doctorow at March 1st, 2014 20:02 — #1
tuseroni at March 1st, 2014 20:10 — #2
in other news: tim cook has been replaced as CEO
peter_w at March 1st, 2014 20:17 — #3
It's too bad that only a few CEOs have the guts to stand up to parasites like NCPPR.
phasmafelis at March 1st, 2014 20:20 — #4
Wow. That's surprisingly intense.
8080256256 at March 1st, 2014 20:23 — #5
This is actually interesting in that the usual excuse of the deniers (the other side is in it for the money*) can't really apply here. Because NCPPR's argument is specifically that this approach makes Apple lose money, apparently both in the long and the short run.
The undertone of "Corporations should pursue profit even if it means destroying the world and killing people, amen" is quite blatant here.
*See: Projection (psychology)
cowicide at March 1st, 2014 20:43 — #6
What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
As evidenced by the use of "bloody" in his response—the closest thing to public profanity I've ever seen from Mr. Cook–it was clear that he was quite angry. His body language changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.
He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
It was a clear rejection of the climate change denial, anything-for-the-sake-of-profits politics espoused by the NCPPR. It was also an unequivocal message that Apple would continue to invest in sustainable energy and related areas.
franko at March 1st, 2014 20:45 — #7
again reinforcing my belief that steve jobs knew what the hell he was doing when he picked his successor. tim seems like a mellow, easygoing guy, but clearly he's a man of principles and is not one to be screwed around with.
soitbegins at March 1st, 2014 20:48 — #8
Boooooooo; hissssssssss. Don't even think about that.
michael_r_smith at March 1st, 2014 21:18 — #9
Tim Cook no doubt has data showing that sustainability brings customers to Apple. It is absolutely in the interest of ROI to take this position and the climate deniers can take their money elsewhere (and invest it in what, Exxon?) if they disagree.
petzl at March 1st, 2014 21:46 — #10
National Center for Public Policy Research
Never heard of these guys before. Apparently, the more anodyne and reasonable the organization title, the more batty and cynical the organization.
goatcheezinfrno at March 1st, 2014 22:18 — #11
Even though I'm a long-time ex-fan of Apple (starting in 1984), bravo to Mr. Cook for standing up to those morons. You know, we once had companies routinely doing basic research without worrying about whether it would make a profit next quarter (prime example: Bell Labs). Too bad today's "conservatives" can't get that through their thick skulls.
ratel at March 2nd, 2014 01:15 — #12
In this case it's more cynical than projection: it's the Rovian tactic of attacking your enemy's strengths and attaching fear, uncertainty and denial to whatever good is in them to turn off as many people as possible. This is critical because the Rovian strategist never comes from a position of having strengths or good qualities on their side.
retepslluerb at March 2nd, 2014 01:42 — #13
I don't know. See how he referred to the iOS accessability for the blind or vision impaired.
That's pretty far reaching and must cost a pretty penny. Probably more than the dollars it brings in, both directly as sales to the blind or indirectly, because of an improved image.
billstewart at March 2nd, 2014 03:20 — #14
If the sea level rises 10 feet and wipes out half of the real estate in bit coastal cities like Manhattan and San Francisco, people will have less disposable income to spend on Apple products.
If climate change wipes out much of California's agriculture because we no longer get enough rain to irrigate deserts, and the state still diverts enough water so that the Delta fisheries get wiped out, that's less income for Californians, and less sushi for Apple employees.
If a good chunk of the world starves to death, that sucks for everybody, including Apple.
immutable_mike at March 2nd, 2014 04:43 — #15
You're absolutely right of course, but we're all accustomed to CEOs of the Fortune 500 focussing on profitability only until the end of their tenure. Looking well beyond that tenure to a point when someone else is benefitting from your wisdom is not common and thinking about broader social benefits even rarer.
lumbercartel at March 2nd, 2014 05:31 — #16
Alternate worlds aside, the stockholder vote was to support Mr. Cook.
Which is a quite prudent move in our reality, even from an ROI perspective if you consider the medium-to-long term business case as anticipated by the US Department of Defense.
rosyatrandom at March 2nd, 2014 06:32 — #17
It's just a pity that the market's too partitioned for me to support Apple through its products. I have a long history of Androids, so I'm locked into that ecosystem. Similarly for Windows, and... well, I guess I could update my iPod Classic if they ever released an update for my iPod Classic.
chgoliz at March 2nd, 2014 09:56 — #18
The insurance industry -- conservative with a small "c" -- in particular is clued in to the fact that their business is going to be wiped out if climate change continues unabated.
rocketpj at March 2nd, 2014 11:21 — #19
That does open Apple up to a minority shareholder lawsuit, which I am sure they could destroy handily. But corps are legally required to mazimize profit before all else (which is a significantly bad issue and needs to be fixed).
nixiebunny at March 2nd, 2014 11:25 — #20
Are corporations legally required to maximize short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability? I hadn't heard of that one.
next page →