Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because that's just what we need, another asinine interpretation of an event in which the CEO was basically hand-tied to do one thing: not fuck up PR. And let's just ignore the legal precedents where companies were sued for their philanthropic work, and indeed lost. (see the many court cases in which courts end up ruling that companies are not allowed to engage in purely philanthropic duties when there is a rigi…
Good news, he has! http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/09/the-post-jobs-era-tim-c... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57370922-37/apple-ceo-tim-...
Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
31–40 of 134 posts
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#32Companies shouldn't always do things for profit, because doing things only for profit, well, isn't profitable. Good will has a monetary value, and it is often worth far more than just making money is. I never said I was eloquent.
Sounds like you're saying that companies should only do things for profit - but only if it's actually profitable :)
Unfortunate when the word "profit" appears in text, it is often unclear which one is being referred to.
The easiest way to maximize short-term profit is to simply fire all r&d staff. Reduce expendses, sell exiting products and profits for that quarter will go up by plenty. That'll work for 2 quarters, maybe even a year, before the whole thing implodes.
Obviously we don't do that - we forgoe some of the immediate profit to gain profit in the future. But there's no guarantee that what r&d are working on will ever pay off. There's risk involved.
There are also solid reasons for doing one product, which will never make profit, in order to complement another product which will. That complement might be direct, or indirect.
Taking Tim's example of making sure apple devices can be used by blind people, that may indeed be profitable if one considers both the blind people who buy your product, and also the people who _know_ blind people who made their decision based on your blind-friendliness. This is of course impossible to measure.
And therein lies the root problem when it comes to "only doing things to maximize profits". It's mpossible to measure the actual profitability, over both short and long term profits, of pretty much anything we do. There are slimply too many unknowns.
Had Tim answered the question another way, would that impact profitability? If the question had not been asked, would that improve profitability? Given that the question was asked, and answered the way it was, does Apple gain some goodwill? Does that mean that by soundly rejecting the question it accomplished what the question asked for?
Profit is impossible to optimize for. To make profit you encounter risk. And by definition some risky actions will ultimately be unprofitable. Thus the line about companies responsibility being just to make profits, and the promise the Question asked for, is not meaningful in any practical way.
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#33" 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.
What this should really say is "obligated to maximize shareholder demands". It has nothing to do with ROI per se, just that the CEO is legally obligated to perform the demands of the shareholders. For public companies, 99% of the time that means maximizing short term profits to make institutional investors happy.
Like it or not, that's the way it is and not every CEO gets to be Tim Cook who has A LOT more leeway with investors than the CEO of "random fortune 500 company".
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#34" 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
#35> "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.
Meh. Over 50% of Apple stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual funds. I for one own Apple stock through index funds and just like every other company held by those funds I don't really give a shit about the specifics.
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#36" 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.
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Completely agree. Whether or not worker safety contributes to ROI should never be a question. Same with environmental impact.
Environmental impact in particular is an endless money hole. You can always spend more money to be marginally better, and every company (and individual) has their cut off.
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#38> "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)
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Completely agree. Whether or not worker safety contributes to ROI should never be a question. Same with environmental impact.
Apple has, what, > 10k workers? If it cost them $100 billion to prevent one software worker from getting carpal tunnel, your statement suggests that cost should be born by Apple. Similarly, if it cost the cumulative GDP of the US to prevent N amount of pollution, your statement suggests that Apple should go bankrupt preventing that pollution.
Back in the real world, I suspect we generally agree. The problem, IMO, is that companies (and consumers) aren't forced to capture the hidden costs of injuries/pollution.
I just disagree with your black and white assessment. The laws of economics mean companies have to assign dollar values to human life and safety, as much as we dislike the feeling it gives us.
Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're saying that companies should only do things for profit - but only if it's actually profitable :)
I think he's suggesting that there are two kinds of profit. The short-term, next-quarter-results kind which fuel wall street, and the longer play when money is invested now and achieves a payback later. Unfortunate when the word "profit" appears in text, it is often unclear which one is being referred to. The easiest way to maximize short-term profit is to simply fire all r&d staff. Reduce expendses, sell exiting pro…