Yet another admission from Tim Cook that the only “value” he recognises is monetary. Despite all his wealth and power, he’s still too cowardly to take a stand even to protect the groups he’s a part of.
bell-cot•2mo ago
Um, yes? Apple is a for-profit computer corporation. It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good, and doesn't when it doesn't.
Whatever their marketing might say about "we make sure that Santa only gets presents for nice little girls and boys", that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works.
latexr•2mo ago
> Apple is a for-profit computer corporation.
Yes yes, “tHe CeO hAs A fIduCiARy ReSpOnSiBiLiTy To ShArEHoLdErS”. We’ve all heard that bootlicker’s credo which aims to excuse any asshole from their own humanity.
> It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good
Funny you mention that. Tim Cook famously shouted “screw the bloody ROI” at one point. Using the ROI as an excuse is not a good argument.
> Whatever their marketing might say (…), that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works.
That is not an excuse. Just because “everybody does it”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when they do it. That criticism and actions against it do bear fruit on many occasions. The attitude of shrugging one’s shoulders is what lets the world sink further into shit.
bell-cot•2mo ago
> ... doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when ...
In one sense, you're free to criticize corporate exec's 24/7, for everything from their haircuts to how they tie their shoes. With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech".
But in another sense...complaining from the internet peanut gallery that the rich and powerful are running the real world according to Munger's Law ("Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome"), instead of obeying your notions of propriety...that is not particularly insightful, entertaining, or useful.
latexr•2mo ago
> With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech".
Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the government and we don’t live in the same country, free speech has zero relevance here.
> complaining from the internet peanut gallery
You might have a point if that were the extent of what I did. But it’s not, so you don’t. Even so, peanut gallery or not, I’d take speaking one’s mind about what one perceives to be wrong over simply shrugging one’s shoulders. Or worse, actively discouraging the one’s trying to do anything about it even when agreeing with the goal.
We saw a lot of that over the last attempt to pass Chat Control. Several people on HN being against it but being actively lame and saying it wasn’t worth fighting it. And then the law didn’t go through (again), because the ones who actually do something decided to ignore the naysayers who did nothing but talk down everyone’s efforts.
> instead of obeying your notions of propriety
Not my notions, his stated notions. Tim Cook’s the one who keeps touting to live by Martin Luther King’s words of “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”. He’s the one who came out publicly to “do his part to help others”. If Tim Cook wants to be a spineless stooge kowtowing to every bully, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t pretend and hide his cowardice behind the words of someone who actually was brave enough to take a stand and face consequences.
bell-cot•2mo ago
(As a generality, "free speech" is a much shorter & stronger argument than "I am allowed to criticize Tim because [logic, more logic, therefore, yet more logic, QED]"-type stuff. Not that it matters much, in the current context.)
Your notions of propriety seem to involve lots of truth-telling, logical consistency, and courageously adhering to consequences of previous statements. (And smack-talking folks who don't follow those notions:)
Vs. 99.9% of real-world business and political leaders might freely say that they follow such lofty principals...but actually do otherwise whenever a cost/benefit optimization suggested less-lofty behavior.
In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to defy a relatively Elbonian gov't, or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
latexr•2mo ago
> In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal.
I agree. Good thing that is not what I’m doing. I have no illusions it’ll happen.
> If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to
The only way to improve things at Apple is to get Tim out of the CEO position and hope the replacement is better.
> or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
I’m not going to waste my efforts on fighting a price change for a phone, especially not one I don’t even use nor want. If you care about that, you fight for it. You have my support, I won’t stand in your way or endlessly try to convince you it’s not worth it.
oompydoompy74•2mo ago
Then maybe we should make sure that giant corporations, governments, and other monopolies of power can’t exist. Unfortunately we’ve let it get too far, so tearing down these institutions is going to be painful.
6510•2mo ago
If a company wants to control some previously not controlled thing this control automatically transfers to everyone with control over the company. This is not a static set of people/entities with a static agenda. It's a complete chaos worse than having a single dictator in charge.
al_borland•2mo ago
What would you like him to do? Pull all Apple products out of China completely?
latexr•2mo ago
I would like him to not fold every time on every matter. I would like him to prove he believes in something. I would like him to stop using Martin Luther King’s words and pretend he lives by them.
I’m not disappointed in Tim Cook for this one specific thing, I’m disappointed for the repeated pattern of behaviour.
al_borland•2mo ago
What does not folding look like in this case.
Imagine you are the CEO of Apple. The Chinese government tells you gay dating apps are no longer allowed in the App Store. How do you handle this situation?
latexr•2mo ago
> Imagine you are the CEO of Apple.
Alright. Since when have I been CEO? Was I nominated today? Then I can definitely stall for a good while as I’m getting acquainted with everyone and the inner workings of the company, and come up with a plan.
Was I nominated a decade ago? Then Apple looks very different from today and I wouldn’t be in this situation because I wouldn’t have my supply chain almost entirely dependent on an authoritarian regime.
Again, the problem with Tim Cook is the pattern. Don’t narrow your mind to one specific case and shrug your shoulders as if there isn’t a choice, look at the big picture. This isn’t one isolated case, this is only one instance which came about from decades of decisions.
al_borland•2mo ago
So you wouldn't operate in, do business with, or sell to China. Is that what you're trying to say?
latexr•2mo ago
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Frankly by this point you seem to be deliberately engaging in bad faith, which doesn’t fit at all with what I remember from the character in your username (unless that is your real name). Steel man the argument, then we can talk.
Either way, there’s no point to engaging in your hypotheticals. Answering them won’t make any difference, they’re just a waste of everyone’s time.
al_borland•2mo ago
I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules, since you think Cook is "cowardly" for how he is handling it.
I've made 3 attempts to get an answer and you keep talking around it instead of giving a straight answer. Now you've turned to ad hominem. One of us is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think it's me.
latexr•2mo ago
> I'm simply trying to understand what direction you'd like Apple to go when dealing with countries like China and their rules
And I’ve explained multiple times (this will be the last) that your question is at best malformed and at worst a deliberate trapping because the complaint isn’t about one specific case but a pattern of behaviour.
Let’s say your cousin is an alcoholic and drug addict who beats his wife, defrauded your grandmother, amongst other behaviours. One day he pisses inside your car and you tell him this has to stop. Then his brother starts harassing you about how your cousin was drunk and didn’t think he could get to a bathroom in time and that’s why he pissed in your car, and “what did you want him to do, he really had to go” and “what would you have done if it was impossible for you to hold it in”. What you wanted him to do was not reach that point. It’s pointless to argue about the action he should’ve taken to specifically not piss in your car because that event in isolation is not the issue, it’s just another symptom of a bigger problem which has to be fixed. If it had been you, you never would have been in that situation to begin with so the hypothetical does not matter.
> Now you've turned to ad hominem.
An ad hominem is an argument “where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument”. I’ve done no such thing. Saying “you seem to be engaging in bad faith” says nothing about your motives or character, it only concerns a point in time. Like saying “you are drunk” VS “you are an alcoholic”. The former is not an ad hominem, it’s just a statement explaining why you believe it’s unfruitful to continue the conversation at that point in time.
We really can’t continue the conversation if you’re misattributing fallacies and don’t make an effort to steel man the argument. Hammering on the same point over and over after I explained multiple times how you’re misunderstanding it is not the way to a productive conversation. You’re stuck on a preconceived idea in your head which is not my argument, fighting a straw man of your own making.
jessikat•2mo ago
This is why "side loading" needs to be normalised as a completely regular form of app installation. Far more resistant to censorship than relying on profit driven corporations "fighting" on our behalf when it suits them.
latexr•2mo ago
bell-cot•2mo ago
Whatever their marketing might say about "we make sure that Santa only gets presents for nice little girls and boys", that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works.
latexr•2mo ago
Yes yes, “tHe CeO hAs A fIduCiARy ReSpOnSiBiLiTy To ShArEHoLdErS”. We’ve all heard that bootlicker’s credo which aims to excuse any asshole from their own humanity.
> It signals various "values" when the RoI on doing so looks good
Funny you mention that. Tim Cook famously shouted “screw the bloody ROI” at one point. Using the ROI as an excuse is not a good argument.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...
> Whatever their marketing might say (…), that is how pretty much every giant corporation on earth works.
That is not an excuse. Just because “everybody does it”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be criticised when they do it. That criticism and actions against it do bear fruit on many occasions. The attitude of shrugging one’s shoulders is what lets the world sink further into shit.
bell-cot•2mo ago
In one sense, you're free to criticize corporate exec's 24/7, for everything from their haircuts to how they tie their shoes. With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech".
But in another sense...complaining from the internet peanut gallery that the rich and powerful are running the real world according to Munger's Law ("Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome"), instead of obeying your notions of propriety...that is not particularly insightful, entertaining, or useful.
latexr•2mo ago
Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the government and we don’t live in the same country, free speech has zero relevance here.
> complaining from the internet peanut gallery
You might have a point if that were the extent of what I did. But it’s not, so you don’t. Even so, peanut gallery or not, I’d take speaking one’s mind about what one perceives to be wrong over simply shrugging one’s shoulders. Or worse, actively discouraging the one’s trying to do anything about it even when agreeing with the goal.
We saw a lot of that over the last attempt to pass Chat Control. Several people on HN being against it but being actively lame and saying it wasn’t worth fighting it. And then the law didn’t go through (again), because the ones who actually do something decided to ignore the naysayers who did nothing but talk down everyone’s efforts.
> instead of obeying your notions of propriety
Not my notions, his stated notions. Tim Cook’s the one who keeps touting to live by Martin Luther King’s words of “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”. He’s the one who came out publicly to “do his part to help others”. If Tim Cook wants to be a spineless stooge kowtowing to every bully, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t pretend and hide his cowardice behind the words of someone who actually was brave enough to take a stand and face consequences.
bell-cot•2mo ago
Your notions of propriety seem to involve lots of truth-telling, logical consistency, and courageously adhering to consequences of previous statements. (And smack-talking folks who don't follow those notions:)
Vs. 99.9% of real-world business and political leaders might freely say that they follow such lofty principals...but actually do otherwise whenever a cost/benefit optimization suggested less-lofty behavior.
In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to defy a relatively Elbonian gov't, or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
latexr•2mo ago
I agree. Good thing that is not what I’m doing. I have no illusions it’ll happen.
> If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to
The only way to improve things at Apple is to get Tim out of the CEO position and hope the replacement is better.
> or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
I’m not going to waste my efforts on fighting a price change for a phone, especially not one I don’t even use nor want. If you care about that, you fight for it. You have my support, I won’t stand in your way or endlessly try to convince you it’s not worth it.
oompydoompy74•2mo ago
6510•2mo ago
al_borland•2mo ago
latexr•2mo ago
I’m not disappointed in Tim Cook for this one specific thing, I’m disappointed for the repeated pattern of behaviour.
al_borland•2mo ago
Imagine you are the CEO of Apple. The Chinese government tells you gay dating apps are no longer allowed in the App Store. How do you handle this situation?
latexr•2mo ago
Alright. Since when have I been CEO? Was I nominated today? Then I can definitely stall for a good while as I’m getting acquainted with everyone and the inner workings of the company, and come up with a plan.
Was I nominated a decade ago? Then Apple looks very different from today and I wouldn’t be in this situation because I wouldn’t have my supply chain almost entirely dependent on an authoritarian regime.
Again, the problem with Tim Cook is the pattern. Don’t narrow your mind to one specific case and shrug your shoulders as if there isn’t a choice, look at the big picture. This isn’t one isolated case, this is only one instance which came about from decades of decisions.
al_borland•2mo ago
latexr•2mo ago
Either way, there’s no point to engaging in your hypotheticals. Answering them won’t make any difference, they’re just a waste of everyone’s time.
al_borland•2mo ago
I've made 3 attempts to get an answer and you keep talking around it instead of giving a straight answer. Now you've turned to ad hominem. One of us is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think it's me.
latexr•2mo ago
And I’ve explained multiple times (this will be the last) that your question is at best malformed and at worst a deliberate trapping because the complaint isn’t about one specific case but a pattern of behaviour.
Let’s say your cousin is an alcoholic and drug addict who beats his wife, defrauded your grandmother, amongst other behaviours. One day he pisses inside your car and you tell him this has to stop. Then his brother starts harassing you about how your cousin was drunk and didn’t think he could get to a bathroom in time and that’s why he pissed in your car, and “what did you want him to do, he really had to go” and “what would you have done if it was impossible for you to hold it in”. What you wanted him to do was not reach that point. It’s pointless to argue about the action he should’ve taken to specifically not piss in your car because that event in isolation is not the issue, it’s just another symptom of a bigger problem which has to be fixed. If it had been you, you never would have been in that situation to begin with so the hypothetical does not matter.
> Now you've turned to ad hominem.
An ad hominem is an argument “where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument”. I’ve done no such thing. Saying “you seem to be engaging in bad faith” says nothing about your motives or character, it only concerns a point in time. Like saying “you are drunk” VS “you are an alcoholic”. The former is not an ad hominem, it’s just a statement explaining why you believe it’s unfruitful to continue the conversation at that point in time.
We really can’t continue the conversation if you’re misattributing fallacies and don’t make an effort to steel man the argument. Hammering on the same point over and over after I explained multiple times how you’re misunderstanding it is not the way to a productive conversation. You’re stuck on a preconceived idea in your head which is not my argument, fighting a straw man of your own making.