Apple Under Tim Cook: More Socially Responsible, Less Visionary (cnn.com) 152
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."
"just because everybody is looking for new..." (Score:1)
Yeah, try selling out of date Macbook Pro's for a few more years and see how that strategy works out.
Even Apple fans aren't stupid enough to pay a premium for hardware 3-5 years out of date.
Re: "just because everybody is looking for new..." (Score:1)
I don't mind paying for hardware that's not on the cutting edge, if the platform as a whole is what I need. However, 4-5 year old hardware is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving in reverse (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?
Re:Driving in reverse (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.
Re:Driving in reverse (Score:4, 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...
Re:Driving in reverse (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.
Re: (Score:1)
And how, do you suppose those tax loopholes got there in the first place? Perhaps not Apple, but several someones paid a nice bribe to keep that hole WIDE open!
Re: (Score:3)
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 ro
Re:Driving in reverse (Score:4, 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... [thedailybeast.com]
Re:Driving in reverse (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The deductions I find avaialble for my personal income taxes were deliberatly written into law AS deduictions. I did not walk through an elabporate maze to build a house overseas, or hire a squad of lawers to create a way to expoit this "bug" in the tax code.
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.
If they took the time to figure out how to do what they have already done, it's not much of a stretch to imaginge that they are lobbying hard. They are, afterall, a money making machine.
But we have Cook on record as saying "this is a Congress problem". And it is. Congress needs to change the tax laws.
That's admitting it IS A PROBELM in Apple's own judgemnt and passin
Re: (Score:2)
The deductions I find avaialble for my personal income taxes were deliberatly written into law AS deduictions. I did not walk through an elabporate maze to build a house overseas, or hire a squad of lawers to create a way to expoit this "bug" in the tax code.
Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable tax-reduction methods and what isn't? If you have an investment property, sometimes it makes more sense to incorporate and put that investment property under that C-corp. You seem to be drawing a line between what's "acceptable" and what's "out of line". Not everyone agree with the line you've drawn.
If they took the time to figure out how to do what they have already done, it's not much of a stretch to imaginge that they are lobbying hard. They are, afterall, a money making machine.
Got it, guilty because...you can imagine it.
That's admitting it IS A PROBELM in Apple's own judgemnt and passing blame to Congress.
Congress *is* to blame. Taking advantage of a legal method of reducing your taxes instead of voluntarily paying more is
Re: (Score:2)
Who else would be to blame about how fucked up the US tax code is, other than the sole legislative body with the Constitutional authority to fix it?
Why are you so adamant to let the Congress, who has been derelict of duty for some time now on the issue of tax reform, off the hook? They are the only ones that can make tax law at the Federal level, they are the only ones that have ever had the power to do so, and without repealing or amending Article I, Section 7 they will be the only ones that can.
Don't lik
Re: (Score:3)
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 Cu
Re: (Score:3, 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/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are people who want jobs and some wouldn't even mind boring jobs. The question is, what's better for everyone in the long run? Example after example shows protectionism (i.e. mandating by law job X be located in the US) doesn't help everyone. You help 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95% who don't work in that industry. And you reduce your economic efficiency as a whole by some percentage all the while fighting the inevitable. You're never ever going to fight the basic fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota and Honda both manufacture in the US (as well as other "import" brands), but it's not because they're being good guys and care about keeping the UAW alive - they're doing it to dodge protectionist import tariffs on cars.
If it's assembled in Indiana, you don't pay that tariff. And you can still manufacture the parts in Japan, as those don't have the tariff applied.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Apple's laid-off US assembly line workers could have taken one of the tens of thousands of new jobs the company has created in the US.
I'm not sure why Toyota is relevant to a story about Apple. But sure, let's use a Toyota scenario. If Toyota were to close a factory that employed 2000 workers; but then opened a design, engineering, and research campus that employed 6000, that's a net GAIN of 4000 jobs.
And in both cases, the reality with Apple and the hypothetical with Toyota, the jobs gained are bette
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, the thought of sitting on an assembly line mindlessly inserting tab A into slot B all day is horrifyingly dreary.
I have done mindless tab A into slot B, and I've done careful hand-fitting of a board I just stuffed onto another board, on an assembly line. Tab A into slot B is indeed awful. But it paid better than washing dishes. Stuffing boards and mounting them to another board paid better and was more involved, and I enjoyed the precision aspect of it. Not what I would call bad or awful or boring. The stench of solder is something I miss, and reminisce about when I have to solder something these days.
I wasn't a
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of places in the US with vibrant manufacturing. Hell, take a look at Indigogo or Kickstarter. Such a large number of their projects are mom-and-pop shops making a few thousand in cities like Portland, Seattle, Denver, etc. And a lot of those companies are perfectly profitable too.
The landscape has changed. It's no longer mega-company-X moving into a city and setting up a huge factory anymore. It's easier now than ever was to go mom-and-pop level and sell. And those guys go into work every d
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence.
Paying only what the law requires in taxes to a government that is more likely to waste that money on bullshit than do anything good with it is in no way equivalent to dumping tons of caustic and toxic shit into an open pit and shrugging it off. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
For the record, even if Apple paid tax on every single dollar they make worldwide, it would only fund the Department of Defense for like 3 days.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
And if that's Apple, just imagine what others are doing.
Apple's not blameless and have plenty of business nastiness in them. No one gets as old as they are and remain idealists.
There's a lot worse out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's not blameless and have plenty of business nastiness in them. No one gets as old as they are and remain idealists.
Then it sounds like Apple's infamous "reality distorting" marketing department is no longer just selling products, but has taken on the role of public relations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's not blameless and have plenty of business nastiness in them. No one gets as old as they are and remain idealists.
Then it sounds like Apple's infamous "reality distorting" marketing department is no longer just selling products, but has taken on the role of public relations as well.
Considering you believe only Apple does it - yeah, the RDF sure as hell works on you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And you somehow think that's enough?
The US top tax rate is 39.6%.
That's what Apple should be paying, not 25%.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're not aware of how tax brackets work. The percentage charged for income at the highest bracket does not define the percentage paid on all income. The GP wrote "effective tax rate" for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very much aware of how tax brackets work. Apple makes so much more than $415k/year that the income taxed at lower brackets would be a rounding error.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're now claiming that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress when he testified that Apple pays US taxes? [forbes.com]
I know, it's shocking that someone might try to minimize their tax liability; I'm sure you pay a bunch of unnecessary taxes and don't bother with any deductions when you file. Wait, you do? Why the double standard?
Re: (Score:1)
If they REALLY about the following they wouldn't produce products in China, or even sell to China. They should ban sells to Saudi Arabia too to send a message because being LGBT is publishable by death there.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to think there is a happy medium. Maybe they should go back to being a technology company and try to be a little nice too.
Re: (Score:1)
What defines a "douche bag" is a question of perspective. From my point of view, LGBTQQIAAP rights activists, feminists, and other SJW are the douche bags. But, of course, I agree that those douche bags (from my perspective) can consider me as a douche bag (from their perspective). So let's fight each other for our moral values and let's see who will be the strongest!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reasonable definition of ownership under which I do not own my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is how Microsoft is going to get Windows 10 on a billion devices...
Gasp!! Windows will soon be the foundation for the new unified Apple Operating system: Apple OS 10
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Everything with Google and Android today is just a fork of the original work Torvalds released in 1991.
Fair enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Driving in reverse (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.
Re: (Score:2)
All good points...
But, does that mean that the removal of the physical headphone jack from the iPhone 7 is actually a form of social progress?
Re: (Score:3)
It means they wanna get rid of a connector they feel is outdated. Like parallel ports, CD drives, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully I am finally using Bluetooth...
On my Android phone.
Re:Driving in reverse (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
For the record, PCs had USB ports in "1996," 2 years before the iMac. An update to Windows 95 added USB support.
https://support.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]
But it did take Apple's iMac to make USB popular. I owned a Mac G3 333 in 98 that did not have USB ports. Pro Macs didn't get USB ports until 1999. And for reference, the Compaq I just bought at an estate sale, which is from 1996( I collect old PCs ), has 2 USB ports.
And back to the topic. I o
Re: (Score:2)
"...and then those crazy ports started showing up on PCs." For the record, PCs had USB ports in "1996," 2 years before the iMac. An update to Windows 95 added USB support.
For the record: most PCs didn't have USB when the iMac came out. To be fair, those with an Intel mobo had them on the mobo, but usually without external ports. And we all remember that all those USB peripherals had translucent blue cases not because of zhe iMac, but because it went nicely with the BSOD Windows liked to give when you used them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZQGRATlwA [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought inserting a 3.5 mm male connector into a 3.5 mm female connector was consensual?
However 3.5 mm is rather small....
Re: (Score:1)
Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I think your point was way too subtle.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Apple was first and foremost a technology company?
Not since the 90s. It is now a fashion accessory company.
Re: (Score:2)
*Dons iNecklace... and walks down the street looking cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, under Jobs, their genius is that they did a combination of both. Tech in that they moved from their futile efforts on an OS-from-scratch (Copland, Gershwin) to an established one (NeXTstep based). And in the process, the company, where UNIX was once a single product - AUX - morphed into one that happily used UNIX wherever they needed to - their Airport routers, iOS, OS X, et al.
But their genius was in putting their legendary easy to use UI on top of that, so that a kid playing w/ an iPad would
Re: (Score:2)
OS X server is a perfect example of "Pretty UI on some good tools".
Even CUPS got a major GUI refresh when it became an Apple product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
A great company makes GREAT products, not GREAT numbers of proclaimed social opinions!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was once. Now it's fast becoming bullshit.
Re: (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?
So?
Anyway, how exactly is he "highlighting" that? Most of what he talks about has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's Apple, and this is Slashdot.
Either you're new here, or haven't been here in the last 10 years. Back then, Slashdot loved Apple because they made UNIX mainstream.
More Socially Responsible, Less Visionary... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they're making their users pay for it.
Just what the world needs right now (Score:1)
More Socially Responsible, Less Visionary
Stagnant? (Score:2)
https://medium.com/beyond-devi... [medium.com]
Apple has a VERY long view of their devices, and the incremental improvements and developments you see in their products today are only glimpses of what I believe will come down the line.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope to see, new world changing products. But simply spending tons of money does not translate to epic products without a true visionary directing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, that's usually a bad sign. It means that your development teams are growing very quickly, which has two effects:
Eventually you reach a point where ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's R&D has gone up many times over since Job's passed on...
Apple changed from R&D to R&R.
An interest dichotomy (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
For someone who can ignore Apple you sure are doing a poor job of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Actually, none did 17" before Apple started doing so, so what would you have lost if they didn't introduce it in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're still using a flip phone, whatever smartphone you have was influenced in design and function by Apple.
what exactly is apple supposed to create? (Score:1)
Fuck Social Responsibility (Score:1)
In the real world, this means "Endorse every lunatic leftist idea to come down the pike."
Let people social justice on their own time. Tim Cook should be in the business of making Apple shareholders money.
Re: (Score:2)
Let investors who value ROI over ethics go invest in a different company.
Tim Cook should be in the business of a number of things of which investor return is one and not necessarily the most important one, at that. Anyone who's invested in Apple over the years is well aware of this.
"you can simply not ignore Apple" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"brought the GUI concept our of the xerox labs into the hands of many users"
Nice euphemism for "stole".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we are too impatient (Score:2)
For example, I still expect a lot of future generations of the Apple Watch (consider also how the phone evolved). Esp. because they have been hiring clever/phd level people with experience in sensors like blood glucose, blood oxygen and whatnot. Once they crack the nut of making that reliable for a large audience and once they pass health device regulatory certification, that will truly become a break
Sharma (Score:2)
Yeah, let's listen to Amit Sharma, whose LinkedIn profile says:
I focus on making supply chain work around ever-evolving customer needs.
What a visionary! That's so beyond anything Tim Cook could even dream of...
"Let's Talk About Apple..." (Score:2)
An interesting source, not a worthy one (Score:1)
Nice, but... (Score:2)
Visionary. (Score:2)
stock flight about to plumet (Score:1)
There is absolutely no good reason why apple's stock should be where it is. One day, people will realize that and I have a feeling it'll come crashing down.
They can't even decide if they want an earphone jack or not.
Re:More socially resposible (Score:4, Interesting)
It said socially responsible not financially irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice none of the items in that list include "paying more taxes."
How is financing the US military-industrial complex and the wars on everything socially responsible?
Re:Apple employee here. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think being a member of the KKK in the 60's was as commendable as being a member of the NAACP? Just asking since all causes seem to be equivalent in your world....
Re: (Score:2)
Apple consumers, of course.
Maximum social justice points, minimum actual effort to help anything.
Re: (Score:2)