Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilovecaching | Hacker News Reader

> This makes me think even more that Apple is really a supporter of privacy and a good actor.

That's the point... this is a publicity stunt. Corporations don't have feelings, and the board that drives the company is primarily concerned with company health and growth above all other things. Leadership may, however, set a strategy that capitalizes on recent public scrutiny of user privacy concerns to push the narrative that will sell more iDevices. Humanizing corporations is a dangerous game, because it plays right into their hand. Don't let them fool you into it.

View on HN

I believe that this is a very simplistic view. Of course corporations can’t have any feelings, but corporations are still led by human beings who can have truthful views and steer a company such that they do some good. I believe Tim Cook and most of his top managers have good intentions. At least they have been very consistent on some topics like privacy, minority rights and the environment. Is Apple perfect? Of course not. But I have not the feeling they need to do these things just for publicity reasons

Corporations will do "good" things when it aligns with their product goals. You can be sure that if Tim Cook or anyone at a publicly traded company started steering a company away from profitability they would be replaced. The company will always be susceptible to market forces, and the needs of its shareholders and employees before users or the world, unless regulation steps in or public opinion would hurt their profitability.

While you make a fair point, the commenter is suggesting that Tim Cook is well-intentioned, and the comment that a company like Apple is suspectible to market forces is not an indication that Cook is not well-intentioned.

(Not that intentions matter particularly either way.)

At the same time:

We don't need to humanize companies.

If they behave nicely because it is profitable that's a win-win in my book.

In fact that is even better than said company being nice because the current CEO is nice :-)

Avoiding humanizing faceless corporations doesn't preclude holding companies accountable. We've known since the industrial revolution that companies left to market forces alone will turn society into a hell on earth in the search for greater profitability. That's why the government tries to step in with regulation to stop companies from abusing your data, making you work seven days a week, or pump garbage into the ocean. CEOs are also not kings. In a publicly traded company they are replaceable the moment they stop doing their job (to drive profit and growth for the board). Companies do not care about you beyond your dollars. It is a rare exception to find a company that isn't unequally distributing their wealthy even among their own employees, or has found success in the manipulation and floundering of rivals and government agencies.

I mean...corporations consist of people (i.e., employees) with feelings and values which - at least to some extent - govern their collective choices and actions. Granted it's tough / probably impossible to disentangle this from profit motive.

A company is not a collective. Most of the employees will receive an unequally small portion of the total profit compared to the upper echelon, and have very little say in the overall direction. In fact, a public company is run by its board, who are free to remove leaders who do not grow the company or lead it the way they like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com