Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

25 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 imgod2u · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple is first and foremost a company that wants to sell stuff. That involves a lot of technology but it has never been the only thing they've focused on. Throughout its history, the company has banked (literally and figuratively) on selling stuff based on "the feelz" -- that warm glow of self-righteous euphoria their customers want to feel after purchasing their products.

      What gives a demographic "the feelz" changes with society and culture and can very well be nudged by marketing. Today's society is much more concerned with social justice, diversity and charity than it was even 10 years ago. And so it can be argued Apple is doing the smart thing by changing their image to be one of social conscience.

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Driving in reverse by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      It means they wanna get rid of a connector they feel is outdated. Like parallel ports, CD drives, etc.

    6. Re:Driving in reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everything with Google and Android today is just a fork of the original work Torvalds released in 1991.

      Fair enough?

    7. Re:Driving in reverse by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      If you study the history of it, it's actually way more benign (read: stupid) than that. The loopholes exist because of different laws in 3-4 different countries, some of which has existed for hundreds of years. They involve laws on how royalty money (paid for intellectual property) is taxed in both Ireland and the Netherlands as well as loose incorporation laws in places like the Cayman Islands.

      These laws were all put in place for different reasons and for different industries to benefit. With regards to royalties, the US part was specifically there to help the movie industry.

      Someone at Apple one day spent some time drawing lines between all of these laws and had an "ah ha!" moment. Incorporated a bunch of shell subsidiaries in each of these countries and had them pay "licensing royalties" to each other using profits from hardware sales (again, totally legal) and boom: no taxes paid on foreign profits.

      Then everyone else saw this and did it too.

    8. Re:Driving in reverse by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      More to the point, Apple have created far more jobs than they moved overseas. In 1997, when Steve Jobs returned, Apple employed about 8500 people worldwide. That includes their in-house manufacturing, done at the time in the US and Cork, Ireland. In 2015, they employed 110000 people, NOT including the outsourced manufacturing done in China. Even if fully half of their 1997 employees were manufacturing, the jobs added outnumber the jobs lost my more than an order of magnitude. Have you driven through Cupertino recently? You can hardly go a block without driving past an Apple building. The town is bursting at the seams with people who have much more fulfilling and stimulating Apple jobs than manufacturing. And that new spaceship HQ... which, by the way, has more capacity than their entire 1997 global workforce... is only going to supplement the facilities they use. They're continuing to hire and expect to go on filling up the town.

      Frankly, the thought of sitting on an assembly line mindlessly inserting tab A into slot B all day is horrifyingly dreary. And I really just don't get the obsession people have over the tedium of assembly being done elsewhere; when the design, engineering, software, management, and operations are done here. And more than a small part of the retail, distribution, and support is done here as well.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. 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...

    10. Re:Driving in reverse by unixisc · · Score: 2

      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?

      Precisely!!! But that was during the Jobs era. After he passed on, that got replaced by someone more interested in LGBT and defending the rights of dead Jihadists over law enforcement's need to find out what else was being plotted by the accomplices of the San Bernardino Jihadists. One of the things that Jobs did was refuse to have X rated material in the iTunes store and make it family non-hostile: wonder whether the LGBT champion has reversed that?

      I'd rather see Woz return to Apple's helm and replace him: if CEOs wanna start preaching to us, they should do what Carly did and dive headlong into politics. Last thing I want is a moral dilemma in determining whether my use of a product that I am fluent at using embodies hypocrisy by feeding the notion that I endorse the deranged political views of the head of the company that makes them.

    11. Re:Driving in reverse by npslider · · Score: 2, Informative

      Frankly, the thought of sitting on an assembly line mindlessly inserting tab A into slot B all day is horrifyingly dreary. And I really just don't get the obsession people have over the tedium of assembly being done elsewhere; when the design, engineering, software, management, and operations are done here. And more than a small part of the retail, distribution, and support is done here as well.

      I bet many laid off American assembly line workers would take those jobs.

      Oh, yes, Toyota, a Japanese company operates assembly lines in the US. I'm sure they are not doing so to be "nice" to American workers, but it shows that people will work those jobs.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    12. Re:Driving in reverse by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      if Apple found a loophole that allowed them to legally dump poisonous metals wherever they like, would you take the same stance?

      Payment for double taxation is not remotely like polluting the earth.

      You're right, the taxes I pay are completely fucking comparable to the taxes Apple doesn't pay by exploiting loopholes.

      No, Apple's loopholes are exactly like you (and I) taking deductions for mortgage insurance, kids, depreciation on rental property, etc, etc, etc.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. 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.

    14. Re:Driving in reverse by MikeMo · · Score: 2

      Apple pays a LOT of taxes in the US. Their effective tax rate this last quarter was above 25%. It's the cash that was made via sales overseas that is still overseas that people complain about (and they pay taxes in those countries on that money).

    15. 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!
    1. Re:An interest dichotomy by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      I am thinking that "you can simply not ignore Apple" is true... in the same way that you can simply not ignore the pretentious dork at the party who keeps turning all conversations back toward himself.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:An interest dichotomy by avandesande · · Score: 2

      what's the chances he's got an iphone?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:An interest dichotomy by organgtool · · Score: 2

      Even if you don't buy Apple products, you're still effected by their business decisions. For instance, many laptop manufacturers stopped making a 17" laptop after Apple discontinued the 17" Macbook Pro. Worse yet, many phone manufacturers released phones without headphone jacks simply based on the rumor that the new iPhone wasn't going to have one. Therefore, even though you may not buy Apple products, your choice of features becomes more limited as companies blindly follow Apple's lead.

  3. Re:More socially resposible by ranton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It said socially responsible not financially irresponsible.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  4. Re:"you can simply not ignore Apple" by Nemyst · · Score: 2

    Do you own a phone, a computer, a TV, a watch? Do you use a web browser? Do you listen to digital music? Congratulations, Apple has had an impact on you, sometimes directly, sometimes tangentially. You may not like it, but putting your head in the sand just makes you appear disconnected from reality.

  5. Re:Apple employee here. by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not an Apple employee, but I'd rather that he decoupled his personal interests from the company, since it's a public company and not his personal fiefdom. What if he came from the other end - let's say a member of the 700 Club or Family Research Council or one more of those anti LGBT or anti abortion groups? Would people still be hailing him or Apple?

    People of all political persuasions use products independently based on their personal preferences - be it iPhones, Androids, Blackberries, Lumias, et al. They should be able to do it w/o feeling guilty about the company making them being against their personal beliefs.

  6. Re:"you can simply not ignore Apple" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    By that score, IBM, Microsoft, 3M, and Dupont all have an impact on your life. And arguably stronger than any that Apple has.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  7. "Let's Talk About Apple..." by lanybaggins · · Score: 2

    Let's just not.