Thank god - finally - someone has determined the most effective way to solve all inequities in the world based on gender - force Apple to have more women on the board of directors - and everything for ever after will be sunshine and puppy dogs.
If the pundits really want there to be more women in these positions I think they need to start at the bottom, not the top, meaning that such change is far more effective when it is pervasive and begins at the earliest stages of childhood development rather than forced at the end stage.
If you want to claim that you are making up for years of inequity then where do you stop?
To me equal opportunity should be like a batter in baseball. Every batter gets 4 balls and 3 strikes - regardless of age, sex, race, religion, or ability. Those who develop their talent are more likely to be successful than those who do not. But even in a case where the rules are equally applied to all batters does not mean that every single batter faces the same pitches or the same fielders. Imagine if all the ideas about equal opportunity as they are pushed in the business world were used in baseball - we would have a machine "throwing" identical pitches to each batter - and the speed would be adjusted for each batter - and there would be no fielders - just paint boxes so wherever your balls lands that what you get - make it like the pin ball machine version of baseball. and then we could have the distance to the basses adjusted for the height or stride length and age of each batter.
I am not suggesting that discrimination doesn't happen but also consider that in hiring for anything but menial labor there can be considerations beyond what's on your resume that make one candidate more qualified than another.
Also - if only 17% of all members of boards of directors are women across all fortune 500 companies - shouldn't that mean that Apple is right in line if they have eight members on the board and one is a woman that is about 13% - so looks like they are right in line with the proportion of the population of qualified board members.
Which raises the question - how do you determine what the "correct" ratio is? should it be 50/50 if the male/female ratio in the public are large is 50/50? but what if you exclude people who are not actively employed or seeking employment, is that still 50/50? and what if you restrict it to only people who have a certain level of education and experience as managers or team leaders or business owners, is it still 50/50? and if any of those groups don't meet your golden ratio - then you should work to change the underlying conditions that lead to that ratio - if you change the ratio of qualified applicants from 83/17 male/female to something like 60/40 then it might be a valid criticism if Apple is under 20%.
Another factor is how long does the average member sit on a board of directors? if it is 20 or 30 years then you might need to wait 40 or 60 years for changes in the available pool of qualified applicants to spread throughout the business world.
Reminds me of the story of the government inspector who shows up at a small business and tells the owner that with his 10 employes he must have two minorities - so the business owner calls in two minority workers and tells them they are fired - when the government agents asks for an explanation - the business owner says I have four minority employees but you said I had to have two so I have to let these two go.