The nazis were prosecuted decades later. Tim Cook’s actions shouldn’t be magically forgotten once Trump is out of office.
This pattern has historical precedent. Adolf Hitler’s inner circle included people like Albert Speer, a trained architect who was not an early ideologue but aligned himself with power as the regime consolidated control. Speer benefited professionally, became Minister of Armaments, and later claimed political detachment. These claims were rejected at Nuremberg, where he was convicted for his role in the Nazi state.
The fact that alignment can be opportunistic rather than ideological did not absolve responsibility then, and it should not automatically do so now. Accountability is not erased simply because a political era ends.
It's also got nothing to do with Apple fanboyism. The same is true for all corporations in the US.
Nope. Other way around. Their Nazi support is a footnote in their Wikipedia page.
So yeah, I am comparing apples and potatoes.
We are living under a fascist regime.
We are what we do.
Doesn't help that they appear to have shot all of their UX designers into the sun judging by the most recent iOS and MacOS upgrades.
Of course one of the ways the government can enact policy is by making something cheap or expensive for firms participating in capitalism to do, which incentivizes their behavior; but characterizing DEI programs as something that corporations jettisoned because it was determined to be "unprofitable under the current administration" ignores the fact that the current administration explicitly promised to end DEI programs in a political campaign in a democracy and then won an election.
Choosing to.
Same is true for Musk, whose fortune hinges on government largesse and regulatory collegiality.
But Apple? Screw those asshats, they have no such excuses.
And if Elon’s X feed contains his real thoughts, his brain has turned to pudding and he earnestly believes a bunch of really vile racist garbage, so I guess it makes sense he’s hanging out with the rest of the deplorables in this administration.
What do you not get about these guys? It's very simple. The likes of Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos are the exact same as Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. The last two are just louder about it. They have their own power base, but relying on it doesn't maximize their wealth. In a best case scenario, they could achieve maybe 50% of the wealth by relying on their own power base, compared to kowtowing to The Party. They don't want 50%, they want 100%, and there's absolutely nothing that they won't do for it.
That wasn't by chance. iPhones going up in price 50% would kill Apple very quickly.
Is this really true? Tariffs can be applied only if products go inside/outside the US. They could still operate from othe locations.
Tim Cook was the salutatorian of his Alabama public high school, majored in industrial engineering in college, and later got an MBA. He sold IBM computers for years and joined Apple in its late 90s doldrums because he was won over by Steve Jobs' charisma within several minutes of his first interview with Jobs. He's an openly-gay fitness nut - meaning he's had a lot of opportunity to have sex in his life (and being famously private, he's not talking about it one way or the other, as is his right).
I frankly don't think Tim Cook is much of a nerd. He's a smart, driven, ambitious business guy who's done a good job at making the gigantic electronics company he's the CEO of sell more products and navigate the political environment it operates in. He's not some underdog hero, and people who actually care about technology for its own sake or who care about computational sovereignty shouldn't attach their sense of identity to anything Apple does.
But hey, vests too juicy.
And, amazingly enough, "boycott all these goobers" is not the _only thing_ in the world a person can do at once.
But sure, keep hurling money at people you despise while talking about how others should do better.
This.
Boycotts can be effective and important tools, but they aren't sufficient all by themselves. No tool is.
I'd say it's more like the Don Draper line "that's what the money is for", but yes ultimately it's a transaction, and rarely are people doing anything at an individual level professionally that would be worth stopping because of a vague sense of guilt by distant association.
If the connection is closer and the actions you take issue with are clearly impacted by your association with them, then there may be no amount of money that's worth it.
Next time they are up on stage telling you how great their new product or service is - make sure your first thought is, the person selling me this put corruptly pandering to an authoritarian wannabe dictator ahead of their own integrity. If they have no integrity, why should I trust anything they say about this product they are now pitching to me?
It's like attending a memorial of an assasinated Belarus activist and then following it up by attending the premiere of a propaganda movie about Putin's wife.
Someone inside Amazon should keep tabs on the actual non-inflated viewing numbers of this amazing blockbuster for posterity's sake.
Edit: Bezos is not listed as attending (elsewhere Tony Robbins and Mike Tyson are)
It's certainly a beautiful country.
It is time to take control over the means of production.
If nothing else, there was an opportunity to simply say that given the day's events, a movie screening didn't feel right. Or – "hey there's a gigantic winter storm covering half the country, and I have a lot of logistical stuff to take care of."
Actions like this feel fully contiguous with Jobs' personality, to me. He wasn't afraid to mistreat large swathes of customers, fans or employees if it meant that Apple could cosmetically pull ahead of it's competitors. He didn't feel obligated to fight fair or defend his moral righteousness, and neither does Cook. This is the exact same Apple you always knew, they've just quit virtue signalling.
"Think Different" was an advertising slogan that Apple Computers, a publicly-traded corporation with thousands of employees, paid an advertising company to create in the late 90s in order to promote a certain image of the company, because the leadership at the time thought it would help them sell more computers. And it clearly worked (or at least didn't abjectly fail) because Apple Computers is still around today and is an even larger corporate entity with a much larger market cap.
Whether a marketing campaign succeeds in appealing to you emotionally has nothing to do with whether rebels, misfits, crazy people, or any other category of person would be better off buying and using computer products made by Apple. I've personally never liked Apple products, I've always felt like they took a lot of practical control away from the end user in order to facilitate what Apple leadership thinks the end user _ought_ to want. So I avoid using their products, and I think other people should to, although I respect that the walled garden Apple provides is a computing product some people do find it useful to pay for.
Leadership at Apple computer was probably engaging in political activities some people at the time objected to when those ads were made, just as they are today.
camillomiller•1w ago