Tim expressing his personal opinions is his business.
Apple as a company supporting a divisive political organization that is not related to their business seems questionable and does concern me as a shareholder.
You don't get it. This speech is one of the reason's Tim Cook was hand-picked to represent Apple Inc. He's expressing the views that are at the core of Apple.
Note that Apple removed the app from that App Store yet there is no mention of Apple sending the kill signal to devices to keep those that installed the app from continuing to use it. This may be the delicate balance Apple is playing in China. They let something they know will be flagged as going against current law but then also remove it when they are told. I think that's a better solution than to simply not do any business in China which helps no one but Apple's competitors.
Unfortunately you are pretty much subject to the laws of a given country if you want to do business there, even if it clashes with your own cultural values. This is especially true with a corporation the size of Apple, as they are too big to be overlooked. I wonder if the posted app guidelines are different there or if there's a clause anywhere that references compliance with local laws.
Tim expressing his personal opinions is his business. Apple as a company supporting a divisive political organization that is not related to their business seems questionable and does concern me as a shareholder. http://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/
Based on your previous rants posts, I assume you have no problem with this:
You don't get it. This speech is one of the reason's Tim Cook was hand-picked to represent Apple Inc. He's expressing the views that are at the core of Apple.
My concern is with Apple funding a political organization that supports big government and far-left legislation. I'm a shareholder and I don't think this is even remotely an organization Apple should be supporting. Apple should support pro-business, pro-privacy, pro-shareholder measures.
Ignore for 10 seconds Tim's speech. His speech is his opinion.
Yeah, yeah, excellent speech. Why can't he ever convince investors with some silver-tongued rhetoric. Every time he talks about Apple doing this or that, the stock drops like a one-ton boulder and Wall Street investors run away like a plague was unleashed. Maybe he missed his calling. Everyone says his Apple speeches are like listening to a wet noodle talking. A really boring wet noodle. If he could only muster up some awesome "Apple is the shiznit" speech to woo Wall Street investors instead of the gay community. I know it's not going to happen so that's the end of that. Apple shareholders don't stand a chance of getting any satisfaction from Tim Cook.
My concern is with Apple funding a political organization that supports big government and far-left legislation. I'm a shareholder and I don't think this is even remotely an organization Apple should be supporting. Apple should support pro-business, pro-privacy, pro-shareholder measures.
Ignore for 10 seconds Tim's speech. His speech is his opinion.
How it's branded shouldn't really matter, just like I wouldn't care if something was branded "far-right". I care about its implications, not nonsensical ideologies that should have died with the last century.
edit: Bleh that probably sounds rude, but there should be some reason that specific causes they support are detrimental, not just broad opinions that it's bad by affiliation.
Unless of course you are a Chinese dissident trying to use an app on the app store that could allow you do communicate anonymously. Then you are just on the wrong side of a good business decision.
I do think people need to be more tolerant, not just of other races and sexual orientations, but also of disabilities and/or birth defects.
Some people don't like anyone they perceive as "not normal." I don't know why this is, perhaps because in the wild our survival depended on predicting the future (e.g. predicting what the tiger was going to do next), and you can only predict what you know, so anything different will be instinctually scary/unpredictable.
But in that case, the way to make people more tolerant is to expand their definition of normal, and that is done by exposing them to more examples. Very young children can be cruel, but it's not their fault because they are simply too young to have seen many examples. Also people from small towns where your whole life you only see only a few kinds of people (as against the city which is far more diverse) may be intolerant.
But the Internet can help with this, because examples from all over the world can each people, no matter how small the variety around them. What if by default the lock screen on the iPhone automatically displayed examples of a wide variety of people (e.g. downloaded from National Geographic). Would that widen people's concepts and make them more tolerant?
Tim expressing his personal opinions is his business. Apple as a company supporting a divisive political organization that is not related to their business seems questionable and does concern me as a shareholder. http://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/
Good to know. Why don't you start a thread about it instead of derailing a thread about Tim Cook and a speech with partisan baiting?
Comments
You don't get it. This speech is one of the reason's Tim Cook was hand-picked to represent Apple Inc. He's expressing the views that are at the core of Apple.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/13/apple_pulls_another_anti_censorship_app_from_chinas_ios_app_store.html
Note that Apple removed the app from that App Store yet there is no mention of Apple sending the kill signal to devices to keep those that installed the app from continuing to use it. This may be the delicate balance Apple is playing in China. They let something they know will be flagged as going against current law but then also remove it when they are told. I think that's a better solution than to simply not do any business in China which helps no one but Apple's competitors.
Apparently this is at the core of Apple too:
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/13/apple_pulls_another_anti_censorship_app_from_chinas_ios_app_store.html
Unfortunately you are pretty much subject to the laws of a given country if you want to do business there, even if it clashes with your own cultural values. This is especially true with a corporation the size of Apple, as they are too big to be overlooked. I wonder if the posted app guidelines are different there or if there's a clause anywhere that references compliance with local laws.
Based on your previous
rantsposts, I assume you have no problem with this:Google Funding a Slew of Right-Wing Groups:
American Conservative Union
Americans for Tax Reform
CATO Institute
Federalist Society
George Mason University Law School Law and Economics Center
Heritage Action
Mercatus Center
National Taxpayers Union
R Street Institute
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Someone's ox is always getting gored.
sell AAPL, buy GOOG, problem solved.
Why in the world would I care what Google does? I don't own their stock.
My concern is with Apple funding a political organization that supports big government and far-left legislation. I'm a shareholder and I don't think this is even remotely an organization Apple should be supporting. Apple should support pro-business, pro-privacy, pro-shareholder measures.
Ignore for 10 seconds Tim's speech. His speech is his opinion.
My concern is with Apple funding a political organization that supports big government and far-left legislation. I'm a shareholder and I don't think this is even remotely an organization Apple should be supporting. Apple should support pro-business, pro-privacy, pro-shareholder measures.
Ignore for 10 seconds Tim's speech. His speech is his opinion.
How it's branded shouldn't really matter, just like I wouldn't care if something was branded "far-right". I care about its implications, not nonsensical ideologies that should have died with the last century.
edit: Bleh that probably sounds rude, but there should be some reason that specific causes they support are detrimental, not just broad opinions that it's bad by affiliation.
I do think people need to be more tolerant, not just of other races and sexual orientations, but also of disabilities and/or birth defects.
Some people don't like anyone they perceive as "not normal." I don't know why this is, perhaps because in the wild our survival depended on predicting the future (e.g. predicting what the tiger was going to do next), and you can only predict what you know, so anything different will be instinctually scary/unpredictable.
But in that case, the way to make people more tolerant is to expand their definition of normal, and that is done by exposing them to more examples. Very young children can be cruel, but it's not their fault because they are simply too young to have seen many examples. Also people from small towns where your whole life you only see only a few kinds of people (as against the city which is far more diverse) may be intolerant.
But the Internet can help with this, because examples from all over the world can each people, no matter how small the variety around them. What if by default the lock screen on the iPhone automatically displayed examples of a wide variety of people (e.g. downloaded from National Geographic). Would that widen people's concepts and make them more tolerant?
My concern is with Apple funding a political organization that supports big government and far-left legislation.
Your world view is very warped if you think that CAP is a far-left organization.
You mean people are actually interested in staying on track in these threads? That's great. The world has changed.
Of course we're interested in staying on track and speaking of tracks did you hear about that NYC train wreck?¡
Hah, exactly the right question.
Another: how to awaken empathy circuits in brains that are locked up in 19th-century social Darwinism?
Tell me more!
It comes down to whether or not one believes government solves more problems than it causes.