Slashdot Mirror
Apple CEO Tim Cook Shares His Experience Of Working With President Donald Trump (bloomberg.com)
In a wide-ranging interview with Bloomberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook talked about his experience of working with Donald Trump. He said: I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise. I've pushed hard on immigration. We clearly have a very different view on things in that area. I've pushed on climate. We have a different view there. There are clearly areas where we're not nearly on the same page. We're dramatically different. I hope there's some areas where we're not. His focus on jobs is good. So we'll see. Pulling out of the Paris climate accord was very disappointing. I felt a responsibility to do every single thing I could for it not to happen. I think it's the wrong decision. If I see another opening on the Paris thing, I'm going to bring it up again. At the end of the day, I'm not a person who's going to walk away and say, "If you don't do what I want, I leave." I'm not on a council, so I don't have those kind of decisions. But I care deeply about America. I want America to do well. America's more important than bloody politics from my point of view. Let me give you an example of this. Veterans Affairs has struggled in providing health care to veterans. We have an expertise in some of the things at the base level that they're struggling with. So we're going to work with them. I could give a crap about the politics of it. I want to help veterans. My dad's a veteran. My brother served. We have so many military folks in Apple. These folks deserve great health care. So we're going to keep helping.
Help Americans, sure you do Timmy.
You know how credible you are, Tim?
Doesn't it follow that non-vets deserve at least accessible basic healthcare?
Where Tim and Donald agree is that neither of them or their companies should have to pay US tax.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It feels cold and damp.
you have basic healthcare out of market not covered.
The vets should be in market all over the usa under the VA even at non VA places.
Totally illegal(?)
Mr. Cook, with all due respect, how can you claim to be remotely "responsible" while your lifestyle, and the lifestyles of those like you, is destroying our society and our environment. How many are suffering because of your greed and selfishness?
All I see is corruption and self-service from our "leaders".
Apple:
1) manufactures its devices overseas
2) avoids paying taxes on its earnings (seemingly to the greatest extent possible) despite being one of the richest companies in the world
3) creates devices full of solder and glue that are virtually unrepairable and which cannot be upgraded
Tim Cook:
1) needs to focus on making COMPUTERS, rather than pushing his hypocritical social and political agenda.
Apple had Michelle Obama at WWDC for fucksake.
Tim: MAKE COMPUTERS AND SHUT UP
Meetings with Tim must be fun when he says the opposite of what he actually means. You'd hope that a CEO or one of the world's largest companies would at least have a grasp of basic English.
Someone is going to get their liberal card revoked. Any sort of agreement or cooperation with Trump is not allowed, even in a rare instance where he might be correct about something, cause, you know, ... uhhh ... well ... we didn't get our way in '16 and we won't stand for that?
Apple has FAR greater ability to create jobs than the federal government does as a general proposition. Apple is sitting on a gigantic war chest of money. If Tim Cook really gave a shit about creating jobs he could spend some of that Scrooge McDuck pile of money on something. Saying he supports Trump on job creation is a bunch of bullshit unless he is actually directing his company to do everything it can to create jobs. He hasn't done this so he's lying about that.
The only reason for Apple to sit on a pile of cash that large is because they cannot figure out something productive to do with the money. So they should either return it to shareholders or find some way to put it to productive use.
Veterans Affairs has struggled in providing health care to veterans. We have an expertise in some of the things at the base level that they're struggling with. So we're going to work with them. I could give a crap about the politics of it. I want to help veterans. My dad's a veteran. My brother served. We have so many military folks in Apple. These folks deserve great health care. So we're going to keep helping.
The VA needs help to be sure but how about solving the bigger problem? EVERYONE needs health care, not just veterans. EVERYONE needs health insurance, not just veterans. IT in medicine sucks terribly for the most part. Apple has done nothing to tackle this problem. That would be a great place to invest some of those billions they have on their balance sheet. Buy some medical records companies and get busy. Do something rather than talking to Trump which is probably a waste of time.
When the leadership of any corporation has more concern for politics, political issues than its people, products and investors, that leadership has lost its way. Steve Jobs was approached by a large charity (possibly United Way) who wanted Apple to support the charity directly. Reportedly, Steve Jobs told the charity that he paid his people well and if the charity wanted to directly ask his employees for support, to go ahead but that Apple, as a corporation, would not. Jobs did not dilute the energy, activities, and resources of Apple to support the charity. He believed it was a "personal" issue and seemed happy for Apple employees to support whatever charities that they, individually, wanted to support. Tim Cook, on the other had, likes to throw Apple into every one of his pet projects. I am not make comment on the value of his "causes" (I agree with many of them) but his short-sighted business strategy. At this time, Apple needs to "buck up" and come out with Jobesque style renovations and revolutionary products. Tim Cook has led Apple into no such products. Even the driverless, electric car is years away and, probably, with today's technology unreachable for Apple. Flouting a non-existent product is a poor business strategy.
I wish there were more people with the attitude that they want to do what they can to fix what problems they can, and that far too many people do instead say, "If you don't do what I want, I leave."
I'm sorry you don't like Cook as a person, or Apple as a company. Nevertheless, this is a worthy sentiment that is worth emulating.
But isn't this like an 1850's plantation owner saying that they have "expertise" in employee benefits and labor management?
"Differing opinions" my ass...
But I care deeply about America. I want America to do well.
This makes zero sense. Globalists like Cook don't believe in nations, don't believe in borders, and think that "America" as a concept is a fable and about as valid as a children's story like Santa Claus. Full grown adults who believe in America should be taken about as seriously as full grown adults who still believe in the Easter Bunny. So his words don't agree with his positions. Paris accord? That was an awful, awful deal for America. Immigration? We're all full on no-skill, illiterate people from backwards cultures right now. We don't need any more, and in fact it's harmful to America. Our own people are suffering and the globalist cure isn't healing, it's euthanasia.
A Military ID card should be accepted as insurance at any HMO in the US.
That's not his money to use on his ideals. It belongs to Apple shareholders, and is to be used or distributed to benefit them. If he can show how he can turn a good profit with low risk, he can make as many jobs with that money as his ideas will support.
Companies are rightly terrified of hiring workers for ideas that don't work out, voters and big government have made sure that it's insanely expensive to employ anyone and even more expensive to fire them.
And what experience does Tim Cook have on these issues? He is a businessman billionaire who is simply parroting what people tell him; he has no first-hand experience with the effects of illegal immigration, and he has no background in science and likely couldn't explain climate models if his life depended on it.
Cook is a decision maker in his company. But in government, the roles are that Trump is the decision maker and Cook is the expert adviser. It's Cook's duty to stick to those areas that he is an expert in, namely the business of running a high tech company. On all other areas, he should keep his inner Dunning-Kruger in check.
What does that sentence even mean? What does accepting insurance mean, and why the fuck would HMOs (a stupid type of insurance) be involved in other types of insurance? And how would Military IDs somehow mitigate or spread risk?
You said nonsense. You're not even wrong, because you didn't make a coherent statement.
A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
If you need to eat, you go obtain food...
You need money to buy food, you go to work...
You need a job, you go out and find one...
See how this works?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those who are unable to help themselves, the disabled, the elderly and such and I support government and private programs that do this, but government should not give to those who could and should be helping themselves because it does more harm than good.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How can Tim Cook claim expertise in either climate change or immigration? He is the business leader of a large corporation. I don't see how that translates to being an expert on either climate or immigration.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Although the article here seems tailor made to bring out both the political flames as well as the Apple-bashing flames, I would like to say that I admire this attitude.
Talk is cheap. I judge a man by his actions. Tim Cook talks a good game about caring about the country but he does everything in his power to have his company avoid paying taxes to support it. Apple has billions in cash on their balance sheet which could be invested in ways that would create jobs. Instead they simply sit like Smaug on their pile of gold and do nothing that would create jobs or drive the economy forward. Apple has outsourced nearly all of their manufacturing to China, even stuff that might not actually have to be outsourced. Tim Cook I'm sure has many wonderful qualities but on the stuff he's talking about here he is nothing but a do-nothing hypocrite. Few companies are as well resourced to help change the world as Apple but sadly Apple and Cook are doing little with that opportunity.
I wish there were more people with the attitude that they want to do what they can to fix what problems they can, and that far too many people do instead say, "If you don't do what I want, I leave."
So do I. What's more I think rich powerful men like Tim Cook should be leading the charge instead of hoping others do it for them. Elon Musk is a FAR better example of someone trying to actually improve the world than Tim Cook is.
According to environmental scientists if you are using electricity and not living or at least pushing for their "agrarian utopia" you are destroying society and our environment.
Bullshit. Citation needed.
Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Cook lives in a multi-million dollar abode so hard to claim, by their standards, that he is living a responsible lifestyle.
In Silicon Valley "multi-million dollar abode" means a shack with running water.
Employment: They are investing in robots that disassemble old phones for recycling. That is a first step to robots that can assemble new phones. That can return factories to the US, increase jobs, increase tax revenues.
Healthcare: Apple has a healthcare engineering group that assists healthcare providers find technical solutions.
and when it comes time to unlock the next iphone??
Will they add an FBI mode that turns off the auto wipe and turns off the login timeout so they can try all pins?
Let managed phones be unlocked with an admin login? that can be used even with an user set lock pin?
Have an GOV only unlocking room at apple HQ that is only used under court order?
Where Tim and Donald agree is that neither of them or their companies should have to pay US tax.
First of all, Apple paid over 8 billion dollars in taxes last year alone. How much did you pay? Apple does more to help the U.S. every year than generations of your family ever will.
As for the overseas money, Apple has said repeatedly they want to repatriate the money they have overseas, they just can't see paying the rates the U.S. current changes to do so.
Trump has said he wants to lower that rate dramatically so companies (not just Apple) can bring that trapped cash back to the U.S.
So both of them are on the same page - they want to bring a lot of money back into the U.S. and pay reasonable taxes on it.
It will happen in the next few years, so put down that hateraide and stop lying to yourself and others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Throwing money and rhetoric at a problem doesn't solve the problem. A sustained change can be effected by a strong leader who attracts a large following. However, the CEO of a company who engages in child labor, outsources jobs overseas, and stores it's money in overseas bank accounts isn't someone whose lead I would follow. This is the corporate equivalent of a talking head spouting great one liners while doing minimal efforts and continuing to engage in business as usual.
so you hate us veterans?
Uninformed ranting.
Where is your responsibility for creating a class of computers that the user does not control? WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY THERE? Tim, focus on making the world a better place by spending that 200 billion you have in the bank and stop worrying about climate change. Lower your prices, open up your maps top the web. You want to help humanity? Stop being a voracious pig stockpiling a huge war chest and make computers that the USER controls. Steve hand-picked this fucking tool?
Good-bye
What does this mean? All Americans have basic healthcare that is not covered. Vets and non-vets. The GP is simply implying that All Americans should have covered healthcare benefits, and asks why should only veterans have healthcare benefits covered. You, and Tim Cook, might think that only vets should have covered care, and other Americans don't. I would disagree though.
What is the point of returning manufacturing to the US if its done by robots?
Good-bye
A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
Fuck you for thinking that people don't have a right to receive health care. Everybody should have a right to be treated when they are sick without being bankrupted in the process. If you think otherwise then you are an asshole. Plenty of people work very hard and still end up with medical bills FAR beyond their ability to pay them. A few weeks stay in a hospital can easily cost six figures. The only institution that can solve this problem is the government and to pretend otherwise is both idiotic and cruel.
Even taking ethics out of it, pure economic pragmatism should drive us to want to see everyone taken care of because if you don't insure everyone then you end up spending even more money when they inevitably end up in the ER and drive up costs for everyone.
Apple has FAR greater ability to create jobs than the federal government does as a general proposition. Apple is sitting on a gigantic war chest of money.
Apple reportedly has about $246 billion in cash. That seems like a large amount, but the U.S. has a population of 320 million, so think of it as 770 dollars per American.
But, of course, most of Apple's sales didn't come from America. So, two thirds of that logically should be used to "create jobs" in the places where they sell their products. So: figure they have two hundred and fifty dollars per American available to "create jobs."
I guess you can create jobs with $250 per person. But, "greater ability than the federal government"? In comparison, the federal government had a budget of 4 trillion dollars. Per year.
He "pushed hard on immigration..."? What exactly is his stance on immigration that he needs to push on? Sure, I understand opposition to building a wall between Mexico and the U.S., but that is a specific issue.
So, is he supporting open borders? He states "we clearly have a very different view on things in that area". Other than a border wall, where is Trump wildly off-base on immigration?
What is the point of returning manufacturing to the US if its done by robots?
What's the point in saving the US auto industry if its manufacturing is heavily dependent upon robots?
Even in heavily robotic manufacturing and assembly there are jobs. Plus there is the entire issue of the money being spent in the US and having secondary economic effects and benefits. Plus there is parts and subsystem vendors located in the US being more viable, again see auto industry.
IT in medicine sucks terribly for the most part.
It's amazing how few people realize this. If you talk to politicians or listen to people at TED talks, you'd think that healthcare IT is cutting edge and is changing the way we do medicine in amazing ways. Nothing is further from the truth. Healthcare IT is so far behind the rest of the industry that it's embarrassing. The tech is outdated, and crazy expensive. Look at how hard the U.K. NHS got hit by WannaCry recently for an example.
I worked in IT at a hospital for a few years. They started rolling out a new EMR and integrated billing system while I was there. This system cost over $1,500,000 U.S., and was a freakin' WinForms application......and this was in 2013. Nobody could tell me why it cost so much for a system that was state of the art back when Clinton was president. It's not just that one hospital either, everyone I talk to has the same experience (anecdotal of course).
How do you fix this? For starters, stop having doctors choose which IT system they should use. They are easily jaded, and at the end of the day their nurses and admin staff use the system instead. They end up choosing a system that they will never use.
Try paying hospital IT staff what they're worth. Salaries in that field are below the rest of the industry. On-call rotations and overtime are out of control.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Let's see, considering the main designers listed on many of the key iPhone patents (Jony Ive -- head of design, Bas Ording and Imran Chaudri -- the guys who came up with most of the UI inventions) are immigrants -- I am pretty sure they need them. Not to mention if the Muslim hatred and Donald Trump's Syria ban had been in place in the 1950's Apple itself wouldn't exist because Steve Jobs biological dad would not have been able to come here. .. partial list: Google, yahoo, Oracle, YouTube, Apple.
Most of Silicon Valley's best companies have immigrants or kids of immigrants as their key co-founders
government (Ireland). Sounds like Cook and his company are cut from the same cloth as Trump where it counts :)
captcha was 'ballyhoo' :)
Salaries in that field are below the rest of the industry.
Sounds like a job for creimer!
The have billions of dollars (in foreign currency). However, it is doubtful that these money can be used to create jobs. Jobs are necessary to do things. For example produce iPhones. And you need more workers when you want to produce more iPhones. However, you only need to produce more iPhones when people are buying more iPhones. Furthermore, as a company leader it is his job to make as much money for the owners as possible. If he can avoid paying taxes than this is the fault of politicians. They should have designed the tax laws in a way that you cannot cheat. Unfortunately, Trump is not going in that direction.
The piece of shit will enter the gas chamber just like all the other traitors.
IT, computer systems, and hospital billing are such a clusterfuck any solutions in healthcare that don't address them are a waste of time. Single payer fixes nothing when hour long services and bags of mostly saline solution are billed at the same rates as luxury SUVs.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Employment: They are investing in robots that disassemble old phones for recycling. That is a first step to robots that can assemble new phones. That can return factories to the US, increase jobs, increase tax revenues.
Robots that could assembly phones have been available for decades. You apparently are not aware of the level of automation that is already available. The reason Apple manufactures a lot of their stuff in China is because that is where the supply chain is located. It has nothing to do with a lack of sophisticated automation available in the US.
Healthcare: Apple has a healthcare engineering group that assists healthcare providers find technical solutions.
What the fuck does that mean? Could you come up with a more vague and content free sentence? You're talking about shit like Apple selling iPads to doctor's offices. Not exactly world changing stuff there and certainly not solving the important failures in our health care system.
Why would an Apple CEO have "a level of expertise" on climate?
Come to that, why would the president, either?
Neither of them should be discussing it between themselves in any serious business fashion. That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.
Apple could provide computers or services that scientists could use to make a decision to inform a president's political direction. Other than that, I'm not even sure why you'd bring it up, even.
The have billions of dollars (in foreign currency). However, it is doubtful that these money can be used to create jobs
Baloney. If they do pretty much anything economically useful beyond simply gathering interest from securities, jobs will be created. But as long as they keep that pile of money sitting in the figurative bank no jobs of any kind will be created. There is no task you can do that involves billions of dollars that will not create meaningful numbers of jobs. But they have to actually try to do something first. Apple hasn't taken a significant risk since the iPhone was released. It's just been incremental improvements and variations on existing technology for the most part.
You're not even wrong, because you didn't make a coherent statement.
+1 Awesome
According to environmental scientists if you...
Bullshit. Citation needed. Which "scientists" are you purportedly quoting here?
Such as Oxford Martin School or read the work of Carol Smith from United Nations University and David Brubaker from John Hopkins.
"Oxford Martin School" is not a scientist, in fact, is not even a person.
"Carol Smith from United Nations University" is not a scientist. She is a journalist.
I don't know anything about David Brubaker. He doesn't seem to be a scientist, or at least, google scholar can't dig up any citations to his papers. And he is not listed on the staff of Johns Hopkins.
Few companies are as well resourced to help change the world as Apple but sadly Apple and Cook are doing little with that opportunity.
Sadly, our capitalist system is ill-suited to the kind of altruistic effort you describe. Fiduciary responsibility prevents most corporations from taking risks for the common good.
I have what I call the Elon Musk Rule for Billionaires: If you're doing even 1/10th of the public good as Elon does, then you deserve your billions. But if you're just another hedge-funder, sitting on your Smaug hoard, then you -- or rather the fact that you are a billionaire -- is not doing any good for the rest of us. Furthermore, the fact that you are keeping all that coin in your hoard, and out of circulation, is in fact a detriment to the rest of us. You are nothing more than a blood-sucking parasite with a fancy suit and a Ferrari.
It's worth noting that both SpaceX and Tesla were started as private companies (and SpaceX is still private) precisely because Elon knew he could never get away with such risky behavior as a public corporation.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Apple has billions in cash on their balance sheet which could be invested in ways that would create jobs
You mean like cloning Steve Jobs? I dunno if Cook would be interested in that.
On a more serious note, can we stop pretending that doing everything we can to create jobs is the ultimate good any patriotic american can strive for? Climate change and experimenting with how much the administration can bend the constitution are far more important than making busy work for a few hundred more engineers. He's not a hypocrite, he just doesn't think "jobsjobsjobsjobsjobs" is the ultimate priority. And as someone who is currently looking for a job, I have to agree with him. Far more urgent for me sure, but making more jobs can't be the top priority.
Plus, I don't have a crystal ball, but green energy and an economy that is bolstered by immigration are clearly more effective ways of creating jobs than apple throwing a bunch of money around wildly. I know it's popular in some circles to insist that anything the government does aside from cut taxes = jobs die, but that's simply a fairy tale told by chamber of commerce types (who themselves cut jobs whenever possible.)
Well, you'll have to hire some people to fill in some of the spots the robots can't. Or maintain those robots. Or improve those robots.
It won't be the level of jobs that happened at the rise of automotive manufacturing. Those days are gone. But it's better than having that manufacturing powerhouse in China.
There's also the issue of intellectual property. Not just in the products you make but in the equipment and logistics required to manufacture it. That's valuable knowledge that you'll have a tough time keeping secret when you manufacture in China.
Or hiring Americans.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
People don't work with Trump. They either work for him or have no business with him at all.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You make this argument because it is Apple, and not a "dirty" oil company, because you likely believe Apple is a "good" socially responsible company, even if they are not.
The problem is that these large companies hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make the rules. Apple is also guilty of this. So, this is not a simple case of "oooops, lookey here, i found me a deduction." It is more along the lines of, "I will donate X to your campaign, and you make me a 8x deduction. It is wrong and despicable. Don't forgive companies for doing this.....Especially Apple and Google, who claim to be socially responsible, then hides from paying taxes so less services can be provided. Hypocrites suck. No matter how much they put a good face eon it.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Once again, we have two situations - repatriation and immigration - that were caused by government. Specifically government inaction. The tax loopholes that have allowed companies to legally stash money offshore have existed for years. Both democrats and republicans are to blame for this. Trump says he's going to do something about it. We'll see.
The immigration mess is a classic government bungle. The last official amnesty - back in the Reagan years - was supposed to solve the problem. Obviously it did not and we are still arguing about building walls and keeping out "foreigners" that are "taking our jobs". Meanwhile, the legal immigration system is still broken and people that want to get in legitimately are waiting literally years to have applications processed.
The Veterans Affairs disaster that Cook refers to is spot on. It is an embarrassment that wounded and disabled war veterans are treated the way they are. Arizona, by the way, has the worst VA division in the whole country and John McCain has been a Senator in that state since dirt was young. One of the biggest Neo-cons in the entire government and his state comes dead last in the care and treatment of veterans.
Sadly, the government is full of John McCains.
Timmy Cook is just a queer.
No one gives a shit about what he cares about, talks about or writes about.
And one minute after that one minute of fame, no one will remember.
Apple could do two easy things to increase jobs in the US: 1) Pay their apple store employees more, and provide better training and benefits, and 2) reduce the cost of iThings.
The net result would be people with more money, able to spend it on more things. That drives the economy, and ultimately produces jobs. An even better impact of this is that money is then taxed, both as income tax and sales tax, and the resulting economic activity is taxed, and we're now injecting more money into the country as a whole.
Instead they have enough cash on had to buy something like 100 million iPhones at market prices and hand them out to people. That's not helping the economy in any appreciable way. If that was injected back into the economy, it would be a definite benefit.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I believe they are using an eco-friendly green composting method to get rid of their extra cash. But it keeps on rolling in, so even they get a bit behind and have to pile it up and wait for a compost pit to free up.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
> Jobs are necessary to do things ... However, you only need to produce more iPhones when people are buying more iPhones.
Gee, it's too bad that Apple couldn't possibly develop new lines of products with some of that money, what with all the product lines that people will ever buy already invented.
Good thing for them that iPhones have been a staple of the company since its inception in the 70s or who knows what they would have done.
"Pulling out of the Paris climate accord was very disappointing."
He's a liar, Apple makes products which are made to not last, which are not serviceable, for the profit. Fine, but then say so, and admit it's not good for the environment. They are climate leeches. Cook is also an Al Gore, with a huge carbon footprint far above average because he doesn't give a fuck about the climate, just about being a rich hypocrite mother fucker. This is just marketing to people so people can buy more of his products which are bad for climate, while simultaneously circle jerking that they care so much.
Saying the right things is different than doing them. I think you are getting them confused. If he went balls to wall trying to work with this administration, especially in areas where there was common ground, you would be absolute correct. But the reality is far from it.
,br> Even in areas where Tim Cook preachers, it is just hype. If you wan't social programs, then you have to pay taxes. You don't HAVE to use the loop holes. You could be an example of a socially responsible company. Keep in mind Apple's capitalization. They can afford to do the right thing. But is easier to talk about other's doing it.
Time Cook pretends to be green. Yet, he ignores the environmental disaster that is the company that he runs. Making semiconductors is toxic. I am sorry if you never thought about. The chemicals used in masking etc are not anywhere near ecco-friendly. Putting up some solar panels but doing your manufacturing in China so you can ignore environmental regulations and pollute the shit of things for cheap, does not make you green. (read Jobs' book, its in there).
While we are on the topic, Tim Cook made decisions that caused the Mac to be non-upgradable. He changed things like the iMac so memory was soldered to the board and sealed the computer so the hard disk could not be replaced. This ensures obsolescence. So, even if you can accept the green cost of making a computer, then a responsible person would want to get all the life out of it that they could. This would be environmentally responsible, right? Apple does the opposite.
So, yeah, people don't Apple and Tim bash because they just need a villain. They do it because there are some good reasons. No one likes people who say one thing,and do another. Especially when they carry a holier than though attitude.
Ps. My bet is ol' Timmy is that he donated to many of the organization that lead the Nazi Hodgkinson assassination attempt yesterday. Blood on the hands can make one contrite.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Reading this was almost painful: Cook, like Trump, appears to be aiming at primary schoolers when it comes to complexity of expression.
Sentences have on average fewer than nine words each and the majority are extremely simple in structure — the text has a Flesch–Kincaid grade level of only 4.5. He uses the word 'thing' instead of a more specific word or phrase on five different occasions.
As with Trump, this lack of nuance and basic level of language seems at odds with what we would expect from the role. Is this really appropriate from a CEO of Apple?
Focusing on the IT staff is just treating the symptom. The problem at the VA and elsewhere is at the policy level. They can bring in as many IT people, consultants, or captains of industry as they want, but the answer is always the same: "You're doing it wrong." But that's not the answer they want to hear, they just want a quick fix to get things up and running quickly without spending much money. And so we get countless enormously expensive incompatible systems that don't do the job in the first place. It goes something like this:
Consultant A: "You need a complete overhaul of your governing policies, from document standards to security to processes. Right now, you're violating every regulation on the books, the systems you have in place are harder to use and less effective than pen and paper, and no two people do anything in the same way. There is no way to salvage this, you need to get things in order at the top and roll out systems based on capability requirements derived from applicable regulations and user needs."
Consultant B: "You need my fancy new proprietary software! It will solve all of your problems, is a snap to use, and is 110% HIPPO compliant! It will streamline your processes, synergize your staff, save you a boatload of money and make you look cool to your friends. It comes with a 100% lifetime guarantee and I totally won't dissolve the company tomorrow after the install is complete and your payment goes through."
Take a wild guess which suggestion is most likely to be acted on.
Don't blame Timid Timmy. He is following a legend. How well did that work out for Steve Young or Danny White? Timmy is just a left coast c@#$ S@#$#er so his views are set from that. Timmy has to talk a good game, but his job is to save his company money and he does not have the imagination to come up with "Insanely Great" products. Apple will slowly drift into the dust like IBM and Sears and other big companies that have lost their founders. If they wanted to help save the world, they would be investing in a better battery(no toxic residue in its creation). Or put solar panels on the laptops. or other "Insanely Great" ideas.
The have billions of dollars (in foreign currency). However, it is doubtful that these money can be used to create jobs. Jobs are necessary to do things. For example produce iPhones.
How about hire people to build new Mac computers. They haven't really done anything in three years. Part of that is that they scavenged people from the Mac side of things to build iPhones. Meanwhile, Tim has stated they expect people to buy a new Mac computer every three years, but there literally hasn't been a new Mac Pro to buy in over three years.
If you need a highway, you build a highway.
If your house is on fire, you pay someone to put it out.
Yeah, that will work out alright for everyone.
Until the gov built the national highway system, that's how people thought.
Until the gov created the fire department, that's what people thought.
You are not self sufficient. You use MY tax dollars every day. Even now. You do live in a society.
You cannot just let people die in poverty because they didn't pony up for outrageously priced insurance.
Please link me to a source or article where Tim Cook was quoted as saying that.
"We don't believe you, you need more people"-
Jay Z
Thank you.
Umm, the United States is the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. Every unemployed person in America could be given a job rebuilding our infrastructure and public places and paid a wage consistent with the national average without any negative impact on the country. In fact, because so much new money would be created by people who need and want to spend it, we would have a booming economy.
Apple may have billions of dollars, but those dollars were created under the authority of the United States of America. As the most powerful nation in history, it can create an unlimited quantity of dollars to do as it wishes. It is limited only by the ability of that political capital to effectively organize society.
IT, computer systems, and hospital billing are such a clusterfuck any solutions in healthcare that don't address them are a waste of time. Single payer fixes nothing when hour long services and bags of mostly saline solution are billed at the same rates as luxury SUVs.
And as somebody who has dealt with all those, the problems are almost all caused by the insurance companies and the way they manipulate every hospitals MCR to play them off against each other and smaller clinics.
You realize he is legally responsible to put shareholders' interest first?
Sorry, but what public good is Elon doing? I mean sure, everyone loves electric cars and flying to Mars is a great goal, but its not like he is solving world hunger or bringing peace to the middle east. In fact you could argue he *us* a detriment to us all... since he has taken almost $5 Billion of government subsidies to do what he is doing (and is still not profitable at that).
The guys is clearly a genius, but public good? Not so much.
Wait, whether you even believe or not in man made global climate change the Paris climate accord is not applied equally across the board. Only a couple of countries, USA in particular, is paying the tab. I am all about being a good custodian of our planet, but come on...
I've pushed hard on immigration.
CEO of company that depends on hoards of skilled immigrants to keep it's stock price inflated fights for unencumbered immigration.
Shocking.
If you're doing even 1/10th of the public good as Elon does, then you deserve your billions.
Interesting metric. But how exactly do you quantify the public good that Elon Musk has done? There have been a little over 150,000 Telsas produced. If each Telsa offsets the average CO2 emisssions per ICE vehicle (5 metric tons/year), then Musk has reduced the total global CO2 output by about 750,000 metric tons per year. 1/10 of that is 75,000 metric tons per year. Compared to the 36 Billion metric tons of CO2 output per year, that doesn't even amount to a rounding error. The Koch brothers have done far more by pushing for the switch from coal to natural gas.
Maybe lets try SpaceX. SpaceX has launched 13 rockets under NASA contract. The Falcon 9 costs $60M to launch compared to the equivalent ULA launch cost of $380M. Altogether, Elon Musk has save the US tax payers a total of about $4 Billion dollars. That's $32.70 per taxpayer. 1/10 of that public good is $3.27 per tax payer. Again, I'm not sure that amounts a public good worth mentioning.
It's worth noting that both SpaceX and Tesla were started as private companies (and SpaceX is still private) precisely because Elon knew he could never get away with such risky behavior as a public corporation.
It's worth noting that since becoming a public company, Tesla stock has been vastly overpriced precisely because the public overestimates the impact it is having.
It shouldn't even have one penny. Per ever.
--
roman_mir
People keep saying that here, which I don't understand simce it is a pile of horse shit
Either Cook or the Republican-led US government cares about veterans. Give me a break, even reps who were veterans don't care about vets.
Maybe produce your products somewhere that "suicide nets" aren't needed.
The only reason for Apple to sit on a pile of cash that large is because they cannot figure out something productive to do with the money. So they should either return it to shareholders or find some way to put it to productive use.
There's another explanation. Tim Cook has no idea how to make Apple Great Again. He's no fucking Steve Jobs. He has none of the traits except the boring fashion sense. So they're sitting on the cash in case Apple goes through another long stretch of failure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Compared to the 36 Billion metric tons of CO2 output per year, that doesn't even amount to a rounding error. The Koch brothers have done far more by pushing for the switch from coal to natural gas.
Natgas is based on fracking, which means injecting refinery wastes into the ground and hoping they don't pollute the water table. And the prices aren't exactly low like they used to be.
Maybe lets try SpaceX.
You don't count advancing space flight technology as beneficial to the human race?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Natgas is based on fracking, which means injecting refinery wastes into the ground and hoping they don't pollute the water table.
Can you quantify that risk and compare it to the benefit? How many people are harmed per unit of natural gas that is fracked versus how many people are harmed versus unit of CO2 emitted?
You don't count advancing space flight technology as beneficial to the human race?
It is beneficial, but can you quantify the benefit? How much does advancing space flight compare to advancing deep ocean exploration technology?
This gets parrotted a lot, but it's 100% untrue.
A CEO can do whatever he wants with a company's money.
If shareholders don't like how he is running things, they can push the company board of directors to have him fired. Note that even then, the shareholders do not directly control the CEO.
Look at Amazon. Bezos ran that company at a loss for many, many years, yet he was in no danger. Hell, he was praised for it.
His focus on jobs is good? Seriously?
It might be good if Trump, or any of his advisers, had the dimmest glimpse of a clue of how to add jobs. They don't. Simply having a "focus" is utterly meaningless if you haven't the faintest clue on how to achieve that focus.
For right now, the economy is doing reasonably well. That could change in a heartbeat if there's another financial crash due to the Republicans gutting financial regulations again.
It's not too hard to use the word "not" when that is the clear and correct way to word it. Don't excuse basic grammar mistakes. It just makes him sound stupid.
How many people are harmed per unit of natural gas that is fracked versus how many people are harmed versus unit of CO2 emitted?
False dichotomy.
How much does advancing space flight compare to advancing deep ocean exploration technology?
That's a worthwhile argument, and my point was only that it should be accounted for someone. Probably there is some research on the subject.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are fucking retards!
Do you not take every deduction you can? Do you offer to pay more tax than you have to?
No, but if I had an income of several hundred million dollars or more and aggressively interpreted the tax law so that I ended up paying next to nothing in tax then I would expect to get audited to within an inch of my life. Somehow, strangely, that never seems to happen to large companies so their potentially dodgy, extremely aggressive interpretations are never really tested in court.
It is this extremely aggressive interpretation of tax law which needs to be taken to task. Simply taking them to court, even if you lose, is likely to curb this behaviour since it shows you are not asleep at the wheel and defending their tax choices in court costs money which provides some motivation to not steer too close to the edge of legality.
Vets EARNED the use of all of those professional services, materials, and people's skills by putting their lives on the line
If that's the criteria then I hope you also provide free health care for those who serve in police and fire services even after they no longer serve in them.
You're thinking globally not locally. Cook has the power to distribute heaps of jobs. He just chooses to put them in China.
Not just a tax avoiding company, but led by one who seems to value glib vaguely-feelgood nonsense akin to President Trump's 'make America great again': "I care deeply about America. I want America to do well. America's more important than bloody politics from my point of view.". Dealing with politics is part of dealing with the very topics he goes on about such as health care delivery. If Apple or Cook cared as much as he claims (which is a bit confusing since he clearly wants us to believe he cares but he also says "I could give a crap about the politics of it" which some people erroneously say to mean they don't care but the misstatement actually means they care), then he'd support universalizing Medicare. HR676 does this on a national scale, and Apple should endorse this and encourage California's Congresspeople to help bring it to a vote and vote for it. Apple doesn't just have employees in California, after all, they've got a lot of employees in other US states all of whom deserve health care as a right.
Digital Citizen
He also chooses to sell Apple products in Europe with a 10-20% higher price. Why does he do that? Because of capitalism. Capitalism is about getting as rich as possible without hesitating to harm others (as long as it does not harm your profits). In addition you can also have a conscience and support act against climate change or poverty. However, as a company or corporation you have to put that aside. If you want to change that you need regulations and taxes. Unfortunately, the present US government is not going in that direction nor will the EU go in that direction.
Regarding jobs in China. In the beginning Apple moved some tasks to China, because they were cheaper. Then the US lost the skill to do certain tasks. Now the Chinese have the knowledge how to efficiently build phones. The VR China also invested in its education of workers and is determined to support growth in highly educated jobs. This means even on an level playing field, these jobs will not come back to the US. The next step in China is automation. At Foxcon they replace skilled Chinese labor with in place robots which can handle the same tasks and can learn what the need to do. In the beginning they bought robots from ABB. However, they also invest in their own robot companies and just bough one of the leading companies in Germany. Therefore, these jobs will go to robots. If Apple would move production back to the US, they would also use these robots.
What need to do instead is to tax companies so you can finance a basic income for everyone and healthcare for every one and basic housing for everyone etc. Then you need to provide good education. What you do not need are jobs in coal. You have to look how you can shape the future actively instead of trying to prolong the past.
Do you not understand the concept example? Of course they can come up with new products. However, you need MONEY to buy them (see our economic system is called capitalism and it is money driven). If the people do not have more money, they cannot by new products. Therefore, there is limited growth. Therefore, companies limit investments. Furthermore, companies only innovate and invest, if that will result in more money for them. And just as another example. Lets say Apple invests in new computer factories, as they sell a new cheap consumer computer for the masses. But the masses do not have more money. Then they cannot buy other things. Then they might by an Apple instead of a Dell, and therefore all jobs created at Apple are lost at Dell. As workforce you have gained nothing.
I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise.
And what the hell makes Cook an expert in the fields of immigration and climate? Clearly, his interest in immigration is all about driving cost down, and H1-Bs. I'm not saying Mr. Cook's positions are right or wrong, only that he's not the right person to be influencing decisions on either of these topics.
Just another day in Paradise
Maybe I'm just falling prey to a sampling bias, but it seems like the fantastically wealthy of the past felt more of a responsibility toward the perpetuation of society and institutions than those of the present do. Even though many (most?) of them were total scumbags, like Rockefeller, they still had philanthropic interests and set up institutions. The prevailing interest now seems to be personal enrichment at the expense of society.
So you're agreeing with everyone in the thread then. Apple and cook could do better but chose not to while paying lip service that he will (and with the grammar skills of a tween dropout while he's at it). Glad we cleared that up.
Now the Chinese have the knowledge how to efficiently build phones.
Showing how you don't understand the phone supply chain at all. Here's a hint: The Chinese build what they are told and how they are told and charge accordingly. The knowledge of efficient phone design and assembly is Apple's. But really you're trying to do is justify the actions of the future while really you're excusing the actions of the past. In either case, Tim Cook *couldn't* care less about Americans.
Showing how you don't understand the phone supply chain at all. Here's a hint: The Chinese build what they are told and how they are told and charge accordingly. The knowledge of efficient phone design and assembly is Apple's.
There is a difference in designing a phone and manufacturing one. You need knowledge in both to mass produce phones. Of course a designer could think about the production process, but he has no experience in actually running a factory. For example, when Fairphone searched for an manufacturer in Europe, they could not find one. Even though there are companies producing embedded systems. However, phone production is too different from their present production principles that they did not make an offer. Therefore, the devices were produced in China.
But really you're trying to do is justify the actions of the future while really you're excusing the actions of the past. In either case, Tim Cook *couldn't* care less about Americans.
No, I am not. I am telling you that why the companies act the way they do. If you are unhappy with their motivation, change their motivation (the companies motivation).
Interesting metric. But how exactly do you quantify the public good that Elon Musk has done?
Good points, but I wasn't proposing a metric, just a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the difference between actually building things vs. simply contriving some "genius" financial instruments that shave off a few basis points for the investors. I chose Musk as the example because he, more than most, has an explicit "mission" to help humanity with his companies -- cheaper access to space for SpaceX and accelerating the advent of EVs for Tesla.
It wasn't that long ago (a couple-hundred years) that corporations were required to state the public good they would serve in their charters. (Typically it would be something like building a bridge or some other public infrastructure.) Nowadays, a corporation's only responsibility is to its shareholders, with no explicit regard to the public good.
As for the "Musk" rule: Tesla's mission is to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles; SpaceX's mission is to reduce the cost of access to space, and thus to facilitate the colonization of Mars. Henry Ford's mission was to bring cheap transportation to the masses. Meanwhile, what has Jamie Dimon done for the public good lately? (Oh yeah, he helped to crash the global economy...)
My "Musk Rule" is simply a yardstick to measure which of these billionaires are actually "earning" their wealth by doing good for the public versus those who are simply skimming a percentage off the markets without actually "contributing" much to the public.
The "public good" is a difficult thing to quantify, as you make clear. But I think it's pretty easy to get a "gut" reaction to any enterprise, and determine whether you think they "deserve" their billions.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
If it would have a business, they would have invested in that area. Unfortunately, they thought there is no profit in that area. (Under the assumption, that you are right about no new Mac computers).
Capitalism works that way that you only invest when you can make a profit. If the consumer base does not have more money, they cannot buy things. So you do not produce more things, because no one would buy them.
The problem with your criteria, even rhetorically, is that every successful business exists to fill a need and serve the public good. I think you would be hard pressed to find any successful company that doesn't mean your criteria.
Yes, that's the obvious counterpoint, but seriously... how many "regular" people are actually benefiting from Jamie Dimon's efforts? Precious few.
From the early 1800s to the 1970s, worker compensation increased apace with worker productivity, but ever since Reagan productivity has increased with no benefit to the worker. (This is not entirely Reagan's fault, the start of this trend predates his term of office, but he was quite happy to accelerate the process.)
More than half of Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck, with only a few hundred bucks in the bank. Does that strike you as a "healthy" economy?
Since the crisis in 2008/09, 99% of all new income has gone to the top 1%. Does this serve the public good?
I'm too lazy (at this hour) to google the exact numbers, but something like 90% of all stocks and bonds are owned by less than 2% of the population. Thus, even legitimate financial wizardry has little benefit for the average Joe.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise. I've pushed hard on immigration.
And how, exactly, did Tim Cook become an 'expert' in immigration?
By hiring them?
By sitting next to them in meetings?
By having immigrant neighbors?
By reading the newspaper/watching news reports on TV?
He seems to think his success at Apple somehow translates into expertise in political and governmental issues. He's free to have his own opinion, but possessing an opinion doesn't render one an 'expert' in the subject.
Ken
how many "regular" people are actually benefiting from Jamie Dimon's efforts?
That is a completely different criteria that just "public good". How many "regular" people can afford a Tesla? How many "regular" people are going to colonize Mars?
but something like 90% of all stocks and bonds are owned by less than 2% of the population.
The "regular" person might not own stock, but if you depend on goods and services from publicly traded companies, then you benefit from the existence of healthy financial market.
The problem with your criteria, even rhetorically, is that every successful business exists to fill a need and serve the public good.
Only on a very semantic level.
As a cursory level of research, here's the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others"
So for Tesla or SpaceX, the actual car or spot on a space launch isn't the "public good". If I buy a car, that's one less car you could have bought. If I bought a spot on a rocket, that's one less spot for you. Heck, if I'm driving on a public road, that's one less spot for you on the road!
The "public" part is the stuff that isn't depleted when people use it. Tesla and SpaceX provided us knowledge and spread the idea about electric cars and spaceflight. And for a public road, me being on the road may *technically* deprive you of some physical space, but it doesn't *effectively* deprive you of using the road.
Given that definition, not all businesses serving the same amount of "public good". Every business may have some public good component, some part that isn't (effectively) depleted when people use it, but how much of it differs between business to business.
For financial services, there really isn't a whole lot of public component. How much money there is to lend or borrow does get depleted when one person uses it. You can't print money or fake it forever, as multiple financial crises has shown.
Jamie Dimon didn't get to his position by running retail banking.
The dollar value on the derivative books these days is larger than all net activity in the non financial sector of the economy.
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
"Oxford Martin School" releases research papers under the school name from multiple scientists.
Carol Smith also does more that journalism, including research which makes her a scientist under current climate research definitions.
That is surprising for David Brubaker since he has been working there for years, but then again that link does not list people listed on the John Hopkins web site as working for them, so it does not look to be complete.
That's right. Public companies can have a huge growth spurt when they get their IPO, and their equity holders can get a startling payday, but the other side is they then don't have control over how they spend money. Even though in American shareholders have less power than in other countries, still big shareholders can complain if you, say, raise wages over the absolute minimum you can get away with. Investors want to be paid first, before labor.
This is why the market, the country, and society in general (yes, there is such a thing) do best all together when competition is unfettered, regulation is strong and well-policed, and anti-trust is enforced. Actually, I think that anti-trust and regulation can be balanced - the more anti-trust, the less regulation is needed because you don't end up with all-powerful behemoths that can influence legislation at their pleasure. Or, go the other way and forget anti-trust, but regulate on a sliding scale with size - there should be a size of company so large, that they would, in theory, not be able to do anything except cope with regulation. What is that size? It's the size that they are so coupled with the nation's functioning that they are too big to fail.
The problem is that we have both weak regulation and weak anti-trust. The result is that the rules of our society (there it is again!) are not decided by voters but by ubiquitous, enormous businesses.
neither is Carol Smith.
On David Brubaker, I'm willing to suspend judgement while waiting for you to tell me what kind of scientist he is and perhaps link to some of his research.
You Americans are so pathetic your ultra nationalism and your "we're the best country in the world" and your shitty health care. You don't need only a better heal care, you need less veterans. If every country spent 50% of their taxes on their military, pretty much like you, there would have been two more world wars.