Tim Cook says he's 'greatly optimistic' about Apple's future at shareholders meeting
Shareholders approved Apple's recommended proposals, shot down two that it recommended against, and asked a range of questions at the company's annual shareholder meeting.
Credit: Apple
During the online-only meeting, stockholders voted on the election of directors to Apple's Board. The shareholders approved all nominees, which included James Bell, Tim Cook, Al Gore, Andrea Jung, Art Levinson, Ron Sugar, and Sue Wagner.
As far as proposals, shareholders voted yes on the two proposals that Apple recommended and voted against the two proposals that it didn't.
The passing proposals were the re-appointment of Apple's public accounting firm for auditing purposes and the approval of Apple's executive compensation. The two failed proposals, both submitted by shareholders, focused on amending proxy access for director nominations and "improvements" to Apple's executive compensation program.
Apple CEO Tim Cook also offered a recap of the company's progress during 2020, covering most of the same ground as the Cupertino tech giant's first quarter earnings report.
"Apple makes the best, most useful, most innovative, most trusted products out there, and [in 2020], we took that mission to another level," Cook said at the meeting. He added that AirPods Max were "hugely popular" among consumers, and called the HomePod mini a "hit."
Although he didn't offer any additional details about Apple's upcoming products, he did say there are "exciting things" ahead for iPhone and "great things" for its computer lineup.
Cook also offered details on topics ranging from App Store regulation to Apple TV+ when responding to shareholder questions.
On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's stance that it doesn't have a dominant position in any market it competes in.
"While scrutiny is fair, accusations like these fall apart after a reasonable examination of the facts," Cook said, referring to antitrust allegations levied at the company.
Cook also offered color on recent situations like the severe weather in Texas and the debate surrounding economic stimulus plans in the U.S. On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's donations to relief groups and how it is supporting staffers on the ground. On a stimulus plan, Cook says the "first priority of any stimulus should be about helping people."
The Apple chief executive also shared a tidbit about how the world has changed during the global coronavirus pandemic, and how Apple has not.
"In so many ways, the world has changed, but in fundamental ways, Apple has not," Cook said. "Apple is made up of people who want to spend their lives making things that enrich the lives of others, making them more fulfilled, more creative, and more human.
"We're comfortable saying no to a lot of things and laser focused on the areas where we can have the greatest impact, innovating relentlessly. Technology made by people, for people, and with people's well being in mind," Cook added. "At its best and most hopeful, technology should help us leave the world better than we found it."
Looking ahead to 2021 and beyond, Cook said he feels "greatly optimistic about the future."
"For all of us at Apple, we're thinking deeply as always about how we can help our communities emerge from this stronger, how recovery from this can be fair and equitable, and how all of that can be helped by world-class technology that puts humanity at its heart," the Apple CEO said.
Credit: Apple
During the online-only meeting, stockholders voted on the election of directors to Apple's Board. The shareholders approved all nominees, which included James Bell, Tim Cook, Al Gore, Andrea Jung, Art Levinson, Ron Sugar, and Sue Wagner.
As far as proposals, shareholders voted yes on the two proposals that Apple recommended and voted against the two proposals that it didn't.
The passing proposals were the re-appointment of Apple's public accounting firm for auditing purposes and the approval of Apple's executive compensation. The two failed proposals, both submitted by shareholders, focused on amending proxy access for director nominations and "improvements" to Apple's executive compensation program.
Apple CEO Tim Cook also offered a recap of the company's progress during 2020, covering most of the same ground as the Cupertino tech giant's first quarter earnings report.
"Apple makes the best, most useful, most innovative, most trusted products out there, and [in 2020], we took that mission to another level," Cook said at the meeting. He added that AirPods Max were "hugely popular" among consumers, and called the HomePod mini a "hit."
Although he didn't offer any additional details about Apple's upcoming products, he did say there are "exciting things" ahead for iPhone and "great things" for its computer lineup.
Cook also offered details on topics ranging from App Store regulation to Apple TV+ when responding to shareholder questions.
On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's stance that it doesn't have a dominant position in any market it competes in.
"While scrutiny is fair, accusations like these fall apart after a reasonable examination of the facts," Cook said, referring to antitrust allegations levied at the company.
Cook also offered color on recent situations like the severe weather in Texas and the debate surrounding economic stimulus plans in the U.S. On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's donations to relief groups and how it is supporting staffers on the ground. On a stimulus plan, Cook says the "first priority of any stimulus should be about helping people."
The Apple chief executive also shared a tidbit about how the world has changed during the global coronavirus pandemic, and how Apple has not.
"In so many ways, the world has changed, but in fundamental ways, Apple has not," Cook said. "Apple is made up of people who want to spend their lives making things that enrich the lives of others, making them more fulfilled, more creative, and more human.
"We're comfortable saying no to a lot of things and laser focused on the areas where we can have the greatest impact, innovating relentlessly. Technology made by people, for people, and with people's well being in mind," Cook added. "At its best and most hopeful, technology should help us leave the world better than we found it."
Looking ahead to 2021 and beyond, Cook said he feels "greatly optimistic about the future."
"For all of us at Apple, we're thinking deeply as always about how we can help our communities emerge from this stronger, how recovery from this can be fair and equitable, and how all of that can be helped by world-class technology that puts humanity at its heart," the Apple CEO said.
Comments
Doesn't the fact that Apple is providing a service like an app store, when it doesn't have to, count for anything?
Android advocates have traditionally critiqued Apple's approach saying that the walled garden affords them the ability to ban apps without cause. The supposed inferiority argument for Apple's approach has always been presented by the fact that Apple can ban an app because it might compete too successfully with an Apple product. Though that argument always seemed hyperbolic to me, I still defended Apple's approach if only because Apple's ownership of the entire platform affords them the right (morally, technically and legally) to restrict anything even if the ban was for little more than because it competed too well against Apple's products.
Those same android advocates said that I'm arguing against my self-interests but this wasn't true. My self interests are to use a secure platform. Apple's walled garden approach guarantees that. If it means I miss some apps that Apple doesn't approve of, it's a tradeoff I'm more than willing to make and even pay a slight premium for.
All of that defense of the walled garden is predicated on maintaining the health of the overall platform but we all need to admit that Apple DOES walk a moral grey line that requires a lot of trust... it requires that we trust that Apple not abuse that power. I defended Apple for years as they gave little reason to think they would abuse it. But they DID abuse it and not only did they abuse it but that abuse was egregious.
A mere WILLINGNESS to ban an app solely for political and/or social engineering reasons is an egregious-enough offense that they be regulated... but Apple actually followed through on it. There's no walking this back. This is not something they can even express a mea culpa, undo the ban and all is made right.
If regulation means Apple felt compelled to take their proverbial app store ball and go home... then so be it. A technological transition to a web-server-based app standard would inevitably occur. Such a transition would mean political speech and social engineering could no longer occur. (Or at least be less easy). Affecting that kind fo change is far FAR more important than maintaining the platform's app store profitability.
This country needs to start electing proven “can do” intelligent people, not popularity contest winners.
This post raises some interesting questions:
- Is this AppleInsider's official position, or just the private position of an employee of AppleInsider?
- What "things" exactly was Parler's app being removed for? Was it just a "feeling" of things getting out of control or was there anything specific?
- Does Apple have to provide any specifics when it bans an app?
- Who determines whether there is "lying" in an app? Apple senior management? Low level Apple employees? Is there any appeal process?
- How much time should Apple give app developers for adhering to their policy? Should Apple start with permanent bans with 24 hours notice because some user of the app "lied?"
- Will AppleInside ban me for questioning the statements of an admin? It certainly has the legal right to do so, but is that moral?
- Does AppleInsider also support Twitter for permanently banning president Trump from ever posting a message on the basis of his speech as President questioning the results of an election BEFORE the election results were certified by the US Congress and weeks before Biden took office? Or was he banned because he used the word "fight" 20 times in a speech? Should major political leaders be permanently-banned just because someone thinks they "lied"? Who determines the lies of political leaders and gets to censor them?
- Why aren't apps which allow Hillary's direct quote dated Oct 2020 that "There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened." That's the same thing as saying the 2016 election was "rigged". She's been saying this for four years, and nobody has stopped her, or banned apps that quote her. Isn't this hypocrisy outrageous?
- Should the Facebook app and the Twitter app be banned by Apple for the as-yet unremoved calls from Dem leaders for a "national uprising" during the riots? Isn't it demagoguery and violent to call for "national uprisings" during a riot?
Thanks for considering these honest questions. I hope you don't ban me, but understand if you do. I'm not even American, nor do I reside in America, so you don't have to respect my rights anyway.P.S. I liked your political slogan contribution.
P.S. Google's search makes it very hard to find any quote by Pelosi calling for national uprisings so I'll include the quote here.
When I search with Google for the words "Trump calling for violence", I get a dozen links to stories all claiming that Trump has a history of calling for violence. But if I search with Google for the words "Pelosi calling for uprising" only two of the page results quote when Pelosi said that, and the first google result comes with a special warning saying "Fact Check by USA Today: Missing context". No, it wasn't missing any context. She was calling for a national uprising, and there must be web pages that document this, but Google's Search doesn't let me find them. I didn't realize Google was doing fact checks on political speech. If I was American, I'd be pretty upset with that. Google is NOT breaking any law by censoring people, or by covering up when politicians that they favour are hard to find using Google's search engine. But it can't be moral, and it will eventually cost Google a lot of business when people figure out what's happening. Actually, covering up for Dems could be in contravention of the Federal Election Commission Campaign laws, which I thought required that all political contributions be declared. What Google is doing is behind the scenes and is undeclared support.
Should we ask the federal government to step in and regulate stores like Walmart because they ban the former but accept the latter?
Cases can be made for either, however in the end a private enterprise can accept or reject to sell products/services in its stores/platforms.
BTW: Here's a link that explains why Apple removed Parler from their app store. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-is-removing-parler-from-the-app-store/ar-BB1cChxC. Its from a Verge article published on Jan. 10.
The main point is this:
We have always supported diverse points of view being represented on the App Store, but there is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity. Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues
I also doubt that Cook, Pichai, Bezos coordinated anything, unless you can point me to somewhere that proves the opposite.
You might think that the First Amendment would protect Apple from any law meant to punish them from censoring only one political point of view. But there are plenty of ways that the government can legally impact Apple negatively for censoring only one political point of view. For example, the government could pass a law that prohibits the government from buying Apple equipment.
If you are for the government stepping in and forcing Apple to bring Parler back with no moderation, should that same government also step in and regulate what goes on at Fox? Should an oversight committee say that after Tucker Carlson, Fox should put on Rachel Maddow to offer viewers an alternate opinion? Should MSNBC do the same in reverse?
If anyone here, you, me, "radarthekat" etc. have been advocating for Apple's right to manage their "walled garden" any way they see fit, then we can not just turn around today and say, well it's not fair that they're silencing such and such political opinion and that the government should step in, just because it doesn't suit us.
What we can do, is not buy any more Apple products, or Samsung or Huawei ... We can decide not to use Google any more as a search engine.
Not only have I come to Apple's defense on the legality of censoring only one side of the political argument, I even came to the defense of Facebook this week on this website for invading people's privacy. As long as what these companies do is "legal" it's, well, legal. But it's not moral. The law should be changed to prevent Facebook from doing what it does, and the government should take some actions against Apple, perhaps like I indicated above. Of course with the Dems in charge, Apple is free to do whatever it wants, for the time being.
So I'm not always on Apple's side, even when they obey the law. I think for Apple (and Google) to engage in this one-sided political censorship, they need to register with the FEC as a political contributor and count all the time and effort they undertake to support one political party as a "political contribution," because the law requires that. I see no contradiction between supporting Apple's walled garden and asking Apple to adhere to federal election laws.
If you don't follow the rules of your landlord, you get kicked out (especially when you agreed to those rules when you moved in).
Also, your claim that Parler ignored Amazon's complaint is also wrong. Within a few days of the incident, Parler indicated that it was now in compliance, but Amazon won't let them back in.
Of course, you don't even know how to spell Parler so why should anyone believe what you say about them?