Apple CEO Tim Cook says globalization is 'great for the world' in China speech

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 18
Apple CEO Tim Cook offered remarks on globalization, cybersecurity, encryption, international relations and more during a rare public appearance in China, part of the executive's attempts to woo Chinese consumers.


Apple CEO Tim Cook meets Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong in Beijing in 2015.


As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Cook delivered commentary on world affairs during an hour-long address on Saturday at the China Development Forum, an annual conference sponsored by the Chinese government. The heads of western corporations sometimes attend the convention to bolster ties with high ranking officials in the Chinese central government, the report said.

During his speech, Cook said globalization "in general is great for the world," but noted socioeconomic gains may not be evenly distributed within or between countries. Despite globalization's shortcomings, countries should not shy away from such development, he said.

"I think the worst thing would be to -- because it didn't help everyone -- is to say it's bad and do less of that," Cook said. "I think the reality is you can see that countries in the world...that isolate themselves, it's not good for their people."

The subject is a contentious one for Apple, a U.S. company that farms out a bulk of its manufacturing operations to China. President Donald Trump recently called for Apple to bring iPhone production to America, a move that would stimulate the domestic economy. Trump has asked the same of many U.S. multinationals in attempts to repatriate overseas jobs.

Beyond economics, Cook touched on cybersecurity and user privacy, both highly sensitive subjects in China. Parroting past statements on the matter, Cook said Apple employs end-to-end encryption to protect its customers from nefarious actors. He fell short of taking a stand against Chinese cybersecurity policy that requires companies to furnish authorities with technical assistance in investigations and data gathering operations.

Unlike the U.S., where Apple is an outspoken critic of government snooping -- and last year went to court to fight Federal Bureau of Investigation demands to decrypt an iPhone -- China is handled with kid gloves. Companies and individual who publicly oppose government mandate, especially when it comes to topics like cybersecurity, privacy and free speech, are often met with swift retaliation. At times, government responses can negatively impact business relations, which could be catastrophic to the bottom lines of companies like Apple.

Cook tiptoed around the subject of data privacy, saying, "We think that an individual should own their data and should be able to control their data." He has made similar statements in the past, often using harsh words to condemn state-sponsored snooping, but the claws didn't come out today in China.

Cook is in China to bolster relations with the country's central government. Apple's top executive is slated to speak with Xu Lin, director of the Cyberspace Administration of China, in a private meeting on Monday.
SoliHBW1
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 68
    Sort of amusing to watch when and where Tim Cook chooses to be brave on social issues. 
    lkruppelijahgmentalrecondonjuanentropysmacseekerchiaMetriacanthosaurusHBW1
  • Reply 2 of 68
    Tim Cook for president in 2020.

    (I realize this is polarizing because of his activist position on liberal issues.)
    stanthemanelectrotechHBW1
  • Reply 3 of 68
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,726member
    Sort of amusing to watch when and where Tim Cook chooses to be brave on social issues. 
    Like how Julian Assange’s Wikileaks chooses to attack Western democracies and leave the totalitarian Chinese, Russian, DPRK governments alone. If he had released classified Russian documents he would have been dead ten years ago. Tim Cook is a big-time SJW in the U.S. but not in China, India, Russia where iPhone sales can be shut down if he opens his mouth. And of course there’s the Saudis and other Arab countries who publicly execute homosexuals. Such bravery! Same goes for Google and every other ‘American’ global company. 
    edited March 18 elijahgspice-boymentalreconmacseekerchiaMetriacanthosaurus
  • Reply 4 of 68
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,726member

    Tim Cook for president in 2020.

    (I realize this is polarizing because of his activist position on liberal issues.)
    It might be interesting to see how Cook would manage the unmanageable ‘supply chain’ of the U.S. government juggernaut.
    Solielectrotech
  • Reply 5 of 68
    I see the benefits of globalisation but can't support Cook on it. It creates greater potential for negative global consequences, things in our arrogance we assume won't happen. Even the shipping of bees around the US to pollinate crops makes me nervous—that seems like a disaster waiting to happen (why not develop a sustainable crop variety to encourage bee population year round?). Also, through globalisation there is a reduction in the uniqueness of different cultures, and I think it's arrogant to assume those losses are inconsequential.
    mentalrecondonjuan
  • Reply 6 of 68
    eideardeideard Posts: 300member
    Sigh.  Nothing like verifying Americans can be as parochial as any Ukrainian kulak, Mongolian herder or UK Midlands Brexiteer.  I figured out there's more to gain for our species when I decided I'm a citizen of Earth -- not a city or state, clan or ethnicity.  Old fashioned enough to understand I have more in common with folks working to feed themselves and family, advance lifestyles with better health and education - in any other nation - than I might ever wish to have with the politicians, pundits and profiteers running economic life in my home patch.

    That was over 60 years ago.  Never voted for creeps like Nixon, Reagan or Trump.  Rarely encountered leading Democrats "on my side" for longer than an election cycle or two.  The leaders of many of the trade unions I joined and worked to improve were often as easily bought off by useless promises and/or dollar$ as any state politician.  At the same time, I was fortunate enough to march alongside women and men of all colors and convictions with lifetime commitments to change.  Ready to risk their lives in dissent.  Just as ready to understand solidarity is as global as shares in software startups and likely to be more rewarding to an ethical conscience.

    Yup.  Long-winded as ever.  Just saying, look over your country's favorite wall, your neighborhood's barrio boundary, you might discover some enjoyable new food for your belly - or heart and mind.
    apple jockeyspice-boySolirotateleftbyteelectrotechroundaboutnowration aldewme
  • Reply 7 of 68
    georgie01 said:
    I see the benefits of globalisation but can't support Cook on it. It creates greater potential for negative global consequences, things in our arrogance we assume won't happen. Even the shipping of bees around the US to pollinate crops makes me nervous—that seems like a disaster waiting to happen (why not develop a sustainable crop variety to encourage bee population year round?). Also, through globalisation there is a reduction in the uniqueness of different cultures, and I think it's arrogant to assume those losses are inconsequential.
    There are also consequences of non-globalization, as we see with the slowly sinking ship of the British economy.

    And there are even dangers in democracy, if the electorate is ignorant and uncommitted to the principles of that form of government, as we saw in Egypt and other Arab Spring disasters, and we may be seeing in the US right now.
    edited March 18 apple jockeyspice-boystanthemanelectrotechration al
  • Reply 8 of 68
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,518member
    There has been some blowback on globalisation from some empirically minded economists. But it's not enough. 

    Contrary to theory where because of comparative advantage everybody wins it's clear now that this isn't true. American workers lose. 
    mentalrecondonjuan
  • Reply 9 of 68
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 315member
    The American culture and the American corporate culture has expanded throughout the world for decades. Look at how many countries have English speaking citizens today than 30 years ago. America to many countries of the world was considered modern, cool and inventive. Unfortunately in my travels I have also seen some really awful American culture take hold, fast food, long work days and a consumer culture that has abandoned all other pursuits in favor of shopping. 

    Corporate culture has displace independent business in every corner of the US. Retailers like Walmart have done more to lower wages in small towns by crushing mom and pop businesses, offering few full time positions and being the only place to shop for everything in small towns and rural places.

    In big cities local governments are taking the bait of corporate funds to takeover parks, playgrounds and other public (tax payer) land to promote their services and products. This activity plays a part in hyper-gentrification forcing the poor and working class out of big cities where wages are higher to more economically depressed areas. 

    Cook is correct though about "isolated states" which citizens of the UK and the USA seem to desire at this time. He is right that the free flow of ideas, talent and technology is better than stagnation. The more we know and the better we educate ourselves about the world the better chance we have to help shape it, sticking our collective heads in the sands is not the answer to the many complex problems and opportunities need to address. 
    edited March 18 apple jockeyelectrotechration al
  • Reply 10 of 68
    Globalization is great for Apple and other large multi-national corporations but there aren't as many benefits for the average worker.
    donjuanredraider11maciekskontakt
  • Reply 11 of 68
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,369member
    asdasd said:
    There has been some blowback on globalisation from some empirically minded economists. But it's not enough. 
    Of course it's enough. Unless you mean "hasn't yet been enough to effect any change away from globalism." The mathematics here is objective fact, and globalism has failed so spectacularly that over a billion may die when the delusion comes crashing down. And I don't even mean in the inevitable wars that spring up as a result of it. Never has the world been more indebted. Never has purchasing power been weaker. It's complete failure.
    And there are even dangers in democracy, if the electorate is ignorant and uncommitted to the principles of that form of government, as we saw in Egypt and other Arab Spring disasters, and we may be seeing in the US right now.
    The danger of democracy is that it might elect a treasonous bitch who would start World War III on purpose and sell her country to foreigners.

    That's why we're a republic.
    georgie01 said:
    Even the shipping of bees around the US to pollinate crops makes me nervous—that seems like a disaster waiting to happen (why not develop a sustainable crop variety to encourage bee population year round?).
    That's your question? Not "Why are the bees dying off in the first place?"
    Also, through globalisation there is a reduction in the uniqueness of different cultures, and I think it's arrogant to assume those losses are inconsequential.
    "But but but but but but but but diberzidy is our stremgfth!"
    edited March 18 mentalrecon
  • Reply 12 of 68
    One can agree that globalization as a concept is good, but that countries like China that manipulate their currency, steal others technology and control their economy aren't fair partners, and that minimum wages / environmental laws should be enforced so that globalization isn't just a way to bypass labour laws.

    One can't expect 300 chip foundries or advanced OLED plants to exist in every country worldwide.
  • Reply 13 of 68
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 210member
    Tim Cook for president in 2020.

    (I realize this is polarizing because of his activist position on liberal issues.)
    So, in your mind ______ (Cook/Trump) is qualified to be President because of his business experience at _____ (Apple/Trump Organization) and his support of a particular social agenda. Fill in the blanks as you wish, but recognize the reasoning and rationale is no different despite the two men being polar opposites in so many ways..
    edited March 18
  • Reply 14 of 68
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,726member
    georgie01 said:
    I see the benefits of globalisation but can't support Cook on it. It creates greater potential for negative global consequences, things in our arrogance we assume won't happen. Even the shipping of bees around the US to pollinate crops makes me nervous—that seems like a disaster waiting to happen (why not develop a sustainable crop variety to encourage bee population year round?). Also, through globalisation there is a reduction in the uniqueness of different cultures, and I think it's arrogant to assume those losses are inconsequential.
    There are also consequences of non-globalization, as we see with the slowly sinking ship of the British economy.

    And there are even dangers in democracy, if the electorate is ignorant and uncommitted to the principles of that form of government, as we saw in Egypt and other Arab Spring disasters, and we may be seeing in the US right now.
    Your attitude is what promulgates the autocratic tendencies of the elites. The electorate is ignorant and uncommitted... that is, unfit to govern themselves. You elites alone are able to govern, pat the peasants on the head, and promise them you will take care of them. But then your ilk has been promising that stuff for millennia. Never happens. Well, as one liberal news commentator admitted, the ‘ignorant and uncommitted’ electorate has tossed a stick of dynamite into Washington with the fuse already lit and a message attached that reads “Fuck Off!'
    edited March 18 tallest skildonjuanentropys
  • Reply 15 of 68
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 315member
    asdasd said:
    There has been some blowback on globalisation from some empirically minded economists. But it's not enough. 

    Contrary to theory where because of comparative advantage everybody wins it's clear now that this isn't true. American workers lose. 
    lkrupp said:
    georgie01 said:
    I see the benefits of globalisation but can't support Cook on it. It creates greater potential for negative global consequences, things in our arrogance we assume won't happen. Even the shipping of bees around the US to pollinate crops makes me nervous—that seems like a disaster waiting to happen (why not develop a sustainable crop variety to encourage bee population year round?). Also, through globalisation there is a reduction in the uniqueness of different cultures, and I think it's arrogant to assume those losses are inconsequential.
    There are also consequences of non-globalization, as we see with the slowly sinking ship of the British economy.

    And there are even dangers in democracy, if the electorate is ignorant and uncommitted to the principles of that form of government, as we saw in Egypt and other Arab Spring disasters, and we may be seeing in the US right now.
    Your attitude is what promulgates the autocratic tendencies of the elites. The electorate is ignorant and uncommitted... that is, unfit to govern themselves. You elites alone are able to govern, pat the peasants on the head, and promise them you will take care of them. But then your ilk has been promising that stuff for millennia. Never happens. Well, as one liberal news commentator admitted, the ‘ignorant and uncommitted’ electorate has tossed a stick of dynamite into Washington with the fuse already lit and a message attached that reads “Fuck Off!'
    When Lenin came into power the first thing that was done was the imprison the intellectuals and highly educated or "elite" of the present US administration would label them. If you think that the common person has the time, interest or ability to study economic, environmental and social issues and then implement laws and or programs in response to this information then you are sadly being misled. Do you want your doctor to treat you which has not spent years studying medicine? Do you want little trained architects to build a bridge you travel across each day? So called "elites" have their positions because they earned them and we should all be grateful to those that dedicate years or study and practice to attain those credentials. 

    The US is positioning itself for the biggest brain drain in its history. Schools will suffer tremendously in the coming years as funds dry up. Great teachers will retrain to work in the private sector to make a living wage rather than struggle as a public school  teacher. Our children's education will sink even further down the ladder of in comparison to other wester nations. All this because "elites" are considered enemies of the state. 
    edited March 18 ronnration al
  • Reply 16 of 68
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,369member
    …minimum wages should be enforced…



    spice-boy said:
    When Lenin came into power the first thing that was done was the imprison the intellectuals and highly educated or "elite" of the present US administration would label them.
    To establish his own, yes. Commies committed genocide on the native, actual Russians simply because they were Russian and Christian. Communism has literally never been a “movement of the people.” It is a movement of A people.
    If you think that the common person has the time, interest or ability to study economic, environmental and social issues and then implement laws and or programs in response to this information then you are sadly being misled.
    I don’t care about time. That they don’t have the time is why we send representatives to an assembly to do this for us.
    I don’t care about interest. If they don’t have the interest, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place. THAT’S WHY THE REPUBLIC WAS EXPRESSLY ESTABLISHED WITH LIMITED FRANCHISE and needs to return to it.
    I don’t care about ability. That they don’t have the ability is why they take what time they can to LEARN ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DO, judge them against one another, and determine which is best to send in representation to the aforementioned assembly.

    These things are meaningless, because either you take the time to put in the interest or you lose not only your ability to complain about the situation, you should ALSO LOSE YOUR ABILITY TO VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Democracy has always destroyed nations.
    So called "elites" have their positions because they earned them
    As a matter of course (in generality), or on a case-by-case basis? Surely you don’t mean to say that everyone in power is there legitimately.
    and we should all be grateful to those that dedicate years or study and practice to attain those credentials.
    I’m grateful to those with actual credentials and who aren’t traitors.
     The US is positioning itself for the biggest brain drain in its history.
    Guess who’s responsible for that. It rhymes with “my feets.”
    Great teachers will retrain to work in the private sector to make a living wage rather than struggle as a public school teacher.
    1. Private schools pay teachers less than public schools. This charter bullshit is going to destroy education if Pence gets his way.
    2. Fuck the ‘living wage’ dialectic.
    Our children's education will sink even further down the ladder of in comparison to other wester nations.
    Be very, VERY, VERY careful now. Otherwise I’ll have to respond to this with facts that will hurt your feelings.
     All this because "elites" are considered enemies of the state.
    Nah.
  • Reply 17 of 68
    (In response to @Lkrupp in Post #3 above). You sound pretty stupid when you make such broad-brush statements. I don't know about China or Russia, but India can't just selectively ban products because they have a problem with something a CEO said.
    brakken
  • Reply 18 of 68
    donjuandonjuan Posts: 15member
    Every day I dislike Cook a little bit more. 
    awilliams87tallest skiltyler82SpamSandwichStrangeDays
  • Reply 19 of 68
    The problem seen with most legislation to make globally fair trade is that industry is trying to undermine the fairness towards countries and populations; the TPP has shown this already, with statements therein to usher in loopholes against government legislation beneficial for environment or populations...allowing companies to sue countries for lost profits due to legislation, thus forcing the hands of government to hobble these laws.  Not acceptable.
    mike54
  • Reply 20 of 68
    donjuandonjuan Posts: 15member
    lkrupp said:
    Sort of amusing to watch when and where Tim Cook chooses to be brave on social issues. 
    Like how Julian Assange’s Wikileaks chooses to attack Western democracies and leave the totalitarian Chinese, Russian, DPRK governments alone. If he had released classified Russian documents he would have been dead ten years ago. Tim Cook is a big-time SJW in the U.S. but not in China, India, Russia where iPhone sales can be shut down if he opens his mouth. And of course there’s the Saudis and other Arab countries who publicly execute homosexuals. Such bravery! Same goes for Google and every other ‘American’ global company. 
    Maybe Russia, China and North Korea take cyber security more seriously than the American government does. 
    tallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.