'Unwavering' Apple CEO Tim Cook makes Time's 100 Most Influential People list
On Thursday, Apple CEO Tim Cook once again secured a position on Time magazine's annual list of the 100 Most Influential People, and was praised in a profile written by Democratic Congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis.
Lewis wrote that Cook has brought Apple to "unimaginable profitability" and "greater social responsibility" at the same time. He claimed that Cook is "unwavering" in supporting personal privacy, while also actively advocating for LGBT rights, and "leaving our planet a little cleaner and a little greener" by instituting renewable energy programs for the company's US offices and datacenters.
The company is working on making all of its US facilities powered by renewable energy, primarily solar. That is just 2 percent of the company's carbon footprint, but Apple has defended itself by saying that 70 percent of its footprint stems from facilities it doesn't own, and that another 22 percent is produced by customers.
"Tim Cook is proof that even the most successful companies can and should be judged by more than just their bottom line," Lewis concluded.
Apple has taken flak for privacy and LGBT issues in some cases as well. Although the company is one of a number of businesses that have called for an end to bulk data collection by the US National Security Agency, documents leaked by Edward Snowden show that Apple is a partner in that surveillance, whether willingly or not.
Cook has been called a "hypocrite" for his LGBT stance by conservative critics, who note that Apple continues to sell products in countries where gays and lesbians can be imprisoned or executed.
Elsewhere in the Time piece, lead Apple designer Jony Ive wrote a profile for Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky, in which he said Chesky has an "obsession with detail and practicality" helps make "what could so easily be noble but abstract ideas functional and real."
Lewis wrote that Cook has brought Apple to "unimaginable profitability" and "greater social responsibility" at the same time. He claimed that Cook is "unwavering" in supporting personal privacy, while also actively advocating for LGBT rights, and "leaving our planet a little cleaner and a little greener" by instituting renewable energy programs for the company's US offices and datacenters.
The company is working on making all of its US facilities powered by renewable energy, primarily solar. That is just 2 percent of the company's carbon footprint, but Apple has defended itself by saying that 70 percent of its footprint stems from facilities it doesn't own, and that another 22 percent is produced by customers.
"Tim Cook is proof that even the most successful companies can and should be judged by more than just their bottom line," Lewis concluded.
Apple has taken flak for privacy and LGBT issues in some cases as well. Although the company is one of a number of businesses that have called for an end to bulk data collection by the US National Security Agency, documents leaked by Edward Snowden show that Apple is a partner in that surveillance, whether willingly or not.
Cook has been called a "hypocrite" for his LGBT stance by conservative critics, who note that Apple continues to sell products in countries where gays and lesbians can be imprisoned or executed.
Elsewhere in the Time piece, lead Apple designer Jony Ive wrote a profile for Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky, in which he said Chesky has an "obsession with detail and practicality" helps make "what could so easily be noble but abstract ideas functional and real."
Comments
excellent to have a corporate leader focused on social and environmental progress.
consumers reward apple for that.
This consumer "rewards" Apple by buying its products. I wouldn't buy them if they weren't good in themselves, no matter what the CEO's various stances were. I don't happen to endorse homosexuality, but I don't condemn anyone because of it. I admire Mr. Cook for his demonstrated competence as an executive, and for his palpable sincerity and compassion.
Nobody needs your endorsement or condemnation to be who they are any more than you need theirs to be who you are.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it is profoundly tiresome - and chauvinistic - that anyone thinks their permission is needed for anyone else to be themselves. And unfortunately, many people think that their opinion matters and should be used to regulate and constrain the personal lives of others.
It's really important to the rest of us that you endorse black. For realz.
danielsw:
Nobody needs your endorsement or condemnation to be who they are any more than you need theirs to be who you are.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it is profoundly tiresome - and chauvinistic - that anyone thinks their permission is needed for anyone else to be themselves. And unfortunately, many people think that their opinion matters and should be used to regulate and constrain the personal lives of others.
Wow. Your profound twisting of my words make it impossible to respond in any meaningful way.
danielsw: do you endorse black? Because gay people have about as much control over their orientation as you do your skin color.
It's really important to the rest of us that you endorse black. For realz.
Totally non sequitur.
Why not simply accept other people as they are. Your "endorsement" or "condemnation" represent extremes of moralistic attitude that blatantly imply that people need to be "endorsed" or "condemned", presumably by you, rather than simply accepted. Live and let live, sir.
If you don't care whether a company has a particular social attitude when deciding whether or not to purchase their products, then perhaps just say so and leave it at that. It seems that Mr. Cook's sexual orientation and/or his stance on LGBT rights really does irk you in some way, and you feel the need to make some kind of statement about it.
I didn't find anything offensive about @DanielSW's post at all. He made a point about only buying Apple products because they are good, not because he has an opinion on the CEO's social/ humanitarian stance.
He is neutral about homosexuality, so why is that a problem? No need to get all worked up about the post.
I don't want to judge - I am merely trying to point out an impression that danielsw's post creates, - but his disavowance of either "endorsement" or "condemnation" sounds much like the covertly racist statement that some make when they say they have "nothing against blacks, why, they even have a black neighbour".
I think danielsw would have been better to have stated, if it is the case, that the issue of sexual orientation is a matter of indifference to him. In which case, though, why even raise the issue?
The fact that he found it necessary to single out that from the many issues in the article suggests that he does have problem with sexual orientations other than his own. If that is so, then he should, in my opinion, actually have had the courage to be honest about it. It is a free society, and our freedom to hold and express opinions is extremely important.
I may disagree with people who hold chauvinistic views, and welcome the opportunity to discuss them, but I do respect people being forthright about their views. danielsw has, however, stated he does not intend to clarify or discuss his opinion.
Just think how perverse, judgemental and arrogant it would have seemed if someone had posted "I don't happen to endorse heterosexuality, but I don't condemn anyone because of it."
Just think how perverse, judgemental and arrogant it would have seemed if someone had posted "I don't happen to endorse heterosexuality, but I don't condemn anyone because of it."
Exactly - in a nutshell.