GeneralBrock

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

Apple needs to make a choice - and by that I mean Tim Cook - they either stand for their social morals, as they say they do when it comes to anything in the US, Saudi Arabia etc or they don’t. But be consistent. To take the easy way out and grandstand in countries where Apple feels it will not be hurt monetarily but bend the knee to China only makes Tim and Apple come off as hypocrites.

My feeling is companies should be apolitical as the overall need to satisfy shareholders will always win out over political views when the stance taken will result in real harm to the company. And these are stickier situations  compared to changing the keyboard on a MacBook. Stick to what you know Apple or take a stand for everyone everywhere. That’s the choice. Otherwise you expose yourselves as opportunistic wankers.   

That opinion, that it’s shareholders above all else, is waning, as we see social and civic responsibility are more important. If a government is inhumane (kidnapping and murdering its own citizens, harvesting their organs, etc), it would be insane to suggest the corporate responsibility is to follow the policies of this government. 

Life is political. 

And that’s fine. If that is indeed the direction of corporate America, or at least Apple, then my main point still stands. Apple should exercise this relatively newfound positioning equally across every region it does business in. 

I’m sure we are all against kidnapping, murdering citizens, and harvesting their organs. Yet as far as  Apple’s concerned that’s ok when it comes to China. What stand are Apple taking there? It’s pretty clear Tim’s moral code has a limit and that limit smells like profit over civic responsibility. 

I’m a big Apple products fan but this ability of Apple’s to look the other way when it’s politically expedient lessens their impact when they do speak up against say US policy. Having a moral or civic code means nothing if you only espouse it when it’s easy and you face no real consequences. 

Saying that because one cannot change the laws in a foreign, authoritarian regime means one should not attempt to change the law’s in one’s home country, a non-authoritarian republic state ruled by the principles of democracy, is illogical. Of course a person (human or corporate) should attempt to affect change in their own country where the system of government is designed to allow just that.  

You’re moving the goal posts as I said nothing about changing laws. I’m not speaking to changing laws, I’m speaking to Apple’s selective moral standard. Speak out or don’t speak out. I don’t care. Just be consistent and have some backbone. Apple clearly lacks the moral courage to do so. This point is painfully clear. 

I’m not. You clearly said that Apple (or any corp really) shouldn’t criticize or speak out in one arena (domestic) if they don’t in another (China). That’s whataboutism, and it’s a logical fallacy. A citizen of the democratic republic of the USA has much more ability to speak out (the point of which is to change the law, didn’t think that needed to be said) than they do abroad. Insisting they be silent in the US because they’re powerless in China is absurd. Corporations are people too, and people are free to pick and choose what issues they address and when they do so. 

Absurd to you I suppose. Yet the double standard companies (beyond Apple - NBA for instance) apply when it comes China has caught up to them and they recognize it. Whether you feel that is an unfair criticism is immaterial. Apple has set their own standard, nobody else is responsible for that. They promote it. They seek to gain good PR from it. Yet Apple completely disregards it where it jeopardizes their business. Excusing Apple’s behaviour because the can’t affect change in China let’s them off the hook to easily. People everyday speak out when it puts their own interests at risk - case in point, the protesters in Hong Kong. That says everything about Apple and their moral code. 

And none of that supports your argument logically. No matter now silent Apple or anyone else is inside the borders of China, that does not logically preclude their ability to be vocal on policy in their own country where as free citizens they have the ability to work the system to affect change. For example if I was visiting China or N. Korea, I would remain silent and would not protest the corrupt authoritarian regime, because I value my life and freedom. But once home in the free republic, I would of course practice my right of expression to protest whatever policies I feel like protesting. 

There is no logical failing in doing so. None of your argument, which is "But they're hypocrites!" matters. We're free to protest policies in this country, and just because we didn't or don't do so in countries where we don't have that freedom doesn't mean we somehow gave it up at home too.

"But they're hypocrites!" doesn't matter. It's actually the logical fallacy of ad hominem. (In logic class the prof liked to use the example of Hitler -- he could condemn murder and not be wrong, despite being Hitler. You could say "But you did it too!" but that has no bearing on his position that murder is wrong. This concept is difficult for many to grasp. Oh well)

Your argument is a very good if this were a debate taking place in a classroom. Unfortunately for Apple every decision they make that relates to Apple’s stated core values will be held against a standard they themselves have set. Again, you may find that unfair but the result of Apple’s actions have it losing a PR battle they can never hope to win. The outcome today bears that out - public outcry is squarely against Apple yet the markets have rewarded the stock. Apple chose the money over their own moral convictions that is what the market sees. I have a moral compass that doesn’t change because of the people I’m around or my situation. I know what I stand for and let defend those values regardless of the consequence. Most people are like that. People are free to be as hypocritical as they want, but eventually people catch on. 

avon b7 said:

I said in another thread that this is a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' case.

Given what has been made public on the reasoning applied to this case, I'm sure most people will be able to understand the decision even if they don't share it.

Most people will understand, yet realize that Apple chose the money. Which is completely understandable as they are a public company with fiduciary responsibilities. However, Apple lost some of its shine today and the next time Tim has something to speak out on there will be less people listening.

This show looks pretty good. After the first 12 months Apple should have a nice tidy collection of original content while continuing to build out more. 

This is a PR battle Apple cannot win. Heads they side with the protesters and China takes it out on them. Tails things get increasingly worse in Hong Kong and Apple appears to be helping and authoritarian regime beat up on protesters. 

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

StrangeDays said:

GeneralBrock said:

Apple needs to make a choice - and by that I mean Tim Cook - they either stand for their social morals, as they say they do when it comes to anything in the US, Saudi Arabia etc or they don’t. But be consistent. To take the easy way out and grandstand in countries where Apple feels it will not be hurt monetarily but bend the knee to China only makes Tim and Apple come off as hypocrites.

My feeling is companies should be apolitical as the overall need to satisfy shareholders will always win out over political views when the stance taken will result in real harm to the company. And these are stickier situations  compared to changing the keyboard on a MacBook. Stick to what you know Apple or take a stand for everyone everywhere. That’s the choice. Otherwise you expose yourselves as opportunistic wankers.   

That opinion, that it’s shareholders above all else, is waning, as we see social and civic responsibility are more important. If a government is inhumane (kidnapping and murdering its own citizens, harvesting their organs, etc), it would be insane to suggest the corporate responsibility is to follow the policies of this government. 

Life is political. 

And that’s fine. If that is indeed the direction of corporate America, or at least Apple, then my main point still stands. Apple should exercise this relatively newfound positioning equally across every region it does business in. 

I’m sure we are all against kidnapping, murdering citizens, and harvesting their organs. Yet as far as  Apple’s concerned that’s ok when it comes to China. What stand are Apple taking there? It’s pretty clear Tim’s moral code has a limit and that limit smells like profit over civic responsibility. 

I’m a big Apple products fan but this ability of Apple’s to look the other way when it’s politically expedient lessens their impact when they do speak up against say US policy. Having a moral or civic code means nothing if you only espouse it when it’s easy and you face no real consequences. 

Saying that because one cannot change the laws in a foreign, authoritarian regime means one should not attempt to change the law’s in one’s home country, a non-authoritarian republic state ruled by the principles of democracy, is illogical. Of course a person (human or corporate) should attempt to affect change in their own country where the system of government is designed to allow just that.  

You’re moving the goal posts as I said nothing about changing laws. I’m not speaking to changing laws, I’m speaking to Apple’s selective moral standard. Speak out or don’t speak out. I don’t care. Just be consistent and have some backbone. Apple clearly lacks the moral courage to do so. This point is painfully clear. 

I’m not. You clearly said that Apple (or any corp really) shouldn’t criticize or speak out in one arena (domestic) if they don’t in another (China). That’s whataboutism, and it’s a logical fallacy. A citizen of the democratic republic of the USA has much more ability to speak out (the point of which is to change the law, didn’t think that needed to be said) than they do abroad. Insisting they be silent in the US because they’re powerless in China is absurd. Corporations are people too, and people are free to pick and choose what issues they address and when they do so. 

Absurd to you I suppose. Yet the double standard companies (beyond Apple - NBA for instance) apply when it comes China has caught up to them and they recognize it. Whether you feel that is an unfair criticism is immaterial. Apple has set their own standard, nobody else is responsible for that. They promote it. They seek to gain good PR from it. Yet Apple completely disregards it where it jeopardizes their business. Excusing Apple’s behaviour because the can’t affect change in China let’s them off the hook to easily. People everyday speak out when it puts their own interests at risk - case in point, the protesters in Hong Kong. That says everything about Apple and their moral code.