Lots of profitable corporations go out of their way to do things that are socially responsible. They even tout it because they know that most of their customer demographic applaud it and reward them by choosing their products over their don't-give-a-shit-about-the-environment competitors. It costs more to be be green but it pays off. Think Nike, Subaru, etc. Many (not all) of those who decry Cook's bringing his social activism to the company have issues with gays that their profits criticism is a "beard" for.
Its one thing to laud social responsibilities such as the environment and diversity in the work space (those are work related), its a completely different thing to publicly campaign with political parties and push your personal views. I'm not even from the US and I hate Trump but when you are a very public CEO (people see Tim and they think Apple), you should stay out of these things. It will and does affect sales.
Lots of profitable corporations go out of their way to do things that are socially responsible. They even tout it because they know that most of their customer demographic applaud it and reward them by choosing their products over their don't-give-a-shit-about-the-environment competitors. It costs more to be be green but it pays off. Think Nike, Subaru, etc. Many (not all) of those who decry Cook's bringing his social activism to the company have issues with gays that their profits criticism is a "beard" for.
Its one thing to laud social responsibilities such as the environment and diversity in the work space (those are work related), its a completely different thing to publicly campaign with political parties and push your personal views. I'm not even from the US and I hate Trump but when you are a very public CEO (people see Tim and they think Apple), you should stay out of these things. It will and does affect sales.
Not only that, but Cook is using his profile to push his personal views. And as the outcome of the election shows, sometimes taking partisan positions has the potential to cause problems later. Poor risk management. I think he has mentally moved on from Apple myself.
I'm not sure why some say Cook seems to be on issues more than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs had his set of values as well for Apple and backed social issues. Some of them are the same, some are different. Steve Jobs backed RED from what I remember too. Steve Jobs backed environmental issues. I can't remember if he backed LGBT issues, but I'm sure he backed equality issues.
Every company I know of backs some sort of social or charitable issue(s).
And Trump... well, Trump is a business person and IMHO is only looking out for one person, himself. I don't see how anyone sees Trump as a person who will represent the people. Trump is a business person, he sees people as numbers, as dollar values, as resources. He's going to fill his (business's) pockets with money.
I'm not sure why some say Cook seems to be on issues more than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs had his set of values as well for Apple and backed social issues. Some of them are the same, some are different. Steve Jobs backed RED from what I remember too. Steve Jobs backed environmental issues. I can't remember if he backed LGBT issues, but I'm sure he backed equality issues.
Every company I know of backs some sort of social or charitable issue(s).
And Trump... well, Trump is a business person and IMHO is only looking out for one person, himself. I don't see how anyone sees Trump as a person who will represent the people. Trump is a business person, he sees people as numbers, as dollar values, as resources. He's going to fill his (business's) pockets with money.
Perhaps the Tim-haters would have advocated offering Trump a seat on the Board if he had lost the election, like Apple did with Al Gore?
Imagine those two dudes sitting on the same board. That would be better Reality TV than the Celebrity Apprentice, times ten!
And you may have heard Trump say, "Tim, you're fired."
"....And corporations are just a bunch of people."
Not true, Mr. Cook. Yes, corporations are populated by a bunch of people, but corporations are not "just a bunch of people." Rather, corporations most fundamentally a nexus of contracts.
In fact, the nexus-of-contracts conception is the basis for the most widely prevalent view of the corporation under US law and governance.
Yes, corporations are legal entities, but there are no decisions that are made by corporations without the input and influence of people. So, both Tim Cook and Mitt Romney are right... "Corporations are made of people."
That's a very different statement from "corporations are people." After all, if they are, they would also have 2nd, 5th and 14th amendment rights (1st amendment rights under Citizens United notwithstanding.). And many others. Would you want Goldman Sachs to be able to have a well-regulated militia? Or a company under indictment to be able to say that it has a right against self-incrimination when confronted? Or all manner of citizenship rights?
iPhone sales - DOWN iPad sales - DOWN Mac sales - DOWN Total sales - DOWN Total profits - DOWN China sales - DOWN
you were saying?
All finance has ups and downs, ebbs and flows. The dollar is up, the dollar is down, oil is up, oil is down, the Yen is up the Yen is down, stocks are up, stocks are down.
In the long term, which we all know you have no patience for, Cook has done very well since Steve's passing. The stock is up, the dividends are up, brand recognition is up, customer satisfaction is up, services are up, and overall, revenue, profits, cash and capitalization are all up during Cook's tenure.
WRONG.
This is the first year in over a decade that Apple's revenues are down. This is the first year in the history of the iPhone that iPhone sales are down.
This isn't normal ebbs and flows.
This is a decay of Apple because of a CEO who focuses more on social issues then delivering the best products.
Why are air pods delayed? Where is the new Mac mini? New Mac Pro? New iPads? Where is a new design for iPhone? Live TV service?
It really is pathetic how crappy Tim Cook's apple is
Are you familiar with what "ebb & flow" is?
If there WERE NOT occasional down periods, that would not be an "ebbing & flowing". that would be a bubble. Nothing can go straight up forever without corrections here and there.
You may be right that Tim Cook is the wrong guy for the job.
But you are most certainly wrong to insist that one year of down sales and revenues means the sky is falling.
And to your points about delayed/missing products or services, might I point out that during Apple's heyday, with Steve at the helm, Apple:
Slowly killed off servers.
Created a novel "Pro" machine design (Cube) and let it wither on the vine.
Jettisoned its printer business.
Allowed the iPod to begin its slow fade-out that continues to this day
Killed Apple's premier mobile devices (Newton & eMate)
All these "deliveries" that went missing or were reduced were done under a regime that did not emphasize activism. Activism isn't the reason some products are delayed or are killed. Correlation isn't causation.
Go ahead and say you don't like Tim, but you'll need better substantiation for your claim that "Tim spends some of his time advocating for social causes AND Apple is having an off year, therefore Tim's activism is destroying/delaying products I want to see" to convince me you are right.
Your examples are of products that were failures, or successful products that the market had moved on from. Your list does not help you. Also see product "red". A decent example of your money where your mouth is activism that a loyal customer (remember them?)could use to show their support for the campaign, rather than executive posturing. Current problems are more than an off year. To give a simple example, the MBPs came out all USBC ports. Now, I do not have a problem with that at all, it is reminiscent of when the iMac came out with this new USB thingy with the result of popularising the port to universal use. The problem I have is that an Apple that was thinking of its key selling point, its ecosystem, would have made sure it came with a USBC to lightning cable in the box so it would "just work" with an iPhone. And that simple, low cost gesture would have generated a lot of favourable press. See also MagSafe removal. An example of the little things that delighted the Apple purchaser. Why not just shift the MagSafe feature onto the included charging cable? Could it be because they were too busy with other things? Similarly the airpods should have been developed and ready for the iPhone 7 launch as part of a coherent [Apple] ecosystem. These things should have been developed and ready as part of an overall, tour de force release strategy right from the time the decision was made to remove the headphone port (ie started years ago and ready in advance of the iPhone launch) As it is now, their eventual release [Apple finally releases its long delayed Airpods!] will be filled with negativity. It is symbolic of an Apple where its executives' interests are focussed elsewhere.
iPhone sales - DOWN iPad sales - DOWN Mac sales - DOWN Total sales - DOWN Total profits - DOWN China sales - DOWN
you were saying?
All finance has ups and downs, ebbs and flows. The dollar is up, the dollar is down, oil is up, oil is down, the Yen is up the Yen is down, stocks are up, stocks are down.
In the long term, which we all know you have no patience for, Cook has done very well since Steve's passing. The stock is up, the dividends are up, brand recognition is up, customer satisfaction is up, services are up, and overall, revenue, profits, cash and capitalization are all up during Cook's tenure.
WRONG.
This is the first year in over a decade that Apple's revenues are down. This is the first year in the history of the iPhone that iPhone sales are down.
This isn't normal ebbs and flows.
This is a decay of Apple because of a CEO who focuses more on social issues then delivering the best products.
Why are air pods delayed? Where is the new Mac mini? New Mac Pro? New iPads? Where is a new design for iPhone? Live TV service?
It really is pathetic how crappy Tim Cook's apple is
Are you familiar with what "ebb & flow" is?
If there WERE NOT occasional down periods, that would not be an "ebbing & flowing". that would be a bubble. Nothing can go straight up forever without corrections here and there.
You may be right that Tim Cook is the wrong guy for the job.
But you are most certainly wrong to insist that one year of down sales and revenues means the sky is falling.
And to your points about delayed/missing products or services, might I point out that during Apple's heyday, with Steve at the helm, Apple:
Slowly killed off servers.
Created a novel "Pro" machine design (Cube) and let it wither on the vine.
Jettisoned its printer business.
Allowed the iPod to begin its slow fade-out that continues to this day
Killed Apple's premier mobile devices (Newton & eMate)
All these "deliveries" that went missing or were reduced were done under a regime that did not emphasize activism. Activism isn't the reason some products are delayed or are killed. Correlation isn't causation.
Go ahead and say you don't like Tim, but you'll need better substantiation for your claim that "Tim spends some of his time advocating for social causes AND Apple is having an off year, therefore Tim's activism is destroying/delaying products I want to see" to convince me you are right.
Your examples are of products that were failures, or successful products that the market had moved on from. Your list does not help you. Also see product "red". A decent example of your money where your mouth is activism that a loyal customer (remember them?)could use to show their support for the campaign, rather than executive posturing. Current problems are more than an off year. To give a simple example, the MBPs came out all USBC ports. Now, I do not have a problem with that at all, it is reminiscent of when the iMac came out with this new USB thingy with the result of popularising the port to universal use. The problem I have is that an Apple that was thinking of its key selling point, its ecosystem, would have made sure it came with a USBC to lightning cable in the box so it would "just work" with an iPhone. And that simple, low cost gesture would have generated a lot of favourable press. See also MagSafe removal. An example of the little things that delighted the Apple purchaser. Why not just shift the MagSafe feature onto the included charging cable? Could it be because they were too busy with other things? Similarly the airpods should have been developed and ready for the iPhone 7 launch as part of a coherent [Apple] ecosystem. These things should have been developed and ready as part of an overall, tour de force release strategy right from the time the decision was made to remove the headphone port (ie started years ago and ready in advance of the iPhone launch) As it is now, their eventual release [Apple finally releases its long delayed Airpods!] will be filled with negativity. It is symbolic of an Apple where its executives' interests are focussed elsewhere.
I'm not trying to help myself. How is my list invalid, but the original commenter's valid? I guess the difference is that I do not agree with the conclusion. The point of my list was to illustrate a list of failures or diminished products (similar to the original commenter's list) could be drawn from any period in Apple's history.
My greater point is that social activism is not the cause of problems with Apple's product line.
My list just illustrates that there have been 'problems' in the past when activism was not Apple's agenda.
Products are products.
Activism is activism.
It's like saying you can't properly care for your children and keep up with your yard work at the same time.
"....And corporations are just a bunch of people."
Not true, Mr. Cook. Yes, corporations are populated by a bunch of people, but corporations are not "just a bunch of people." Rather, corporations most fundamentally a nexus of contracts.
In fact, the nexus-of-contracts conception is the basis for the most widely prevalent view of the corporation under US law and governance.
The fact that it's the most widely prevalent view should tip you off. Never swallow the majority view uncritically; it's bound to be obsolete. I keep telling you guys to read your Marshall McLuhan.
Apple is a media technology corporation. It is made from people's knowledge, plus physical plant, capital, and much else, including this business-school notion of contracts.
The last media corporation to compare to Apple in revolutionary importance was the publisher Aldus Manutius, ca. 1500, who very deliberately jump-srarted the Renaissance and Enlightenment by printing the best work of the classical world in contemporary languages. Like Steve Jobs, he pretty much invented the first portable media platforms, printed books which you could carry around with you, and he aimed to do good with them.
It's natural for people who are the best in the knowledge-spreading business to be smart enough to want to oppose any ignorance and do good with their power over people's minds. At least we'd better hope it stays that way, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are the alternative.
I have plenty of agendas, and destroying liberals is just one of the items on my list.
I'd advise a more moderate course of action.
Perhaps with less hostile rhetoric, you might convince some liberals to give your ideas a chance?
Some liberals are quite open-minded.
So are some conservatives.
I don't count myself among either crowd.
I do belive in trying to get along, though.
I disagree that many liberals are open minded. Brain washed cult comes to mind to be honest.
I don't like religion and extremism and I classify most liberals as being very religious and extreme. Most operate on faith, feeling, emotion and not much fact or science.
I am not interested in converting anybody to be honest.
This is war, and war is what they have chosen and that is what they shall get.
I have plenty of agendas, and destroying liberals is just one of the items on my list.
I'd advise a more moderate course of action.
Perhaps with less hostile rhetoric, you might convince some liberals to give your ideas a chance?
Some liberals are quite open-minded.
So are some conservatives.
I don't count myself among either crowd.
I do belive in trying to get along, though.
I disagree that many liberals are open minded. Brain washed cult comes to mind to be honest.
I don't like religion and extremism and I classify most liberals as being very religious and extreme. Most operate on faith, feeling, emotion and not much fact or science.
I am not interested in converting anybody to be honest.
This is war, and war is what they have chosen and that is what they shall get.
I don't think anyone has chosen war. Are you familiar with the definition of the word?
I don't think anyone has chosen war. Are you familiar with the definition of the word?
Are you asking if I am familiar with the definition of war?
Yes, I am.
Definition of war
1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war><a war against disease>
I don't think anyone has chosen war. Are you familiar with the definition of the word?
Are you asking if I am familiar with the definition of war?
Yes, I am.
Definition of war
1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war><a war against disease>
Does this war you refer to fall under definition 1 or 2?
Comments
I am interested in Apple's products, not their hypocritical social activism and politics.
Deranged liberals and fascist SJWs should not mix their sick thoughts with business.
They should do it on their free time.
Liberals and their fascist agenda must be fought every step of the way, and the good news is that they are losing.
Imagine those two dudes sitting on the same board. That would be better Reality TV than the Celebrity Apprentice, times ten!
And you may have heard Trump say, "Tim, you're fired."
Current problems are more than an off year. To give a simple example, the MBPs came out all USBC ports. Now, I do not have a problem with that at all, it is reminiscent of when the iMac came out with this new USB thingy with the result of popularising the port to universal use. The problem I have is that an Apple that was thinking of its key selling point, its ecosystem, would have made sure it came with a USBC to lightning cable in the box so it would "just work" with an iPhone. And that simple, low cost gesture would have generated a lot of favourable press. See also MagSafe removal. An example of the little things that delighted the Apple purchaser. Why not just shift the MagSafe feature onto the included charging cable? Could it be because they were too busy with other things?
Similarly the airpods should have been developed and ready for the iPhone 7 launch as part of a coherent [Apple] ecosystem. These things should have been developed and ready as part of an overall, tour de force release strategy right from the time the decision was made to remove the headphone port (ie started years ago and ready in advance of the iPhone launch) As it is now, their eventual release [Apple finally releases its long delayed Airpods!] will be filled with negativity. It is symbolic of an Apple where its executives' interests are focussed elsewhere.
My greater point is that social activism is not the cause of problems with Apple's product line.
My list just illustrates that there have been 'problems' in the past when activism was not Apple's agenda.
Products are products.
Activism is activism.
It's like saying you can't properly care for your children and keep up with your yard work at the same time.
Like those anti-American idiots running around, crying and rioting, because they don't like Democracy.
The ironic part is that the majority of them didn't even bother to vote. Truly dumb and despicable people, in other words.
Apple is a media technology corporation. It is made from people's knowledge, plus physical plant, capital, and much else, including this business-school notion of contracts.
The last media corporation to compare to Apple in revolutionary importance was the publisher Aldus Manutius, ca. 1500, who very deliberately jump-srarted the Renaissance and Enlightenment by printing the best work of the classical world in contemporary languages. Like Steve Jobs, he pretty much invented the first portable media platforms, printed books which you could carry around with you, and he aimed to do good with them.
It's natural for people who are the best in the knowledge-spreading business to be smart enough to want to oppose any ignorance and do good with their power over people's minds. At least we'd better hope it stays that way, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are the alternative.
Perhaps with less hostile rhetoric, you might convince some liberals to give your ideas a chance?
Some liberals are quite open-minded.
So are some conservatives.
I don't count myself among either crowd.
I do belive in trying to get along, though.
I don't like religion and extremism and I classify most liberals as being very religious and extreme. Most operate on faith, feeling, emotion and not much fact or science.
I am not interested in converting anybody to be honest.
This is war, and war is what they have chosen and that is what they shall get.
Yes, I am.
Definition of war
1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war><a war against disease>