Gregory's Server@stroughtonsmith I humbly suggest there's no causal relationship between Apple's EU regulatory disputes and Cook's donation. I mean it's like #2 on his list of issues which the Trump admin's support could help with (after tariff exemptions), but do you think anything related to this donation would have been different if, say, immediately after taking the competition chief reins, Ribera Rodriguez had declared the matter closed and that Apple was already in full DMA compliance?
|
26 comments
@gruber @stroughtonsmith Without making a moral judgment, the million dollar donation and fighting the DMA are both consistent with a business acting in accordance with the interests of its shareholders.  @bretcarmichael @stroughtonsmith I strongly concur, but I think in Apple's case, and in this century's rise of computer tech companies to the top of our economy, it's not about "pleasing shareholders” in the 1980s/90s sense. That's passé. The evolved thinking -- which is still decidedly capitalistic -- is simply to act in the company's own interests for the sake of what's best for the company's products and services, with shareholder benefit falling naturally out of that. @gruber @bretcarmichael @stroughtonsmith What if what’s best for the company’s products and services leaves the rest of us in dire straights? This “evolved” thinking applies across the industry now and we see the culture that results—demeaning oneself in deference to the authoritarian figure. It is in ways as short sighted as ignoring climate damaging aspects of their products. A healthy global free market and interdependence is a prerequisite for their success. Authoritarians undermine that. @Gte @gruber @stroughtonsmith There’s a misalignment between business and societal incentives. There has been forever, climate and healthcare being a couple of examples. Politicians have capitulated to business interests in exchange for career benefit at a cost to society. Here, it’s reversed. Businesses are capitulating to politicians (Trump), and the tradeoff is the same: cost to society. Companies may be thinking, “It’s only 4 years.” If not, it’s a collective action problem for them. @bretcarmichael @gruber @stroughtonsmith Agreed. And it’s not like companies don’t have government affairs to try to smooth their relationships with elected leaders.The difference here is that this is clearly the kind of thing Apple employee training videos tell you is corruption. As a company that has, as John points out, tried to look to the longer term, and plan and act accordingly, this is shortsighted. “Well, I guess a little corruption to get in the door is ok” is where things go south. @bretcarmichael @stroughtonsmith What you're describing is a way of thinking where shareholders place demands and CEOs aim to meet them. That turns out to be a terrible way to run a country for anything but the short term. The modern thinking is the company to run itself as best as it sees and the message to shareholders is “Get on board if you believe in our vision.” @bretcarmichael @stroughtonsmith With Apple this is quite literally epitomized by an oft-cited quote from Steve Jobs: “It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” That applies to shareholders in the company's stock as much as customers of the company's products. @gruber @stroughtonsmith That makes a lot of sense. I agree; that short-term thinking is a terrible way to run the country. Relatedly, I do think Apple [and others] is looking at their Trump investment on a relatively short timeline. Trump can’t run again. His proposed China tariffs have the potential to do real harm. He’s transactional and impulsive. Apple and others are going to pay protection money. CEOs are courting Trump more than Biden, because they didn’t fear Biden being vindictive. @gruber @stroughtonsmith we all agree that it was unnecessary for Tim Cook to congratulate Trump in November though, so what makes a $1m donation different? https://daringfireball.net/2024/11/i_wonder @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith They’re on the same vector, but talk is cheap. A protection racket cares about the money, not the platitudes. So in that sense I think the CEO congratulatory tweets look worse, because they weren’t forced. @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith I think your disdain for exclamation marks may be colouring your judgment here. !! Donating $1,000,000USD to the Trump Inaugural fund isn’t forced by any law other than the extra-judicial reality ushered in by the electorate. If the point is that even the most principled CEOs of the most prestigious companies in the world *must* pay tribute to the President-elect in order to continue doing business that’s kinda concerning.™️  @Gte @gruber @rileytestut right, it's not like all these companies are contributing exactly a million dollars out of their own volition. Demands were made, and they acquiesced. What will the next demand be, and where will it end? And who exactly will be coming up with future demands? I know somebody who demanded to be CEO of Apple in their last round of negotiations 😛 @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith I was confident you did. The confusion I had was that the congratulatory messages were worse. That’s how I read that tweet at least. They’re maybe lip of the ski slope and can be seen as where the acceleration started. But this wasn’t forced so much as leaning into the slope. @Gte @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith Gotcha. Mistake: Congratulatory tweets: a bad look for the CEOs because they really weren’t under pressure to do it. $1 million inauguration donations: a dark situation, genuinely concerning, because they obviously are under pressure to do it. @gruber @Gte@mastodon.social @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith I feel I misread your earlier messages, similarly to @gte. @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith (Also, just to say so in public—your take on DF is good and I appreciate it) @Gte @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith See? This is why we can have nice things!  @Gte @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith  @Gte @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith Successful blackmailers always come back for more. @Gte @gruber @rileytestut @stroughtonsmith Can you trust him to make the right choices anymore, if they conflict with profits? He did once famously said he doesn’t care about “bloody ROI”. Maybe that has changed. @gruber @stroughtonsmith I personally still don’t think the donation was _necessary_, but I’ll admit that’s a fair distinction (even though Trump does certainly care about the platitudes) @gruber @stroughtonsmith the ignore EU law, while supporting a man that breaks it constantly. They are related. Apple is morally bankrupt it seems. I don’t care if Cook donated personally, he is the CEO. |
@gruber @stroughtonsmith I too think Tim Cook is simply being pragmatic. It's the cost of doing business.
I'm sure he thinks he's in good moral shape by putting his own money and not Apple's.
This whole Trump affair is just sad on so many levels.
It's going to be 4 very long years.