Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#11

Post by sc68cal » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 4:58 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #10

Wait a second. From the lede: "The self-described conservative think tank was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in "certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability."" What is so wrong with that request? Forget your opi…

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#12

Post by bluthru » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 4:59 AM UTC

Also, it's not like Apple's out there on their own investing in renewable energy. Intel, Google, and other tech companies are quite mindful of their environmental impact.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#13

Post by fdschoeneman » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:00 AM UTC

sc68cal wrote: post #11

fdschoeneman wrote: post #10

Wait a second. From the lede: "The self-described conservative think tank was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in "certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability."" What is so wrong with that request? Forget your opi…

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Like I said, forget their opinions, but also forget their motivations. What is wrong with the request?

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#14

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

sheetjs wrote: post #4

> "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." While I agree with his sentiment, I wish he took a moment to explain that pursuing environmental sustainability may actually help the top line (rather than insinuating that those goals are net negative to shareholders)

That's a rathole to avoid if you can. It may sound dismissive, but these guys are cranks, and their time in the spotlight is rightly to be minimized. 97%+ of shareholders understand that Apple goes the extra mile in sustainability and agrees with that approach.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#15

Post by MichaelGG » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:12 AM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #8

" 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" The next time someone trots out the tired old "companies are legally obligated to maximize profits/shareholder value" to explain away crappy corporate behavior, I'm linking to this. And kudos to Cook for telling NCPPR to take a figurative hike.

That line about legal obligation doesn't even pass basic analysis. Who is to say what maximizes value? Contributing to open source creates a good name, but does it harm the company by helping competitors?

It's such an idiotic line and is usually given as a poor substitute for reasoning about a company's actions.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#16

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:14 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #13

sc68cal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Like I said, forget their opinions, but also forget their motivations. What is wrong with the request?

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#17

Post by jameskilton » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:15 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #13

sc68cal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Like I said, forget their opinions, but also forget their motivations. What is wrong with the request?

But you can't. If the motivations weren't there, they wouldn't have asked the question. That kind of question only exists when there's an underlying motivation to use such information as ammunition. This is why such attacks are so cunning. The question sounds logical and fair, but it must be avoided because the potential damage is massive.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#18

Post by mikhailt » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:16 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #10

Wait a second. From the lede: "The self-described conservative think tank was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in "certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability."" What is so wrong with that request? Forget your opi…

The angry Cook wasn't responding to the proposal but to the NCPPR rep who asked questions with the intention to stir the pot after the board already rejected the proposal.

> During the question and answer session, however, the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook two questions, both of which were in line with the principles espoused in the group's proposal.

> The first question challenged an assertion from Mr. Cook that Apple's sustainability programs and goals—Apple plans on having 100 percent of its power come from green sources—are good for the bottom line. The representative asked Mr. Cook if that was the case only because of government subsidies on green energy.

> Mr. Cook didn't directly answer that question, but instead focused on the second question: the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and there to doing only those things that were profitable.

Pushing the CEO to commit to a promise to only do things that are profitable is a nice way to change the whole tone of the conversation. The NCPPR rep could've asked it differently without demanding something from the CEO.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#19

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:16 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #13

sc68cal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Like I said, forget their opinions, but also forget their motivations. What is wrong with the request?

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#20

Post by dhoulb » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:16 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #13

sc68cal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's concern trolling - they do not offer these proposals to actually get the information - they are looking for ammunition to stir the pot.

Like I said, forget their opinions, but also forget their motivations. What is wrong with the request?

Well, for Apple to collect that information would probably be significant work. What's the cost of swapping out bad metals in their batteries? Some of it is really hard to quantify.

But, it wasn't a serious request for information. That's what was wrong with the request — it wasn't one. They were trolling. And you don't feed trolls.