Isn’t Apple mostly interested in making more money, though, instead of spending money?

The way I see it of all the top tech giants, Apple has the most to lose with all the tariff shenanigans, so it’s in their [shareholders] interest to stay friends with the current administration.

Apple has never had moral values other than earning money by making great products.

And I say this as someone who is deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem.

Part of the brand after the FBI fiasco was about being a privacy forward company that didn’t simply capitulate to government demands on a whim. They demonstrated in smaller tests they were willing to put up a fight for those principles.

That of course was now almost a decade ago. They seem to have changed their entire messaging and with it, seemingly their interest in being more than a ROI machine.

It’s a regression not a step forward. Apple was never a paragon but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt, but alas, I suspect in today’s culture I am increasingly in the minority position

> but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt

I'll steelman against this, but only because I really enjoy entertaining the idea. Even back then, it was a branding farce. The San Bernadino event was in 2015, pretty close proximity to the Snowden leaks which disclosed Apple's 2012 cooperation with PRISM. Best-case scenario, it was an extremely lucky press junket; worst case scenario it was a false-flag operation designed to manufacture trust from the ground-up. In the aftermath, Apple cooperated with local police and federal authorities perfectly well, and the passcode to the shooter's phone did eventually come out. Apple continued providing device access in situations where warrants were issued. They even dropped their eventual charges against NSO Group.

If your tinfoil hat isn't tight enough yet, we're talking about events that happened over a decade after the Halloween documents. Apple's executives (and the three-letter spooks) know that Open Source can ship attestable and secure software that trounces their best paid UNIX or Windows Server subscription on the open market. If the goal is to expand surveillance and you've got a coalition of sycophantic tech executives (somehow, imagine that haha), then it would almost be trivial to program endless RCEs into the client-side with "secure" binary blobs. All the "E2EE" traffic can get copied onto tapes and sent to a warehouse in Langley. Would be like taking candy from a baby.

I am an Apple shareholder.

My Apple shareholder interest is for Apple to preserve its reputation in the long term, including when Trump is long gone.

Please stop repeating this "shareholders only care about short-term money" idea.

And the number of shares you personally own is irrelevant. The only public companies that ever take long term bets are those that are still founder led.

> Cook, clearly trying to remain calm, shot back: “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI [return on investment]. When I think about doing the right thing, I don’t think about an ROI.”

> Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”

https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi/

Making devices accessible cost pennies compared to their revenue and didn’t take any real courage. Come back to me when they stand by their convictions when it can cost them billions in tariffs

The thing is no one really stand by conviction against overwhelming force. Apple take billions in loss, cut supply globally resulting in hundred of thousands laid off at vendor or Apple locations.

These grandstanding activists will move on but real people will suffer due to Apple's action.

> Tim Cook is a very shareholder-friendly CEO.

I feel like John Sculley of all people praising Tim Cook on this point was pretty damning ;P.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/ex-apple-ceo-john-sculley-co...

> “Steve Jobs created a loyalty with users that is unparalleled in the consumer technology world. What Tim Cook has done, he’s built a loyalty with shareholders,” Sculley said on “Squawk on the Street.”

> Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.

FWIW, while I keep wondering just how different the entire world would have ended up if Scott Forstall had ended up in charge of Apple instead of Tim Cook, I believe he was also one of the big reasons the App Store ended up as evil as it was (not Steve) :(. Is there anyone whom we could take seriously as having been in serious contention who actually would have done a better job?

this excerpt from Forstall's wiki seems fitting:

> Cook's aim since becoming CEO has been reported to be building a culture of harmony, which meant "weeding out people with disagreeable personalities—people Jobs tolerated and even held close, like Forstall," although Apple Senior Director of Engineering Michael Lopp "believes that Apple's ability to innovate came from tension and disagreement." Steve Jobs was referred to as the "decider" who had the final say on products and features while he was CEO, reportedly keeping the "strong personalities at Apple in check by always casting the winning vote or by having the last word", so after Jobs' death many of these executive conflicts became public.

The tragedy of Apple, and perhaps Steve's biggest oversight, was his own irreplaceability. He failed to procure a suitable successor. Or perhaps there was not enough time. People are Culture. And Steve was a big part of it. The hopes of Apple living on without him are just that, hopes. He built Apple like an orchestra with himself as the conductor; when he left, the music didn’t fall apart immediately, but the score became safer, flatter, more repetitive.

I'm also a shareholder. The most important thing is having principles and sticking to them.

I agree that most people will not hear about this app being removed. (Though note that it's being reported here in "normal people" news, not tech news.)

But it's far from the only way Cook has aligned himself with Trump in just the last few months. The dumb gold-glass plaque and the UK royal visit are two much more visible examples.

Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book. It's practically his responsibility towards shareholders.

> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book.

And from above:

> The most important thing is not getting tariffed.

I am curious where your personal line is. Surely you have one. If the only way Cook could avoid tariffs were to go on live TV and swear his allegiance to the KKK, would you still support that? What if the only way were for him to pursue direct legal action against you and your family until you’re bankrupt? Eating live puppies? What exactly would you consider to be “too much”?

> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book

So are we talking anything?

Bending for fascism is fine as long as you get your dividend?

Exactly this, we are not talking the normal cycle of 4 years and then they are out, we are talking a possible "forever" fascism in the US so sticking to points of "I'm happy as long as my sticks are fine" is completey sticking your head in the sand hopping this all goes away soon.

It was obvious Apple was going to bend the knee with that gold plaque.

the only time apple fights the government is when they want to keep illegally firing people and then the NLRB just goes, well sorry they just have too much money to stop them. They use bribe money for everything else.

Why would you expect Apple to fight the same administration that it has been prostrating itself for both this term and the last term?

Apple hasn’t had any values aside from its bottom line since Cook took over.

I wish Steve was still around for these battles. Tim Cook is such a pussy.

It was Steve who decided to make the iphones like this.

Steve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.

He could have refused. Few things would sway public opinion on tariffs like more expensive i devices.

I think Steve would’ve packed it in and retired if he was still around today.