Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

How is Apple betraying their ideals here? The entire point of Apple as a for-profit company is to earn a profit. They are doing what they are saying is the most important for them. Big surprise?

Seems many Americans think that companies somehow have to have a moral or something. The explicit purpose of setting up a for-profit company is to make it explicit that the company is out after earning a profit.

If there is a choice between two options, and one will lead to less profit, the choice is obvious to them. If you think Apple is "for encryption" because they are just the good guys, you're missing the picture of why a company exists in the first place.

View on HN

If you are content with letting any company or executive off the hook with everything because “the purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value” then you have given up on democratic society.

I'm not content with that, but people seems to have the wrong expectations about what a for-profit is all about. Of course, there are ways to get profit that are illegal, but agreeing to self-censor (or be censored) by states is up to the companies. If it gives them more money, you can't be shocked when they chose that way.

I would only put trust in organizations who are not for-profit companies if it's for important things. I couldn't care less about food-delivery services for middle-class and above, but for hospitals, prisons, water, electricity and so on, you can't have (well, you can [look at the US], but usually doesn't turn out great for the people, only the stakeholders) for-profit companies running them as the incentives are all misaligned.

> I'm not content with that, but people seems to have the wrong expectations about what a for-profit is all about

Early in the US history, all companies existed through acts of congress and thus were implicitly for the betterment of the USA.

The theory of corporate ownership... Or at least the fashion trend... Has changed through the years. But many still hold onto the old ideals.

We live in a democracy, which means that we can change the 'purpose' of companies as long as enough Americans agree on it.

As such, your argument cannot assume a particular definition or purpose of companies. Instead, the question should be... Is the current for profit model really best for America?

You're right. It changes from time to time and currently we're in the state of trying maximize capitalism and then you get companies trying to optimize for those variables.

Regulation usually is used for help controlling that (and regulation is normally set by representatives of the people in that state)

You're outlining a healthy perspective on change, which I thank you for. Also means we can continue to push for more better changes.

If Apple was transparently a profit-at-all-costs operation you'd have a point, but if you look at their advertisements you'll see them invoking humanistic values constantly. They should, at the very least, be criticized for hypocrisy.

How many Apple employees are involved in these advertisements and who defines the messages?

"if you look at their advertisements you'll see them invoking humanistic values constantly"

The reason companies do this is not to be a friendly company in general and care about the world and it's people. If that was the point, they would have created a non-profit or similar. The criticism of hypocrisy should come when they make those ads instead.

Look at the Activision/Blizzard situation where a player was banned for speaking for a cause they believe in, they release different statements in different countries (one pro-China in China and one not pro-China in the US), and applies different rules in different cases where it makes sense for the market. In China, shouldn't speak about freedom for Hong-Kong and in the US, it's important you support LGBT. The company will reflect that in their advertisement, where they want people to buy their products.

And when they're caught lying, they should be criticized and penalized in the marketplace.

I'd argue those "humanistic values" are only advertised to improve public opinion about Apple's brand... and ultimately make more money. If customers feel good about supporting Apple, then they'll be more likely to purchase their products.

Apple wouldn't be doing it if it cost them significantly, as we see with them compromising their supposed values under Chinese pressure.

But corporations aren't implicitly tied with democracy. They're implicitly tied with capitalism.

Because there's a sense that Apple, as an American company with largely American engineers, managers, and executives, should value American ideals over money. You wouldn't get the same accusations that Apple was betraying their ideals if it was a Chinese company because there would be no expectation that Apple was somehow American in identity.

However, with so many major American companies selling and sourcing abroad it can be argued they should no longer be considered American, but Global corporations. And a Global corporation has to be as inoffensive as possible to any potential market in the world, China included.

> should value American ideals over money.

And what are they? if not capitalism and opportunity? Because that's exactly what Apple is doing with China, making money.

But let's cut the hypocrisy here. All these "values" advertised by American companies are PR and marketing for their American audience, nothing more.

Just like Nike faking to care about civil rights in US while using child slave workforce overseas to make cheap shoes. And it works because consumers like narratives, not facts.

Apple is all about narratives, to make Apple client feels special, as a luxury brand.

One could wonder if these values were to be spread all over the world, the companies would be forced to follow them everywhere, even if it's just PR. For example, Nike wouldn't be able to enforce that cruel work environment on children overseas because it would have to honor the same values for good PR even in that foreign country.

Not defending Apple here, and no offense, but it baffles me when people only consider the short term consequences of actions. Can we all just stop for a moment and think about what would actually happen if Apple kept resisting China's requests for censorship? It would not only lose a huge revenue source, but more importantly, the whole world would lose a great medium for providing Chinese people with means of communications. Communication is the first step for any change in a society. In other words, Apple is indirectly helping the Chinese with their quest for more freedom of speech. Do you seriously rather Apple be banned in China and be replaced by other Chinese companies (e.g. Huawei and Xiaomi) who have been working with the government?

Now, of course it hurts to see these things happen, but that's jut the complexity of the world we're living in. On the other hand, if Apple were to collaborate with the Chinese government on providing backdoors etc., it would be a whole other story.

You do realize that Apple itself has no interest in "freedom of speech" for the people in China? Unless it would mean more money for them, then they would for sure care. They don't do decisions based on what's best for humanity, they base their decisions on what's best for their shareholders. Even if the ability for people to communicate is nice, it's a side-effect of what Apple (or any for-profit company) really wants.

"On the other hand, if Apple were to collaborate with the Chinese government on providing backdoors etc., it would be a whole other story. " Then I got news for you! Everyone in China who is using Apple (with their nice ideals and everything) and using iCloud, have all their data easily accessible to the Chinese government, as iClouds servers are run by a state-owned company.

For-profit companies are under no obligation to seek profit before all other goals. In the broad sense, they can seek to optimize for any value their shareholders collectively agree to, and in a narrow sense, their leaders are still bound by ethics and laws, and it's reasonable for society to hold them accountable to such.

I think that sounds a bit naive. A shareholder is typically the one that has economic benefit from the company performing well. You usually become a shareholder because you'd like to increase your economic wealth, otherwise you'd chose a different structure. Usually you have for-profit companies looking out for themselves, and non-profits aiming for a bigger mission that goes beyond profit.

Also, unsure of how it works in the US, but usually shareholders are not bound by any ethics as far as I know. Sure, if they would be unethical, people may boycott the company and it would do less profit. But I don't think there are laws saying a shareholder/company needs to be ethical. It's just good business currently to be ethical.

It might sound naive, but look back into the mid 20th century and companies were much more inclined to consider the overall. Including welfare of the workers, the community, the quality of product or service offered etc rather than a blinkered focus on shareholder value.

There have been a few interesting pieces in the FT that make something of a mockery of the benefits of focus on shareholder value. Finding that it is usually of short term benefit, but longer-term detriment to the company, and ultimately shareholders.

of course Apple is not what it used to be and this is just marketing talk but just look at the "here's to the crazy ones Apple comercial": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjgtLSHhTPg

Can any entity glorify civil disobedience historical figures and bend to the wills of a country known for gross human rights violations? Of course it can but it shouldn't.

or the "Nineteen-Eightyfour" one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA

And I think you are missing the picture that the world is now a global place and you have to act accordingly. I was just in Costco yesterday looking to buy a new phone. The whole Apple removing supposed pro Hong Kong apps crossed my mind. I thought what other phones are there to buy. I the end I never made a decision. But honestly, and Android has it's own issues, but with an Android it is starting to feel like they have a bit more ownership of their devices since they can sideload. Yes I am all about security and get the walled garden approach but look what is happening in Hong Kong and Apples now removal of apps I question if I want to buy their phone. I am a no body, I buy an Apple phone every 4-5 years. I am on the fence here with Apple I get China is a hard market to enter and not upset anyone. So you are right, a company does not have to have morals just look at the phone companies who will charge you bogus fees any chance they get they don't give a shit and are not moral. But they have you buy the balls so people stay. I can choose from many many phone manufactures so Apple better try to please me too.

>How is Apple betraying their ideals here?

"It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy"

"Think different"

etc.

To the extent that a corporation can have abstract things like ideals, this seems like a betrayal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com