Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I was just out getting a hair cut and could hear this being a big deal on the news on the TV there. Apparently 53% of LBGT folks in the US work force are currently working without being able to be open due to work regs or what ever. If Tim can help this ridiculous situation in 2014, perhaps one day this may all seem as absurd to even be discussing as 'should women vote?' Which no doubt got all the same types all riled up back when.
So, using your logic (and it's banal), if Tim wants to "speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights" and he were pro-life, he's "obligated to take a stand" against abortion? I know, I know, the majority define what human rights are.
A CEO of a public company isn't obligated to speak out on personal issues that have social and political impact. The CEO can if s/he wishes to, but the company will have to deal with the reaction.
The issue is clearing out the clutter that collect around APPLE's message. a good CEO will see a question formed by the public, reflect on the best way to answer it, answer it, and move on.
Between the hiring practices reviews the press has made, Apple's involvement in Pride parades, and the press alluding to his sexual orientation, Tim took a couple weeks, formed an answer, and stated it. Typical Apple way. Antennagate. OptionsGate. GreenpeaceGate. FoxconnSuicideGate.
To your straw man argument, if his personal views were being painted on Apple's Policies (like changing their health benefits), and there were questions about how APPLE was fostering a Pro-Life Agenda due to the feelings of their execs, then he would be obligated to speak.
I think you're at risk of confusing 'religious' obligation (which is a whole other angle) with 'personal' obligation.
Personal issues: no obligation to speak.
Corporate issues: obligation for CEO to speak.
Religious: Depends on the religion.
Political Issue: See all of the above;-)
The grey area which then leads to: Human rights issue ('self-evident' truths). Obligated to speak/act.
The problem is human rights is a political issue that religion and corporate ($$$) tend to make 'messy', because politics is about 'us' and 'them' and never about 'we.'
Silence implies implicit compliance with the anti-gay laws and the 'dont ask, dont tell' attitude still prevalent in many places.
He wasnt silent. he spoke out against such laws. It isnt any less if the speaker is straight, gay etc. Sexuality is a private issue and despite the attitudes of folks like you, public figures do have the same privacy rights. It is the dark side of the internet that we can get so much information because now some people believe it is owed to us. it is not.
Except Tim has been known to expect people's undivided devotion, be it that they work weekends and nights, or answer 3AM emails, or drop everything and go to China, and other things. That's not fair for him to demand that of lower employees and then not be as focused himself.
Nice try with your straw man. There is a difference between a demanding job that put's you on call at insane hours and one that says you cannot do anything at all, even in your spare time, that is not directly in pursuit of furthering your company's interests.
Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I was just out getting a hair cut and could hear this being a big deal on the news on the TV there. Apparently 53% of LBGT folks in the US work force are currently working without being able to be open due to work regs or what ever. If Tim can help this ridiculous situation in 2014, perhaps one day this may all seem as absurd to even be discussing as 'should women vote?' Which no doubt got all the same types all riled up back when.
On a lighter note ...
I can remember in the late 1960s where women weren't allowed to wear pants suits or slacks in the office.
In that same era, Sammy Davis Jr. Played in the big hotels on the Las Vegas Strip -- but wasn't allowed to stay in them.
Who cares! If he wants to be a politician, many american non-gay confident minorities could use some help too... They just have harder time disguising themselves as white male guys to get access to some of the same opportunities...
I have serious doubts about the future of the iPad at the moment. I think Apple's completely dropped the ball on it since Steve died. There are still a LOT of people who say "I don't get the need for a tablet". And we haven't seen any new software for it from Apple since 2011. As much as Tim bashes on Android tablets for just having blown up phone apps, the majority of iPad apps are just that.
Sure, there are some very good iPad apps. But they're far and few between, third party developer support is focused on the iPhone, not iPad. They're letting the iPad become a niche product, just like the Mac. This is a case where I can also say "this is something Steve wouldn't have done". His vision was about changing personal computing, Tim's vision is becoming clearer, that it's about societal change. Not sure I'm comfortable with that.
The iPad situation as you attempt to portray it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Tim outing himself and you know it.
Because it still needed to be said. How far you achieve in your career shouldn't be held hostage to sexual orientation.
No it didnt NEED to be said, and Tim's career hasnt been held hostage by his being or not being gay. No one ever siad "Tim Cook coulld be a great leader if he wasnt gay".
as for your "just be" comment, how was he not. people need to get off the sexuality issue. Hes not a GAY CEO. He's a CEO who happens to be gay. judge him by what he has done, not who he does
I must say, this article has certainly been a very revealing Rorschach test of either people's tolerance or people's insecurities about their own sexuality. (Usually, they're intertwined.)
Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I'm one of those people. It would definitely turn me off if Cook became an activist. Personally, I could care less if someone is gay or not. I'm just getting so annoying by people making it a big deal coming out. At the same time, a lot of that has to do with the agenda pushing media. The Michael Sam coverage was so ridiculous. I can only imagine the media coverage today.
He was outed and 'committed suicide' (although some suspect murdered). It's worth reading up on. Shameful period of history ... oh wait not that much has changed.
Eddy and Jony are testaments to Steve keeping the best (and keeping those who wanted to work with Steve Jobs).
Schiller was a Apple/Jobs guy from way back in the day (original mac day), just didn't move to NeXT with Steve.
Tim's hire is important, in that he was an 'outsider' to Steve's and Apple's circle, at a time when Apple was literally in a death spiral. And the job he did (he engineered the contract manufacturing model, shutting down the Apple factories), was critical to drive margins up.
And none of that has anything to do with his sexual orientation
Actually Steve was a social liberal but pro-business and supported Obama with reservations. Why should Cook have to hide in the closet or make his sexual orientation a secret to avoid offending religious homophobes and bigots?
why should the world act like he's obligated to tell it to the world. cant those bigots just be mad at him for being a gay friendly straight man
the really nasty part is that it is a highly vocal jerk part of the gay community that pushes this whole "if you are gay you must tell" attitude about public figures. if you arent out to the world you are ashamed of being gay blah blah. and they have the right to out you against your wishes
I'm one of those people. It would definitely turn me off if Cook became an activist. Personally, I could care less if someone is gay or not. I'm just getting so annoying by people making it a big deal coming out. At the same time, a lot of that has to do with the agenda pushing media. The Michael Sam coverage was so ridiculous. I can only imagine the media coverage today.
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I was just out getting a hair cut and could hear this being a big deal on the news on the TV there. Apparently 53% of LBGT folks in the US work force are currently working without being able to be open due to work regs or what ever. If Tim can help this ridiculous situation in 2014, perhaps one day this may all seem as absurd to even be discussing as 'should women vote?' Which no doubt got all the same types all riled up back when.
Really?
I'm not so sure women should vote. They have more than enough to occupy them between the kitchen and the bedroom.
Comments
You're mudding the water ...
In the context I presented:
The issue is should Tim have addressed this on his terms -- or should he have waited for others to do it on their terms?
I was just out getting a hair cut and could hear this being a big deal on the news on the TV there. Apparently 53% of LBGT folks in the US work force are currently working without being able to be open due to work regs or what ever. If Tim can help this ridiculous situation in 2014, perhaps one day this may all seem as absurd to even be discussing as 'should women vote?' Which no doubt got all the same types all riled up back when.
So, using your logic (and it's banal), if Tim wants to "speak his mind on an issue that not only affects him but millions of others. Especially if we're talking about human rights" and he were pro-life, he's "obligated to take a stand" against abortion? I know, I know, the majority define what human rights are.
A CEO of a public company isn't obligated to speak out on personal issues that have social and political impact. The CEO can if s/he wishes to, but the company will have to deal with the reaction.
The issue is clearing out the clutter that collect around APPLE's message. a good CEO will see a question formed by the public, reflect on the best way to answer it, answer it, and move on.
Between the hiring practices reviews the press has made, Apple's involvement in Pride parades, and the press alluding to his sexual orientation, Tim took a couple weeks, formed an answer, and stated it. Typical Apple way. Antennagate. OptionsGate. GreenpeaceGate. FoxconnSuicideGate.
To your straw man argument, if his personal views were being painted on Apple's Policies (like changing their health benefits), and there were questions about how APPLE was fostering a Pro-Life Agenda due to the feelings of their execs, then he would be obligated to speak.
I think you're at risk of confusing 'religious' obligation (which is a whole other angle) with 'personal' obligation.
Personal issues: no obligation to speak.
Corporate issues: obligation for CEO to speak.
Religious: Depends on the religion.
Political Issue: See all of the above;-)
The grey area which then leads to: Human rights issue ('self-evident' truths). Obligated to speak/act.
The problem is human rights is a political issue that religion and corporate ($$$) tend to make 'messy', because politics is about 'us' and 'them' and never about 'we.'
Why? Is Tim Cook a robot?
He wasnt silent. he spoke out against such laws. It isnt any less if the speaker is straight, gay etc. Sexuality is a private issue and despite the attitudes of folks like you, public figures do have the same privacy rights. It is the dark side of the internet that we can get so much information because now some people believe it is owed to us. it is not.
Except Tim has been known to expect people's undivided devotion, be it that they work weekends and nights, or answer 3AM emails, or drop everything and go to China, and other things. That's not fair for him to demand that of lower employees and then not be as focused himself.
Nice try with your straw man. There is a difference between a demanding job that put's you on call at insane hours and one that says you cannot do anything at all, even in your spare time, that is not directly in pursuit of furthering your company's interests.
On a lighter note ...
I can remember in the late 1960s where women weren't allowed to wear pants suits or slacks in the office.
In that same era, Sammy Davis Jr. Played in the big hotels on the Las Vegas Strip -- but wasn't allowed to stay in them.
The iPad situation as you attempt to portray it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Tim outing himself and you know it.
No it didnt NEED to be said, and Tim's career hasnt been held hostage by his being or not being gay. No one ever siad "Tim Cook coulld be a great leader if he wasnt gay".
as for your "just be" comment, how was he not. people need to get off the sexuality issue. Hes not a GAY CEO. He's a CEO who happens to be gay. judge him by what he has done, not who he does
I must say, this article has certainly been a very revealing Rorschach test of either people's tolerance or people's insecurities about their own sexuality. (Usually, they're intertwined.)
And it is always the same types through the eras that write the exact same sort of justification for all these things. They are a scary bunch.
Cook said in his editorial that he doesn't want to be an activist. So long as he sticks to that I don't see any issues. If he starts using Apple to become activist then I could see it turning people off. Because there are plenty of people who own Apple products that don't share the same political viewpoint as Tim Cook.
I'm one of those people. It would definitely turn me off if Cook became an activist. Personally, I could care less if someone is gay or not. I'm just getting so annoying by people making it a big deal coming out. At the same time, a lot of that has to do with the agenda pushing media. The Michael Sam coverage was so ridiculous. I can only imagine the media coverage today.
He was outed and 'committed suicide' (although some suspect murdered). It's worth reading up on. Shameful period of history ... oh wait not that much has changed.
why should the world act like he's obligated to tell it to the world. cant those bigots just be mad at him for being a gay friendly straight man
the really nasty part is that it is a highly vocal jerk part of the gay community that pushes this whole "if you are gay you must tell" attitude about public figures. if you arent out to the world you are ashamed of being gay blah blah. and they have the right to out you against your wishes
Sorry to hear minorities or those not considered 'normal' somehow, pushing agendas to try to change things are annoying for you. If you read some history you might find a lot of good eventually comes from these actions, you know like women nearly being treated equally in a few countries and so on ...
just because he hasnt told you the roadmap doesnt mean there isnt one. Apple has never been a company to discuss things until they are done deals.
Really?
I'm not so sure women should vote. They have more than enough to occupy them between the kitchen and the bedroom.
Best to leave the important decisions to us guys.