Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#41

Post by dgreensp » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 6:33 AM UTC

monkeyspaw wrote: post #39

dhoulb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Whether or not worker safety contributes to ROI should never be a question. Same with environmental impact.

I disagree, mostly because you presented your opinion as black and white. 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. B…

Not all good decisions can be rationalized as having a known, positive ROI. I think it is a pretty safe statement to say that many big decisions must be made for other reasons.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#42

Post by 001sky » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 6:34 AM UTC

edias wrote: post #34

MichaelGG wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not an idiotic line, it's just incomplete. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders demands, whether that be profits or otherwise. That is a simple fact that can't be disputed. It just happens that for most public companies, shareholders wan't short term profits.

This is worth parsing through slightly. CEO's have a fiduciary responsibility (not to act with malfeasance); and the shareholders have the right to replace the CEO. That's about it. The CEO is not under any obligation other than self-interest when it comes to what happens in between.

The meme about "profit maximization" is one of those Keynesian sayings "of a defunct economist" that seems to rule people's imaginations.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#43

Post by Anechoic » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 6:46 AM UTC

selmnoo wrote: post #31

IBM wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Cool, good to hear, I didn't know about this. It seems to be a small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I hope Apple makes it a point to advertise everywhere that they're doing this (so that other companies can follow). I think America would do well to have a policy compelling publicly owned companies to have social goals (apart from the profit-maximizing ones).

I hope Apple makes it a point to advertise everywhere that they're doing this

In which case they are going to be accused of doing a "bullshit PR dance." Damned if you do...

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#44

Post by noonespecial » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 7:35 AM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #43

selmnoo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, good to hear, I didn't know about this. It seems to be a small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I hope Apple makes it a point to advertise everywhere that they're doing this (so that other companies can follow). I think America would do well to have a policy compelling publicly owned companies to have social goals (apart from the profit-maximizing ones).

I hope Apple makes it a point to advertise everywhere that they're doing this In which case they are going to be accused of doing a "bullshit PR dance." Damned if you do...

If they are actually doing the advertised good deeds, it will just be a PR dance, minus the bullshit. One smells a whole lot better.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#45

Post by return0 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 7:40 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.

Yeah, that will show them.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#46

Post by doktrin » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 7:45 AM UTC

Good for Tim Cook. This was an appropriate response.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#47

Post by rdl » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 8:01 AM UTC

All things being equal, I'd like it if Apple provided these numbers to shareholders/the public.

I support Apple continuing to participate in these programs, but giving shareholders accurate numbers seems like a worthy goal, and I'd actually like to know the scale of Apple's investment in green energy as a benchmark for how far along the green energy industry is coming -- if it's a 100% markup, it's got a long way to go, but 25-50% wouldn't be too bad.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#48

Post by rjknight » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 8:06 AM UTC

I understand and agree with the idea that companies should maximise shareholder value, but I've never understood the argument that shareholder value is exclusively determined by profit. As I see it, the stock market consists of various firms saying "buy our stock, and we will try to achieve X with your investment", where X might be maximum ROI, but I don't understand why it has to be. If I want to found a company which has some goals other than making a profit, and so long as I am explicit about this then nobody is being cheated or defrauded, the investors are getting exactly what they signed up for.

If Tim Cook widely announces what Apple's future philanthropic principles will be, he's giving everyone a chance to decide if they want to own stock in a company which follows those principles. The market will judge that via sales and purchases of Apple stock. What could possibly be more free-market than that?

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#49

Post by spacehome » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 8:12 AM UTC

Steko wrote: post #6

Came for the comic sans, stayed for the delicious irony of a think tank run on outside donations complaining to the most profitable company in the world that they aren't focused enough on ROI.

The think tank is pushing somebody's agenda, and even though the think tank as an organization isn't profiting, I'm sure the officers are doing quite well for themselves.

Re: Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

#50

Post by spacehome » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 8:17 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #32

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #24

Earlier 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…

As a Apple's commitment to accessibility makes automated testing much easier, believe it or not. I'm not sure if they started out with this intention, but I'd find it hard to believe that Apple hasn't noticed this and this reasoning has been a part of why they're so adamant about it.