GeneralBrock

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. 

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. 

And we’re surprised? The shock would be if Amazon WASN’T doing this. 

It’s not just Apple, but Tim Cook has made it a significant part of his tenure as CEO to espouse Apple’s “core company values” and has certainly made an effort to make his voice heard on inequality etc as he sees it in the US. For this reason alone he and Apple deserve to be singled out for how they have handled themselves with regard to China and Hong Kong. Should Tim and the board insist on dragging the company into politically charged issues in the US he should have the stones to be consistent in all countries where they do business. Otherwise he should stick to business and focus on the company and shareholders only. He’s doing a disservice to both the company and its customers around the world at the same time with his inconsistency. I say this as someone who likes that Apple speaks out on cultural issues. However, if they insist on doing so in the safety of the US they should have the strength of character to stand up for the right thing everywhere, regardless of the fallout. Apple risks being labeled as opportunistic grandstanders for only having the courage to speak out in regions where they are safe to do so.