, that straight-GPS will often not even connect. If you've seen BUD/LSD (Big Ugly Dish/Little Silly Dish)'s up north, they all look like they are pointed straight at the ground.
3. 3G/4G/LTE is useless in most of Canada, Alaska, and large parts of Western and Central US. Don't believe those coverage maps, they're a joke.
So it's not surprising when software features in the iPhone or any other smartphone are useless due to the geography. I took my iPad across the US on the Empire Builder and there was no cellular coverage for most of it. Between Spokane and Chicago, you're lucky if you even get EDGE access when the train is stopped. Many of the stops have no data access, and no access while the train is moving.
Google Maps is actually more useless than Apple's maps, even though both of them require cellular access. Now imagine an automated vehicle trying to drive blind with no GPS or Data access at all. Go look at all the deadends on Google Streetview. If something isn't on streetview, their autonomous cars will never be able to figure out how to get there.
This is why autonomous cars are still years from practical use. All the big tech companies don't give a care about bringing their tech to the "hillbilly nation" beyond the major city their HQ is in.
You might be surprised, but the people who work for Apple's manufacturers in China are well paid compared to other similar jobs, and most are very happy to have such jobs. I don't think its the right comparison to look at the USA - you should look at other similar jobs in China. If Apple's manufacturers are paying more and the employees have better conditions than the market, then thats at least a start. Im not from China, but I am from the region and I know people who have worked at one of the companies. Looking behind the exposés and headlines, people are pretty happy to have the jobs.
Colbert: "How about a new Mac Pro?"
Cook: "What do you mean? We just released an updated MacBook Pro!"
Atlantic:
The Stealthy Humanism of Stephen Colbert
Stephen Colbert had Tim Cook on his show last night. The two talked about Siri, but also, less predictably, about corporate responsibility and Martin Luther King, Jr. and human rights.
The first section of the interview was pretty much an infomercial for Apple’s latest product, the iPhone 6s. Colbert had a prototype on-hand—in the newest color, rose gold, natch—and gave a detailed, gee-whiz-inflected preview of the device. The “3-D touch!” The “live photos”! The fact that the 6s will be charged with the same lightning cable used by recent iPhone models! (This is fortunate, because if Apple introduces another kind of charger, Colbert told Cook, “I will stab you in the neck with a fondue fork.”)
The focus of the conversation, though, was not on the tech stuff, but on the human stuff. Colbert asked Cook about the spate of new movies coming out that are critical of Steve Jobs. “I haven’t seen them, but the Steve I knew was an amazing human being,” Cook replied, dismissing the films and noting that, “I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic.” Then Colbert asked his guest about Cook’s fairly recent decision to come out as gay. “Was that an upgrade, or just a feature that had not been turned on before?” Colbert asked, as the studio audience collectively guffawed. But “the reason I ask,” he continued, “is: Is that experience of growing up in Alabama, as sort of a resonant outsider because of your sexuality—did that inform, in any way, your trying to help people who are in hardship around the world?”
This is, of course, very much not the first time Cook has been asked about his sexuality—either before or after he came out last year. But connecting Cook’s experience to that of “people who are in hardship around the world” was a newer way to frame the question. Perhaps even a Colbertian one.
And: “It did,” Cook replied. He mentioned that his desk at Apple is decorated with a photo of Robert Kennedy and another of Dr. King. He thinks he has a responsibility not just to Apple’s investors and users, he suggested, but to justice itself. In this case, “It became so clear to me that kids were getting bullied in school,” Cook said.
Kids were getting basically discriminated against, kids were even being disclaimed by their own parents. And that I needed to do something. And where I valued my privacy significantly, I felt that I was valuing it too far above what I could do for other people. And so I wanted to tell everyone my truth.
But Colbert had more questions about the “people who are in hardship” in the world.“Many people have criticized Apple in the past about your supply chain and about the way your products are manufactured around the world,” Colbert commented, leading into a question that didn’t explicitly name the Foxconn factory, but strongly implied it.
Cook replied that Apple brings “college classes to our manufacturing plants” to help educate the plants’ workers. He replied that the company tries to educate those workers, too, teaching them about—a vaguely Orwellian phrase—“the rights as we see them.” He argued that Apple had high standards for what those rights actually entail.
He summed it up:
Just like our products are meant to give tools to everyone to do better things, to empower them to do things they couldn’t do otherwise, we want to leave the world better than we found it. And for us that means focusing on education, focusing on the environment, focusing on human rights. And so we put a lot of ourselves into these things.
On the one hand, of course, this was the typical stuff of PR-approved talking points. It was the CEO of Apple—whose public appearances, whether they take place on the WWDC stage or in the Ed Sullivan Theater, have the power to move markets—performing in a way that served himself, and his investors, and his company. Nothing he said was entirely new or extremely revelatory. Nor was anything, really, that he was asked.
What was remarkable, though, was the journalistic bent of Colbert’s questions. And what was even more remarkable than that was the brief conversation’s focus on values. This talk about human rights. This talk about Cook as a role model. This talk about charity. This sense that Apple isn’t just a company or a manufacturer of technology products, but also a steward of something broader and deeper.
Which goes without saying, sure, in the sense that every technology—every business—has an internalized morality. Apple’s, because of its products’ popularity, is simply more visible than most. But we don’t hear a lot about that stuff on late-night, network television, for the most part. Late-night comedy usually treats its audiences—perhaps tired from long days at work, perhaps dozing on the couch, right before bed—to wacky stories designed to make their tellers look charming. It often serves up goofy skits designed to make their performers look relatable. It traffics, for the most part, in fluff. It pretty much relies on it.
Cook’s interview was, say what else you will about it, not fluff. It was funny, at points, but it was, more than anything else, serious. It had a distinct whiff of humanism in it—one that has been showing up in other Colbert interviews, as well. Which might indicate, just a little bit, what The Late Show is going to become as it settles into itself. Because when you hear a guest uttering the phrase “human rights”—multiple times!—on a late-night comedy show, that says as much about the show as it does about the guest.
Stephen Colbert had Tim Cook on his show last night. The two talked about Siri, but also, less predictably, about corporate responsibility and Martin Luther King, Jr. and human rights.
The first section of the interview was pretty much an infomercial for Apple’s latest product, the iPhone 6s. Colbert had a prototype on-hand—in the newest color, rose gold, natch—and gave a detailed, gee-whiz-inflected preview of the device. The “3-D touch!” The “live photos”! The fact that the 6s will be charged with the same lightning cable used by recent iPhone models! (This is fortunate, because if Apple introduces another kind of charger, Colbert told Cook, “I will stab you in the neck with a fondue fork.”)
The focus of the conversation, though, was not on the tech stuff, but on the human stuff. Colbert asked Cook about the spate of new movies coming out that are critical of Steve Jobs. “I haven’t seen them, but the Steve I knew was an amazing human being,” Cook replied, dismissing the films and noting that, “I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic.” Then Colbert asked his guest about Cook’s fairly recent decision to come out as gay. “Was that an upgrade, or just a feature that had not been turned on before?” Colbert asked, as the studio audience collectively guffawed. But “the reason I ask,” he continued, “is: Is that experience of growing up in Alabama, as sort of a resonant outsider because of your sexuality—did that inform, in any way, your trying to help people who are in hardship around the world?”
This is, of course, very much not the first time Cook has been asked about his sexuality—either before or after he came out last year. But connecting Cook’s experience to that of “people who are in hardship around the world” was a newer way to frame the question. Perhaps even a Colbertian one.
And: “It did,” Cook replied. He mentioned that his desk at Apple is decorated with a photo of Robert Kennedy and another of Dr. King. He thinks he has a responsibility not just to Apple’s investors and users, he suggested, but to justice itself. In this case, “It became so clear to me that kids were getting bullied in school,” Cook said.
Kids were getting basically discriminated against, kids were even being disclaimed by their own parents. And that I needed to do something. And where I valued my privacy significantly, I felt that I was valuing it too far above what I could do for other people. And so I wanted to tell everyone my truth.
But Colbert had more questions about the “people who are in hardship” in the world.“Many people have criticized Apple in the past about your supply chain and about the way your products are manufactured around the world,” Colbert commented, leading into a question that didn’t explicitly name the Foxconn factory, but strongly implied it.
Cook replied that Apple brings “college classes to our manufacturing plants” to help educate the plants’ workers. He replied that the company tries to educate those workers, too, teaching them about—a vaguely Orwellian phrase—“the rights as we see them.” He argued that Apple had high standards for what those rights actually entail.
He summed it up:
Just like our products are meant to give tools to everyone to do better things, to empower them to do things they couldn’t do otherwise, we want to leave the world better than we found it. And for us that means focusing on education, focusing on the environment, focusing on human rights. And so we put a lot of ourselves into these things.
On the one hand, of course, this was the typical stuff of PR-approved talking points. It was the CEO of Apple—whose public appearances, whether they take place on the WWDC stage or in the Ed Sullivan Theater, have the power to move markets—performing in a way that served himself, and his investors, and his company. Nothing he said was entirely new or extremely revelatory. Nor was anything, really, that he was asked.
What was remarkable, though, was the journalistic bent of Colbert’s questions. And what was even more remarkable than that was the brief conversation’s focus on values. This talk about human rights. This talk about Cook as a role model. This talk about charity. This sense that Apple isn’t just a company or a manufacturer of technology products, but also a steward of something broader and deeper.
Which goes without saying, sure, in the sense that every technology—every business—has an internalized morality. Apple’s, because of its products’ popularity, is simply more visible than most. But we don’t hear a lot about that stuff on late-night, network television, for the most part. Late-night comedy usually treats its audiences—perhaps tired from long days at work, perhaps dozing on the couch, right before bed—to wacky stories designed to make their tellers look charming. It often serves up goofy skits designed to make their performers look relatable. It traffics, for the most part, in fluff. It pretty much relies on it.
Cook’s interview was, say what else you will about it, not fluff. It was funny, at points, but it was, more than anything else, serious. It had a distinct whiff of humanism in it—one that has been showing up in other Colbert interviews, as well. Which might indicate, just a little bit, what The Late Show is going to become as it settles into itself. Because when you hear a guest uttering the phrase “human rights”—multiple times!—on a late-night comedy show, that says as much about the show as it does about the guest.
Well here's something interesting:
The first week of his show he wore a traditional wrist watch. The second week of his show, which included Tim Cooks appearance, Colbert wore his Watch. This week, his third, he's back to wearing his traditional watch.
I find this fascinating that such a staunch Apple supporter would be swapping his nifty new Apple smartwatch out with a traditional wristwatch from week to week. And it raises the question of why ... Does he not get enough daily utility out of it to keep it on his wrist? Does he just enjoy wearing his other watches despite the staggering loss of functionality? Or does he normally charge his watch during the show so he can use it to track his sleep patterns?
I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for what's on his wrist going forward.