jdw

I always find it absolutely hilarious when the leftists indirectly out themselves by making statements about Trump being a "confirmed liar" when all that is based on their watching the news (i.e., America's propaganda outlets).  None of these folks have ever met Trump or know anything from firsthand experience.  Many of these people have likely been lifelong Democrats (which heavily influences their tendency to repeat what their preferred media outlet says about Trump), while a tiny few Trump haters being be neocon-supporters in the Republican party (aka RINOs like Dick Cheney and his daughter). The article really doesn't matter to these people who hate Trump at all.  Comments sections like this merely act as a mouthpiece for them to badmouth the guy they aren't voting for, nothing more.

So what's the reality?  Well, like others have intelligently said, including Blastdoor, it is highly likely that Cook did speak to Trump, as we rightfully can speculate he did with the sitting VP too.  Indeed, it would be in his best interest to do that.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves which of the two candidates running for President would be bold and brash enough to defect American interests and American home grown success stories like Apple, regardless of opposition, even from Congress and the Senate.  My guess is Trump.  Remember, the man was once a Democrat.  He just happens to be a Republican today.  And he has done things in spite of the most fierce opposition from experts and people in power and even military generals.  Right or wrong, when he is determined to pursue a given course of action, he pursues it like a raging bull. He is so interested in putting America first that he is willing to take huge risks with Tariffs on even countries friendly to the US if he sees their tax policies as going against American interests.  Nothing I've seen shows that Trump in any way disrespects Cook or Apple.  I don't see Trump as wanting harm done to the company.  Not in the least.

Now if anyone thinks that our sitting VP could defend Apple better in foreign countries from unfair taxation, I would like to hear all the reasons why.  I really would.  But my guess is that is rather hard to do.  Love him or hate him, Trump is largely an open book for all to read.  Traditional politicians like Harris or Biden are much more polished and therefore harder to figure out.  When you try too hard to guard your words in order to not be like Trump, you end up with word salads or a mishmash of terminology that few can really understand.  For that reason, you tend to make better guesses on what Trump probably will do versus the other guys.

Regardless of who is elected in a few weeks, I truly do hope that person sticks up for America and our big American tech companies.  Because if they don't, they really are undermining the US in the end.

The thinly veiled slight against Trump via the "dictator" remark by an obviously left-leaning person in this forum really does raise a good question about which Presidential candidate would act or act the most quickly to protect American interests by protecting Apple from harm.  Based on what I've seen, it would most likely be the so-called dictator.

You know, I can't help but laugh myself silly when I see all the leftists talking about "dictators" and "threats to Democracy" in light of how OLD Trump is. Do those nuts think he'll retain the Presidency after 4 years and then somehow live another 20 years after that?  Poppycock.  It's all partisan bickering, with the loudest mouths hoping that all their screams will sway the vote.

None will sway my vote by absentee ballot which has already been cast.

My advice.  Play Spock.  Don't allow emotions or your personal personality likes and dislikes to affect your vote.  Vote the issues.  And turn off the news media when mulling the issues so all that propaganda doesn't cloud your voting judgment.  

Also, it's very hard to vote against the way you've been trained by family and friends who think like you, but the reality is many of them vote with emotions, party-line.  They hardly sway from that.  Educate yourself, think logically, then vote.  That's the best you can do.  And hopefully the person you vote for will have both America and Apple's best interest in mind, because if you are a US Citizen like I am, regardless of where you reside in the world, it ultimately will impact you in one way or another.  Your votes really do impact your future.

DAalseth said:

Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 

I clicked Like on your post because until you told me in plain speech what that title actually is, I really wouldn't have known.

We all know what "Human Resources" (aka HR) is about.  But Chief People Officer is a head scratcher!

At the end of the day, I guess she left because she wasn't a people person after all. :-)

But in the greater scheme of things, does it really matter?

Marvin said:

It's a worthy cause, transport would be vastly improved, safer, cheaper and more efficient with self-driving vehicles making the majority of journeys and they will be very useful for elderly and disabled people. They just need to be implemented exceptionally well, anything less will cost lives, even if proportionally fewer than human drivers.

I agree.  But another big benefit is it would, in theory, eliminate the bane of every driver — the traffic cop!  Especially those who hide and then jump out to nab you.  

If you have a fully autonomous vehicle, it makes sense it would obey the law better than any human driver.  Although, the question then becomes who would then be responsible if a rogue cop still wanted to issue a citation just because he personally doesn't like fully autonomous cars, or for some other emotionally triggered reason?

While one could argue the owner is responsible in the event of a citation given to them (or to their fully autonomous driver?), technically speaking the owner wasn't driving, and what if the violation was a result of a glitch outside the owner's control?  

Regardless, fewer ridiculous citations would be perhaps one of the more significant improvements to society as a whole, in addition to the benefits mentioned by Marvin.

Xed said:

jdw said:

Finally!  And I hope I never hear about that ridiculous "Apple Car" again.  It never made any sense for a computer and mobile phone maker to get into the car space.  It's a completely different sort of thing altogether, and that would have made the company "too diverse."  I think it would have harmed Apple in the end, so good riddance.  No doubt they'll glean money off all the patents they filed in the years to come.  That's enough.

1) That's the same argument I heard when Apple started making MP3 players, and then again when it was rumored they were making a cellphone.

2) You really don't see how a tech company could make a vehicle like a Tesla or Rivian?

Friend, what in THE world are you talking about?  Seriously.  

Apple actually MADE a music player.  That was REALITY.  Doing research or prepping for something that never comes to be a real product is not reality.  It's a gamble, if anything.  But here's the biggest rebuttal to what you wrote.  The iPod was more than a concept brought to reality.  It was a perfect fit for Apple, being a small electronic device that attached as a PERIPHERAL to...  Drum roll please...  A Mac computer.  Yes, indeed.  The iPod was originally a Mac-only music player!  But I realize some people are too young to remember that or so old they may have forgotten.  So that takes a strong strike at your Point #1.

As to your Point #2, you didn't comprehend what I wrote.  It's not about who could use their billions to make a car.  Friend, it's about what product is a GOOD FIT for your company and its existing products.  And no, it's not like Apple was going to jettison the Mac, iPad, iPhone and everything else in order to invest everything in becoming the next big American car company.  As I said, it would have been too much diversification for Apple.  It's not a problem for Tesla as that company is 100% dedicated to making cars.  That's why Tesla doesn't make rockets.  SpaceX, a totally different company, does that.  The same holds true for traditional car makers.  But by your logic, Marlboro should give car making a try because, well, if you've got the money, go for it!  No, friend.  It's a matter of what is a good fit for your company in light of what you're all about.  So that's the rebuttal to your Point #2.

Apple patented a lot of create automotive tech, and maybe they can reap financial rewards from that in the future.  But they aren't a dedicated car company, and to be that, you would need to focus so much of your company on it that the other untreated products you sell (like the Mac) would suffer.  And do you really want that?  I'm guessing the answer is no as per the fact you are posting passionately in this forum and have 2,824 points to your name here too.