>
and don't delude yourself, this is a marketing moveI don't think it's just a marketing move necessarily. While power and idealistic managers can have a significant short term impact in direction and culture, in the long term of course financial incentives are generally the single greatest determinator of company behavior. However short term isn't meaningless particularly wrt company cultural values that last longer, and in turn leadership can still matter a lot. I think that may multiply when leadership isn't fighting a company's incentives, but rather there is a chance to bring both together in some ways. All that is leading up to sometimes forgotten (and how great that is!) fact that Apple's current CEO Tim Cook is a gay man who grew up in a time when that was flat out illegal and could be heavily persecuted even in the US, and now lives in a world where it's still something subject to death in many parts of the world. That's not determinative by any means, but I can't imagine it hasn't influenced him at all. One of the core business values of having a more diverse workforce and management team is precisely that they bring a wider set of experiences and viewpoints which can profitably inform the company.
I've seen a number of comparisons vs Steve Jobs that have called Tim Cook more "visionless" and "mundane" and so on and so forth, a "competent manager" but without the same animation. I honestly wonder though whether privacy and personal information security is in fact a real animating motivation Tim Cook's. It's inherently a much quieter, subtler one that doesn't on the face of it have the same end user feature impact (by definition). And it is something that can work well with where Apple gets their money and even their own corporate culture of secrecy. But that doesn't mean he can't drive them even farther and harder in that direction in turn then they might have gone otherwise right?
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but when I see "this is a marketing move" it tends to feel dismissive and negative, like it's all just fake and manipulative. But something can be "good PR" while also being a genuine value people hold, in fact if anything I think the most sustainable and best win/wins are when it all comes together, when something someone is doing genuinely for real is good and is worth serious value and in turn is totally reasonable to be proud of and "market". That's the ultimate ideal of the market right, that someone is making something good and gets rewarded in turn?