Hacker News Reader

Comment by latexr | Hacker News Reader

> No scandals, no twitter addiction, no sexual assault cases. No bullshit.

It’s unfortunate (and it says a lot about our current situation) that that behaviour is worthy of note.

> Jobs left one last blessing for Apple shareholders in his decision to elevate Cook.

I don’t understand the obsession with shareholders. It’s all about money money money, good products and respect for the customer be dammed. Cook was a fantastic choice to fill Apple’s coffers, but an awful one for those who identify with Apple’s (old) values of making something good.

View on HN

As a longtime apple customer, the quality and innovation in my M1 pro is absolutely in line with their old values.

Yes! Finally Apple found a way to enforce the VM limit from the macOS EULA. I'm so glad I have to buy extra Macs for testing my software now!

Yes, I agree that hardware-wise they’re on top of their game¹. I was specifically thinking of software and services, like the trend of trying to upsell you to their services when using their apps or releasing half-baked apps which go against their own Human Interface Guidelines and are never fixed.

¹ Let’s see if that continues with Evans Hankey leaving.

Which apps do that?

iCloud Web is like Google Drive with both hands tied behind it's back.

At certain levels of power, all you need to achieve virtual sainthood is to remain a decent human being.

Apple is a public company, and public companies are accountable to shareholders, not customers. Shareholders want it to be worth their while, so yes it's about the money. It is possible to do what's best for both, and Apple still does that plenty, but the customer of today isn't the customer of the Apple you're describing. I wish they focused more on the Mac line, and the M1 and M2 are returns to that, but Apple's making money off iPhones, not Macs.

> Apple is a public company, and public companies are accountable to shareholders, not customers.

Tim Cook himself, a decade ago, might have had something to say about that¹.

> It is possible to do what's best for both, and Apple still does that plenty

My objection is the trend more than the current state. A decade ago it would have been unthinkable to me that Apple would ever have ads in any OS. Today, I’m dreading the moment they go “full Windows” and start shoving third-party ads in Spotlight, then Safari, then the Dock².

¹ https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rej...

² Yes, I am exaggerating to make a point. At least I hope it’s an exaggeration.

Apple isn’t an advertising company. It’s a hardware company that also does software.

It’s analogous to HP of old, which is no great surprise given the founders.

> Apple isn’t an advertising company. It’s a hardware company that also does software.

They could be a noodle shop. The distinction isn’t relevant to the point: they are shoving ads in our faces, from their own apps from their own OSs. Always pushing you to the subscriptions. Everything Cook does indicates it will only get worse.

They're expanding into advertising as a revenue source. This undercuts google on their platform, but it does mean that advertising revenue will become something they want to protect. Google makes lots of money advertising and it's possible this could become a major (thinking around 30-40%) portion of Apple's revenue.

And when you own the platform like Apple, you get to call Facebook/Google ads "tracking" and Apple ads "enriched digital experience".

Link is interesting and a good response from Cook. I was hoping it would be more of a complete rejection of the terribly destructive Friedman doctrine of shareholder supremacy.

Sure I think there are senses in which Tim Cook is accountable to customers, or maybe his own moral compass (as might be the case here), but in a specific and direct sense the board that controls whether he keeps his job or not is legally bound to act for the shareholders.

However I don't think Tim Cook in that moment was necessarily saying that accessibility was non-negotiable, shareholders be damned, it's also possible he was taking a broad view of shareholder interest that is about more than immediate ROI.

> the board that controls whether he keeps his job or not

A job he doesn’t need¹ and which he’s aware he’ll leave in the not-too-distant future.² The only thing stopping Cook from making different decisions is himself.

¹ He’s filthy rich.

² https://wccftech.com/tim-cook-not-running-apple-in-10-years-...

> current

Don't make this mistake. Integrity and humility have always always always been rare traits in high profile, high power leaders.

Because the shareholders are the owners. And I don't think it's all about money (in the short term). I believe a significant part of Apple shareholders understand the importance of brand reputation and are willing to sacrifice short term gains for sustainable long term gains.

This is saying you don’t understand why employees try to keep the owner of a company happy. Because they own it.

did he not have any decision making on going towards ARM and M chips?

Customers have a dozen companies to chose from that would respect them. Or are you saying Apple customers are specifically those who do not like respect nowadays.

> Or are you saying Apple customers are specifically those who do not like respect nowadays.

That’s such a leading question, I’m genuinely wondering if you’re arguing in good faith.

I’m saying neither of those. I’m talking about how Apple’s leadership transition from Jobs to Cook changed focus from what the company used to do best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com