Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Under Tim Cook: More Socially Responsible, Less Visionary (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the apples-and-oranges dept.

Let's talk about Apple, unarguably one of the most remarkable companies on the face of the earth. (Remarkable doesn't necessarily mean great -- it just means that the company is something worth making a remark). You can like it, or hate it, but you can simply not ignore Apple. But what's the occasion, you ask? It's been five years since Tim Cook took over as Apple CEO. (Editor's note: auto-playing video ahead, which may annoy you) Under his leadership, Apple has grown to become the world's most successful company, doubling the stock price and registering a staggering 84 percent growth in its net worth. Media outlets are abuzz with articles, analysis, and over-analysis of Tim Cook's Apple today. Some excerpts from a CNN article: Apple's culture has changed noticeably, both for the better and the worse. [...] If Jobs put a dent in the universe through Apple's coveted products, Cook is making his mark by highlighting the importance of social efforts: LGBT rights, philanthropy, corporate diversity, renewable energy and improving manufacturing conditions abroad. Under Cook's leadership, Apple finally began matching charitable contributions from employees, which had long been a sore spot for staff. Apple had 110,000 full-time employees as of the end of September 2015, nearly doubling from the 60,400 employees it reported having in September 2011, shortly after Cook took over, according to annual filings with the SEC. [...] There's now a feeling among some Apple insiders that the company is just running the same product playbook that Jobs created in his final years at the helm. "For four or five years, the playbook is the same that's been done," says Amit Sharma, a former Apple exec on the online store team. But, he adds, "just because everybody is looking for new doesn't mean it's not working."

9 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Driving in reverse by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cook is making his mark by highlighting the importance of social efforts: LGBT rights, philanthropy, corporate diversity, renewable energy and improving manufacturing conditions abroad.

    I thought Apple was first and foremost a technology company?

    1. Re:Driving in reverse by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought Apple was first and foremost a technology company?

      You can be a tech company and try to not be total douchebags.

      Or, you can be a tech company with no conscience and burn and pillage your way to profit. Which btw, IS the norm. I'd rather deal with the less evil. Even if I had money invested in it.

      Just my two cents.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    2. Re:Driving in reverse by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can be a tech company and try to not be total douchebags.

      As long as that doesn't include off-sourcing jobs to China, and paying taxes to any country except the one that made Apple possible...

    3. Re:Driving in reverse by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IDK if any of those can be blamed on Apple. In the beginning, yes, sure. But nowadays, it is just not possible to manufacturer tens of millions of iPhones every quarter in the US. They tried to shift Mac production (much less demanding) to the US and found they couldn't even get the supply chain for *that* fully in the US. This isn't even a problem of cost anymore. The Chinese simply do it better and on a bigger scale even if you don't account for the difference in labor costs. After all, if cheap labor is all you need, iPhone production should've moved to Vietnam or Malaysia by now.

      As to taxes, again, their fault for finding the loophole and exposing it to all companies to use. But taking advantage of a *legal* way to pay less taxes is in no way "douchebaggery". It's Congress that's at fault here, they made the laws the way they are. I doubt you or anyone voluntarily pays more taxes than you legally owe nor would such an act make much difference. It only makes a difference if *everyone* does it, not just one entity. And that requires a change in the laws.

    4. Re:Driving in reverse by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then everyone else saw this and did it too.

      So, Apple is again leading the pack by showing the world how to screw the nation that allowed it to become so rich.

      Sure, it's not illegal, but how does that demonstrate social responsibility? It shows great smarts in maximizing profits (not wrong in the slightest), but it also shows that it's more important to make money at ANY cost in Apple's eyes (as any business does, by its very nature), than to consider how these actions affect our nation.

      They are hypocrites to say they are leading the pack in "social responsibility", while posing as the poster child of corporations robbing Uncle Sam, leaving the shrinking middle class paying for a government drowning in debt.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

    5. Re:Driving in reverse by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, Apple is again leading the pack by showing the world how to screw the nation that allowed it to become so rich.

      Sure, it's not illegal, but how does that demonstrate social responsibility?

      IDK. If you discovered something in the tax code that let you pay way less of your taxes, would you consider it not "socially responsible" to do it and tell your friends to? Would you just forget about said discovery and keep paying what you originally paid in taxes? Do you take any deductions every year? Do you take tax credits that you don't need?

      If Apple were lobbying (and they very well may be, but we can't just assume) for laws in every country to stay as they are, that'd be a different story. But we have Cook on record as saying "this is a Congress problem". And it is. Congress needs to change the tax laws.

      Even if Apple were to choose to voluntarily pay more taxes, it'd be a drop in the bucket for the Federal budget. Same as if you voluntarily chose to pay more taxes. The only way to actually make a dent is to make them, their competitors and all the other companies also pay more in taxes. That's kinda beyond Apple's abilities.

    6. Re:Driving in reverse by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder how many of these people were around during the iMac "USB Only" fiasco. The world ended, iMacs never sold or caught on, Apple was in dire straights...

      Except that's not how it happened, companies started making USB accessories (targeted to the iMac market) and then those crazy ports started showing up on PCs.

  2. An interest dichotomy by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can like it, or hate it, but you can simply not ignore Apple.

    This highly depends on your perspective. For instance, I have no apple stuff, nor do any of their products excite me in a way that would suggest that'll change soon. So in that context, I can simply ignore apple.

    However, from a business perspective, they're the 800 lb gorilla. What's interesting, however, is how easy it is for some of their target audience to ignore them.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  3. More socially resposible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I notice none of the items in that list include "paying more taxes."