Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tim Cook: If You Don't Like Our Energy Policies, Don't Buy Apple Stock

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the quantifiable-vs-unquantifiable dept.

Businesses 348

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Nick Statt reports at Cnet that at Apple's annual shareholder meeting Friday, Apple CEO Tim Cook shot down the suggestion from a conservative, Washington, DC-based think tank that Apple give up on environmental initiatives that don't contribute to the company's bottom line. The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), hasn't taken kindly to Apple's increasing reliance on green energy and said so in a statement issued to Apple ahead of the meeting. 'We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards,' said NCPPR General Counsel Justin Danhof demanding that the pledge be voted on at the meeting. 'This is something [Apple] should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender.' Cook responded 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. 'When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind. I don't consider the bloody ROI,' said Cook. 'We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive, We want to leave the world better than we found it.' Danhof's proposal was voted down and to any who found the company's environmental dedication either ideologically or economically distasteful, Cook advised 'if you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.'"

cancel ×

348 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tim, you don't own the company (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375049)

The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.

Re:Tim, you don't own the company (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375089)

He is, and his "bosses" voted down the suggestion raised by NCPPR.

And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Changed (5, Informative)

BBCWatcher (900486) | about 6 months ago | (#46375091)

The stockholders voted, and Apple's energy policy won easily.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375129)

And that's a valid reason for not changing the policy, but instead he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock (or not buy it in the first place) if they want the course of the company changed. That's completely illogical, as someone who doesn't have stock in the company doesn't have a vote to change the company's direction.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (-1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46375279)

And that's a valid reason for not changing the policy, but instead he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock

Stock holders don't own the company. If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (4, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#46375373)

Stock holders don't own the company. If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.

Stockholders do indeed own the company. Laws limit the liability of stockholders' in a publicly held corporation to encourage that type of investment. Capitalism runs on investment.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375283)

You've demonstrated utter failure to comprehend the actual power of minor (read: non-institutional) stockholders. The vote doesn't matter.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (0)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#46375427)

Those who have the most ownership should have the most say. What seems to really bother people (lefties) about this is that it makes it appear that even the scary baby devoting, banker types who they think cut down forests for laughs might be willing to do the right thing without be shackled and forced by government.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (4, Informative)

buddyglass (925859) | about 6 months ago | (#46375293)

What was implicit in his statement is that Apple's energy policies are extremely important to the company and are overwhelmingly supported by Apple's shareholders. i.e. if you're among the tiny minority of shareholders who disagrees then your only options are to deal with it or sell your shares. Implied is that a campaign to force management to abandon the policies is doomed to failure given their broad support.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375577)

The news report that I read said that Tim Cook became visibly anger and answered the question in an angry manner. If that is correct, Tim Cook should not be praised because he didn't throw chairs like Balmer.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (5, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | about 6 months ago | (#46375679)

No, Tim Cook should be praised because he stood up to the right-wing idiots and told them where to stuff it, instead of treating them like an equal partner in a sensible debate.

The right-wing thinktanks have been flooding debates with PR puff pieces (also known as 'lies') instead of facts, and it is high time they got called on it.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46375439)

he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock (or not buy it in the first place) if they want the course of the company changed

Where did you read that? I didn't notice him saying any such thing.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#46375615)

He said anything about changing the course of the company. I heard: The course of the company isn't changing, if you don't like where it's going, get off now. Which so long as a majority of the stockholders will back his play is a completely legitimate statement. You don't get to come in with some tiny sliver of stock and dictate terms - either buy 51%, or better yet buy stock in companies whose policies you approve of in the first place.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375163)

Stacking the company with nothing but "yes men" seems like a great idea Mr. Cook. I'm sure we can continue to expect great things from the post-Jobs Apple.

Re:And the Stockholders Don't Want the Policy Chan (5, Insightful)

SpockLogic (1256972) | about 6 months ago | (#46375465)

HEADLINE

Right Wing Ideologues looking for Publicity get their asses handed to them.

The NCPPR were only trying to raise their own profile by attacking Apple's policy, nothing more.

Re:Tim, you don't own the company (4, Insightful)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 6 months ago | (#46375107)

If you had read TFS, you might have perceived that the shareholders voted in support of Tim's position.
What's with the FoxNews shills nowadays? Has slashdot been flagged by the NSA for enhanced interference?

Stockholders are not his boss (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 6 months ago | (#46375383)

The stockholders own the company. If the stockholders want the energy policy changed, then you do as your bosses say.

Wrong. The stockholders have no power to fire him. He reports to the board of directors. The stockholders can only vote to change the board. In some cases, don't know about apple, they might be able to raise motions at meetings for the board to take up. But even there was a motion to fire him, it would be up to the directors to execute it. So this policy is presumably backed by the board.

Cook was giving good advice too. The stock holder coould have tried to change the board or passed a motion but that would be ineffective. His only real power to make himself heard would be to sell a large chunk of his stock and get other to do so. That would be a loss at the man's expense (not apple) but the lower stock price would be noticed by other apple shareholders.

Re:Tim, you don't own the company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375467)

No, Tim is a leader... And luckily, the bulk of the stockholders agreed with him, and voted 97.05% to 2.95% to strike down the proposal.

Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375051)

The Law says he must act in the best interest of the shareholders, which is to say that building shareholder value is his #1 legal obligation as the CEO of the company. Everything else takes a back seat.

He's treading thin ice here, and is probably lucky he has a fellow ultra-left-wing liberal running things in DC.

He's made several of these boisterous statements lately that diminish shareholder value and threaten the stability and long term return of the stock, and is just begging for a huge shareholder lawsuit.

You Don't Understand the Law (1)

BBCWatcher (900486) | about 6 months ago | (#46375079)

What law would that be? Hint: There isn't one.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (4, Insightful)

tramp (68773) | about 6 months ago | (#46375095)

The best interest of the shareholders is not always ROI in terms of money. Par example think of continuity which is far more important then short term profits.

shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | about 6 months ago | (#46375103)

The stockholders voted with Cook, saying that they, the owners of Apple, want their company to be environmentally responsible AND to acquiesce to government mandating how they do so. That puts him on solid legal ground, I believe.

What would get Cook in trouble would be putting his OWN well-being ahead of stockholder interests. If Apple were paying TimCook Inc a billion dollars for green services, that would be a problem. Cook is carrying out the expressed wishes of the stockholders, and is not enriching himself at their expense.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (-1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375149)

oh you are correct, the stock holders voted no question. but the way he handeled it was wrong, you dont insult your bosses ,regardless if they are majority or not. All he did was contribute to the idea that apple is full of smug

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375181)

A nut job with an agenda and few stocks so he can into th meeting isn't his boss, he's just a troll
Putting him down probably did good for the stock

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46375195)

oh you are correct, the stock holders voted no question. but the way he handeled it was wrong, you dont insult your bosses ,regardless if they are majority or not. All he did was contribute to the idea that apple is full of smug

Did you ever watch "The Blues Brothers"? The scene where they demonstrate what's the proper way to treat neo nazis? Tim Cook has done the same thing here. A right-wing group calling themselves a "Think Tank", trying to push their disgusting right-wing agenda in a company's share holder meeting, and they get told off.

Yes, Apple is truly evil for using solar panels instead of polluting the environment by burning coal in Northern Carolina.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375311)

Did you ever watch "The Blues Brothers"? The scene where they demonstrate what's the proper way to treat neo nazis?

Cook is too old to do a back somersault. With or without car.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375315)

so in other words, some owners have more say than others, depending on their view... got it.....

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375379)

so in other words, some owners have more say than others, depending on their view... got it.....

Actually based on the percentage of shares that they own, some owners have more say than others. This think tank probably had a nominal stake in the company.

Cook knew that he had a very large majority of the stock holders of backing him (97.5%), or he wouldn't have picked the fight. The CEO can decide to do things that don't look like they have short term gains from an ROI perspective, but can contribute to the long term success of the company. This is actually what good CEO's should do.

I personally would feel better about investing in a company that is looking at sustainability for the long term.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 6 months ago | (#46375385)

"so in other words, some owners have more say than others, depending on their view... got it....."

One view is based on science and facts, the other is not. Right wingers are known to reject science and the laws of nature in general as a majority of their base believes in superstitious nonsense. The more sensible and intelligent corporate types know they can't survive on fairy tales and want evidence and science.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375715)

This had nothing to do with science though, this had to do with the bottom line. If as an owner you can get 2% ROI or 15% ROI which option do you want, again thinking as an investor?

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375713)

That you are entitled to your own opinion doesn't mean anyone else has to give a shit about it. Many people learn this as children. Apparently some don't.

Re:shareholders voted with Cook. Law says ... (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46375177)

It looks good PR wise for Apple. It doesn't really cost them much and hell they can sure afford it. It's not like they are struggling to stay afloat.

Tim Cook doesn't understand the law (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375109)

Unless you are running the company, you don't know what is in the best interest of the shareholders. I can think of quite a few cases where a company did what the shareholders wanted to the ultimate detriment of the company! (Think Dell, or Seagate...) Sometimes the best interest of the shareholder is to do things that either won't pay off for a long time, or will maybe never directly make any change to the share price, but will put the company in a better position for future growth, or appeal to a larger market. There are a lot of factors going on here, but the ROI to shareholders in my opinion is at the bottom of the barrel as long as he isn't damaging the company. As far as I am concerned, shareholders should be investing in a company because they like the direction the company is going. Attempting to muck around in that process for personal gain will ALWAYS be detrimental to the company.

It IS about profit. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375139)

Tim Cook is the CEO. His job is strategic planning: seeing where market trends are going, where technology is headed and the economy - including energy costs in the future - as best as humanly possible since nobody is clairvoyant.

The long term trend for the cost of fossil fuels is up. Even with all the "new" found oil and gas in the Continental US the price will go up. Why? Demand outstrips supply.

Asia. Those billions of people want to live like us Americans and we use 25% of the World's oil - for about 300 million people.

The oil companies are sucking it out of the ground as fast as they find it - well, including the time it takes to get a well producing, but you get my drift. In other words, the demand is increasingly MUCH faster than supply and unless some HUGE (another Saudi Arabia) economically viable reserve is found, oil and gas are going to go nowhere but up for the foreseeable future.

Green energy will continue to go down in price because many folks see the writing on the wall and frankly, some prefer clean air and water to profit.

Even the commie Chinese are investing heavily in green energy.

So, what does this mean for Apple? If they want to stay competitive in the future, they BETTER go green.

Re:It IS about profit. (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | about 6 months ago | (#46375553)

But.. what is green energy? Most of the things I've seen so far have been about as credible in terms of improving whatever "green" metric they claim to address as the products in the "nutrition supplements" aisle at the local drug store.

In a lot of places, the "green" solutions address only one real issue - satisfaction of some tax rule in order to allow the participant to enjoy a credit or to have tax-power-by-proxy. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org] Deepwater Wind has legislated ability to "sell" its electricity to the grid at 24 cents per kWh in a state where the current retail rate is currently about 8 cents per kWh (6 cents commercial).

That's not about green energy, that's taxing power that has been granted to a private entity over the rate payers. Worse, what stops them from the outright fraud of pulling power off the grid at the retail rate and returning it to the grid at their grossly inflated rate?

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (4, Insightful)

augahyde (1016980) | about 6 months ago | (#46375151)

Are you familiar with the law? It doesn't define best interest. Not all shareholders a motivated purely by profit. Those that are motivated as such had an opportunity to vote him out of power (the law is on their side for that), but they couldn't garner enough interest.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (1)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 6 months ago | (#46375623)

Are you familiar with the law? It doesn't define best interest. Not all shareholders a motivated purely by profit. Those that are motivated as such had an opportunity to vote him out of power (the law is on their side for that), but they couldn't garner enough interest.

Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong? Apple has enough surplus cash to indulge in such ventures. What if Apple posted a $10B loss? Think such money sinks would still be funded? Yes, willingly paying a premium for energy is a money sink.

If Apple was losing money, all of their shareholders would be concerned. Don't be fooled into thinking they wouldn't be.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (2)

adamstew (909658) | about 6 months ago | (#46375625)

correct. My home owners association is a legal corporation. But we make no moves to produce a profit. In fact, we actively work to reduce the member dues as much as possible to make sure we don't produce a profit or a loss.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375159)

Shareholder value can be more than money. if the stock holders want money to be the only concern then he'd have to, but they they didn't.
A single nut-job that probably has a single stock just so he can show up at meetings and be annoying isn't to be taken serious

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46375243)

NCPPR's critique might be valid if Apple were adding solar arrays on its server farms to prematurely try operating off-grid, but that is not what's happening. Apple is using small source energy to supplement the grid, not replace it. Works just like your residential solar collectors.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375475)

You have no idea what you are talking about for several reasons:

1. Less than 3% voted for it. That obliterates everything you said right there.

2. This is the case law that asshole execs use as an excuse to obliterate their US workforce for cheap overseas labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

Ford was an interesting man.

Re:Tim Cook doesn't understand the Law (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46375661)

The Law says he must act in the best interest of the shareholders, which is to say that building shareholder value is his #1 legal obligation as the CEO of the company. Everything else takes a back seat.

Indeed. And he IS acting in the best interest of the shareholders, because being a green company is something important to a lot of people who use Apple products. If you still think most of them are buying shiny useless objects, think again. There's a philosophy and a mindset behind it all. I could tell you the "Think Different" cliché, but you obviously can't do that.

Or... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375069)

...if you (Cook) don't want to look out for the best financial interest of the stockholders who are the OWNERS of the company, then you should quit / be terminated and get out of the company. Works both ways.

He seems to forget that he is merely an employee and not the owner, which is an unfortunate trend in corporate governance in modern times.

When someone gets this arrogant, they are primed for a fall.

Re: Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375101)

He is also a share holder, that means he is also an owner.

Tim Cook Also Owns Apple (1)

BBCWatcher (900486) | about 6 months ago | (#46375111)

Tim Cook is a major Apple shareholder, at least among individuals who own shares. He owns a fraction of the company.

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

digitalchinky (650880) | about 6 months ago | (#46375113)

And you seem to have forgotten how to follow the money. Those profits don't come out of thin air. Public opinion is entirely within the interests of stockholders and company owners. When shareholders become absolute greedy fucks they need a smack upside the head so they get some perspective.

Re:Or... (2)

counterplex (765033) | about 6 months ago | (#46375197)

This.

The perception of Apple customers has been that they're typically left of center. Apple haters fired the "your iphone is made in a sweatshop" volley (legitimately, I might add) because of this perception of Apple's customers and an attempt at shaming them. Apple responded by enforcing ever stricter standards of minimum working conditions on all their suppliers, thus safeguarding the customer base. Continuing along the same lines and in service of safeguarding their customer base, Apple started moving towards green energy also because that's yet another selling point to keep their customers hooked. It's also the reason why in every product launch, the greenness of the product is a feature touted alongside its technical merits.

Customers give Apple money in exchange for Apple products. That's how Apple became valuable enough to have so many shareholders. Take away the customers and you're holding a shell. The customers *want* a company that is at least a little altruistic because it makes the customers feel good about themselves.

If shareholders treat Apple like the goose that laid golden eggs, they'll suffer the same fate when they try to distil the company to the essence they (wrongly) perceive it to be.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375365)

Buying stocks or even the products of a company that supports Greenies is not a responsible act.

Re:Or... (4, Informative)

St.Creed (853824) | about 6 months ago | (#46375441)

Buying stocks or even the products of a company that supports Greenies is not a responsible act.

And buying the stocks of a company that ignores the law is somehow more responsible? Basically they were asking Tim Cook to ignore the federal mandates on green energy.

Even apart from that moronic idea, locally the number of datacenters we can actually place here in the country is now limited by the capacity of the grid. Doing small scale experiments on how to diminish that reliance, or even go off-grid on a large scale, is very likely to be a smart move. And that is not even taking into account the fact that in the country next door they are actually paying companies to use energy on days they have too much free energy (wind and solar). It makes the energy-intensive companies so competitive that a big one in this country has just gone bankrupt. Making sure that Apple retains an ability to mix and match between different energy providers is just sensible business, however you look at it.

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375117)

You're the only arrogant one here. In what universe do you and your ideologically like-minded cronies get to speak for the shareholders? You cannot possibly think that some random DC think-tank is the majority shareholder of the most valuable company in the world.

Cook is right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375071)

Surely energy policies are about creating a feel-good aspect to the brand. Plus if you learn something along the way by trying perhaps you can commercialize it and it takes you off on another wild ride, like the iPhone did.

Just because they don't understand it, doesn't mean they can run the company better.

Re:Cook is right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375133)

Its all show business.
The brand could only benefit if it werent highlighted that Cook is a cock-chugging, though trendy, sissy boy.

Even if he's wrong, 97% shareholders agreed (4, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about 6 months ago | (#46375135)

Even if his policies are bad, 97.5% of stockholders voted to do it his way. The owners want to be green, so green it is.

Re:Even if he's wrong, 97% shareholders agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375353)

Well, I guess part of that 97% is voting for a CEO with cojones rather than green energy, but the end result is the same.

You got it buddy! (-1, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46375077)

Ive been avoiding buying anything Apple, hand over fist, just as fast as I can, my whole life!
If I did buy stock , Id buy two, one to shit on and one to cover it up with.
If youre going to miss an opportunity, this one is it! Hurry! Dont walk, RUN!
You may not get another opportunity to ignore whatever silly shit Jobs Co. is foisting off as cutting edge.
Dont be the last in line to get out the door, sale ends soon, offer may not apply in Connecticut, Arizona and other states of inebriation, offer not valid in Guam or Costco stores, must be accompanied by a primate with a larger I.Q. than Obama, subject to change but prefers unmarked bills, special considerations paid for by United Airlines and Rice-a-ronie the San Francisco Treat.

Re:You got it buddy! (4, Interesting)

Wingsy (761354) | about 6 months ago | (#46375145)

You should have bought 1000 shares like I did. As of today it's value is 1200% higher than the day I bought it. That pisses you off, doesn't it?

Re:You got it buddy! (-1, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46375173)

Nope, I got all the money I need from developing weapons for the military.
Im much too moral to further the dumbing down of the world by financing Apple.
That pisses you off, doesnt it?

Re:You got it buddy! (1)

Wingsy (761354) | about 6 months ago | (#46375263)

No, not in the slightest.

But I'm curious, what weapons? Those on the USS Yorktown?

so let me get this straight (-1, Flamebait)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375081)

not only does apple control everything about the phones we buy, but they think they can tell the owners to fuck off?

One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product

Re:so let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375097)

Yeah, because some think-tank in DC is the majority shareholder in Apple stock...

Re:so let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46375105)

One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product

Tim Cook telling these right-wing psychopaths to piss off is surely a reason to avoid buying Apple products.

What kind of bullshit is this? Extremist climate change deniers turning up in the Apple shareholder meeting, and trying to foist their idiotic "profit above anything" agenda on Apple, getting the response they deserve (actually, not _quite_ what they deserve, corporal punishment is what they deserve), and that makes you want to avoid Apple products?

Re:so let me get this straight (-1, Flamebait)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375155)

while we can argue the merits of AGW all day long that isnt what I saw here. I saw a smug son of a bitch tell an owner to go fuck himself. He could have handled himself with a little more class but no, all he did was continue the stereotype that apple doesnt actually give a fuck, its their way or the highway.

Re: so let me get this straight (1)

jovius (974690) | about 6 months ago | (#46375201)

Cook did care and the result was that basically all of the Apple does care. They just don't give a flying fuck about unscientific drivel, that's all. They care about what they do and how they do it. It's in the best interest to follow the green policies. The brand value just inched a bit higher.

Re:so let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375215)

Less ganja man, you may actually understand TFA one day...

Re:so let me get this straight (3, Insightful)

rmstar (114746) | about 6 months ago | (#46375241)

while we can argue the merits of AGW all day long that isnt what I saw here. I saw a smug son of a bitch tell an owner to go fuck himself.

No, the owner went way too far. Being an owner does not entitle you to behave like a pig.

He told AN owner to *bleep!* off (2)

sirwired (27582) | about 6 months ago | (#46375153)

Tim Cook told a single owner to go *bleep!* himself. The shareholders as a whole voted specifically on this resolution, and rejected it.

Re:so let me get this straight (4, Insightful)

teg (97890) | about 6 months ago | (#46375185)

not only does apple control everything about the phones we buy, but they think they can tell the owners to fuck off? One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product

The owners agreed with Cook - the right wing loonie didn't get support from the rest of the shareholders [gizmodo.com] . Which makes sense, as Apple needs not only to have the current premium products associated with its brand, but align with its potential customers - and above all, avoid really bad associations [youtube.com] . Or just being boring [dailymotion.com] .

Image is very important for premium brands [wikibranding.net] - and that's what the majority of the shareholders wants Tim Cook to continue to cultivate, alongside its innovation focus.

Re:so let me get this straight (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375359)

and as i said, I agree with the end result, i disagree with the dickhole way he handled it

Re:so let me get this straight (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46375189)

Will you people just stop with the "owners" bullshit, are people really this ignorant about how a public company operates? Cook is a substantial shareholder, the other owners listened carefully to both sides, then promptly told the other guy to fuck off. This is a non story, voting down idiots at a shareholders meeting is routine business.

Re:so let me get this straight (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#46375281)

And the truth is the boys at the Washington Think Tank ought to be thrilled. This is a free enterprise owned by free and private people who voted on how to run the enterprise they own. They made a decision to "go green" without some regulator forcing them to do so. Its a shining example about how FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM can work. Its evidence that with success and affluence people and even legal fictions like corporations "do the right thing".

Apples energy police IS a case against regulation.

Re:so let me get this straight (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46375321)

Just saying: Tim Cook is the CEO. He is _not_ a substantial shareholder. It takes about 500 million dollar to own just 0.1% of AAPL, Tim Cook is nowhere near, and 0.1% doesn't make you a "substantial shareholder". He runs the company because he was hired to run the company.

Re:so let me get this straight (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 6 months ago | (#46375579)

Your sig references my favorite song of all time, love to play it with my guitar and my hardly capable voice.

Re:so let me get this straight (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375223)

Good for Tim, I'll now buy Apple products and stock.

Re:so let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375239)

No, they think they can tell a minority of shareholders to do so, as demonstrated by a shareholder vote.

Really, it's the majority of shareholders telling the rest of them to fuck off. If they don't like the outcome of the vote, either buy a majority stake so that you can dictate to the minority, or invest elsewhere.

Re:so let me get this straight (2)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 6 months ago | (#46375257)

97.05% of the owners told their co-owner to fuck off, and Tim Cook (as their dutiful employee) agreed.

He was a bit of a dick about it, but when 97.05% of your bosses tell you to tell the other 2.95% to fuck off you ain't supposed to sugar-coat it.

Re: so let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375277)

no, 97% of the owners told the other three percent to fuck off

Re:so let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375331)

man the apple fanbois are out in force today

Re:so let me get this straight (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46375477)

This is a big feel-good event for them. It's PR bullshit, and Apple probably paid the people who came in and made the trouble.

Nobody seems to be scrutinizing who and how the solar arrays were paid for. What percentage of the 'investment' was government subsidies? 10%? 20%? 30%?

Chinese factory ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375085)

conservative was happy once he found out that the majority of energy used was used by the Chinese factory building the products

Love how the AC trolls are out in force (5, Insightful)

aitikin (909209) | about 6 months ago | (#46375131)

So far there aren't many comments here, but all of them are sitting here flaming Tim Cook. No where in the articles linked did it say that shareholders (as a group) wanted this. In fact, if you RTA (the last linked one), you'll see that it received less than 3% of the vote. But people who are too afraid to post under a user name are also apparently all too happy to post that Cook is doing a disservice to his shareholders, even though the overwhelming majority of said shareholders agree with him.

So what should those that don't do? Buy something else. I don't get why people who are seemingly for the free market are up in arms about a company doing something their way and telling people that if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Just because the ROI in one company might not be as high as possible (according to a think tank, not a court of public opinion by any stretch, which is where Apple exceeds), doesn't mean that the company is doing a disservice to its shareholders, unless those shareholders are in it for the shortest term possible.

Re:Love how the AC trolls are out in force (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 6 months ago | (#46375183)

It's also wise to remember how Apple has fared over the years when it attempted to follow mainstream practices. Those years were usually when Steve Jobs wasn't involved and the management attempted to follow the business practices of others. On ended up with a company that tried to be SGI and Packard Bell at the same time, with predicable results.

Cook appears to have learned at least a bit of the lessons of those eras. He doesn't have to do what the alleged professionals in the business community claim to be best practices; Apple has made a lot more money over the last fifteen or so years by bucking the trend and continually changing. Don't get me wrong, my ownership of Apple products is limited to a few castoff keyboards and I'm certainly no fanboi, but they've managed to build a successful, profitable company by doing what their customers, not necessarily the business community, wants.

It's kind of like how Costco is doing well, by paying employees actual living wages so those employees work at the stores until retirement as opposed to being bled dry by corporate interest. Costco still makes money, Costco is popular among customers, employees are happy, owners are happy, and things will continue to be long-term stable for them.

If Cook manages to keep Apple going strong in the wake of Jobs' demise then this will be interesting to watch.

Re:Love how the AC trolls are out in force (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46375309)

to me it isnt that he said no, its the way he did it. In typical apple fashion "if you dont like it, fuck off" He could have been more diplomatic about it, explaining his reasoning without going off the deep end and telling him he should sell, no class if you ask me

Re:Love how the AC trolls are out in force (3, Insightful)

Soulskill (1459) | about 6 months ago | (#46375413)

I prefer the lack of diplomacy, personally. It stands in stark contrast to most of the public statements Tim Cook makes about the company, which are usually run through the PR/Marketing polisher within an inch of their lives.

Of course, the skeptical part of me wonders if this response was planned, to some extent. Not necessarily word-for-word, but the result of some foresight: "What's a good response if somebody says this isn't helping our profitability?" The line about ROI for accessibility struck me as a bit too pat.

Re:Love how the AC trolls are out in force (5, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#46375343)

The problem is the Think Tank guys have left the reservation. Conservatives used to believe that most people were basically good and when given choices they will do the right thing. They also used to believe it was wrong to force people to do things and because of that first belief it was also unnecessary to force people to do things. Let the market work, let people become more affluent, which leads to more choices and they will make good choices. They also at one point thought people rational.

Rational people understand money is not the only form of wealth. Its also good to have clean air to breath, safe water to drink, and quality food to eat. In that sense environmentalism is actually a conservative issue. These things are of course a matter of degree. Its much easier to decide to spend more on the same amount of energy because its at least ostensibly "greener" when you are having most of your other needs thoroughly satisfied. Affluence should make us better people; something I still believe. Which is why as a conservative or libertarian or whatever you want to call me I am thrilled to see companies like Apple doing this stuff of there own will.

It validates my beliefs. They are making choices freely that can benefit not just their future but potentially the future of others. They are doing so against a back drop of wild success, in one of the least regulated industries (tech).

While I no longer Believe, I yet read of His Word (-1, Offtopic)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 6 months ago | (#46375167)

I was at one time a Senior Engineer at Apple Computer Inc. - remember when Apple was a computer company? If you had no clue where the bug in new system software builds, that bug came to me or one of the other members of my small team of Debug Meisters.

I earned one hundred fifty grand in 2008, then resigned in protest from Applied Micro Circuits Corporation because they flatly refused to test my hardware RAID driver in the same configuration as the customers use it.

I owe a lot of money to a lot of people, so my far-wealthier colleagues often criticize me for buying hot pizza for homeless people.

A while back I was in a real bad part of Oldtown Portland, Oregon. An obviously mentally ill woman approached me in the darkness to ask for money. "Did you know there's a woman's shelter not far from here?"

"No."

"I will take you there." To the Salvation Army Female Emergency Shelter (S.A.F.E.S.). It's real bad for women to be homeless, they are often sexually assaulted.

I returned with two slices of hot pizza for her.

I've been homeless for a couple of years now, however I have been contributing to society through articles on my website [warplife.com] , both on the topic of mental illness - I have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder - as well as technical stuff [warplife.com] .

I spent these last two years working diligently to find a job. However even if you don't want to actually read my site, have a quick look at it:

At the top of every single page on the site, are prominent links to Living with Schizoaffective Disorder [warplife.com] and My Deepest Fear [warplife.com] .

It happens quite a lot, that I'll have an interview scheduled, then the hiring company just disappears, or else they claim they offered the position to some other candidate, but then they openly repost it on the job boards, or all the recruiters approach me about the job that just got filled.

That's actually a gross violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act [ada.gov] . The US Federal Equal Opportunity Commission would be happy to sue upon my behalf, but in the end I decided not to pursue any lawsuits.

Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke.

Happily I just scored a real good remote contract, so I am working out of my Mom's guest room, debugging some GPL C++ Linux code. I'd tell you what that is exactly but I decided I should leave it up to my clients.

They are quite astute coders but they are not C++ coders.

I've been doing some research. I could have charged them quite a lot more per hour than what I am presently earning.

But no, I don't need that money. When I get my first check in about a week, I will rent a single room in a shared house, then I will be happy as a clam.

And I will go back to buying hot pizza for the homeless.

If you don't like Apple's energy policy (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 months ago | (#46375175)

If you don't like Apple's energy policy, buy majority shares.

Do not want! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375255)

Quote: ook responded 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.

Like? Tax evasion, Child labour, Price Fixing, Patent trolling, Crushing small rivals with lawyers... Yea apple is definitely right and just.

I will never buy an apple product.

If Apple is so green... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375259)

Then why is the hardware turnover rate so high for their products?

Frequent OS X upgrades (annually now) bloat older machines to a crawl and cause logicboard, graphics and firmware issues on machines just out of 3 year AppleCare. I wouldn't mention this if I hadn't see it personally occur TWICE on their laptops.

Dropped security updates for OS X versions still in major circulation.

(See Computerworld : "Apple retires Snow Leopard from support")

Perfectly working iPads that can't handle the latest iOS versions.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/04/apple-ipad-software-update/ [theguardian.com]

Like everything Apple does, it's green only for THEM and less green for you or in your pocket.

Best thing I ever did was install Windows 7 into the first partition on 17" MBP boot drive. Where are the 17"'s? GONE!! *POOF!*

Never Apple, never again. It's not a serious platform anymore, it's a joke.

"My iMac is running slow today," said Mom (2)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 6 months ago | (#46375327)

"No Mom, your computer isn't slow. It's a G4 iMac. You have 1.2 GB of memory. You are never going to run out of gigabytes." (That's how my mother refers to her disk drive.

"The people who write most software these days, they have really, really fast machines, with lots of memory and tons of gigabytes. They don't take care to make their software run fast anymore. It's a real problem."

When I use Mom's mouse to resize an OpenOffice window, the corner of the window lags quite far - not noticably but severely so - behind the motions of the mouse.

Now consider my own product QuickLetter from Working Software, that in 1992 was quick and snappy on a Mac Plus with 4 MB of memory, and what was it? An 8 MHz 68000? Or was it 6 MHz?

I don't know the clock of the G4 in Mom's iMac, but it is several hundred megahertz at least.

It is quite common for me these days to find web pages that take ten minutes to fully download. When I looked into ordering Comcast Business Class Cable Internet, I needed to view three pages - their homepage, then their business internet offerings, then their pricing.

Each page took a full hour to download. This because mom still uses dialup earthlink. It works fine for her occasional email to aunt peggy. I expect that comcast's web designers never actually tested their own site over dialup, despite trying to sell cable internet to dialup users.

obvious (-1, Troll)

superwiz (655733) | about 6 months ago | (#46375289)

Fake controversy to generate publicity. This is soooo 1995.

Non sequitur (0)

NMBob (772954) | about 6 months ago | (#46375461)

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind. I don't consider the bloody ROI," said Cook. THAT's why their stuff is the most expensive. Now I get it...I think. We had a guy in the office go blind in just a matter of a couple of weeks (blood supply to the optic nerves just went away) a couple months ago and Apple's accessibility crap sucks. All of us trying to set up stuff so he could see things on the screen as it was happening were really surprised at how worthless it all was.

It would be maximizing ROI if... (1, Informative)

Ichijo (607641) | about 6 months ago | (#46375499)

In an economy where market failures such as negative externalities are corrected, Apple is already doing the sort of thing that any company would do to maximize ROI. The problem is that conservative organizations such as the NCPPR tend not to believe in externalities [blogspot.com] , probably because it conflicts with their ideology that the Earth is not warming or that humans are not the cause of it.

It's ironic that the NCPPR bring up ROI when they bash [juneauempire.com] a $68.4 billion train project that would provide the same transportation capacity as $158 billion spent on roads and airports. What this and their meddling in Apple's affairs tells us is that they aren't truly interested in ROI but in supporting Big Oil and opposing anything that competes with burning dirty, nonrenewable fuels. This also explains why they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" (Upton Sinclair)

It's all about the money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375569)

This is all about raising money for the think tank. They get to tell their supporters that they stood up to the hated Al Gore, who is on Apple's board. Watch the donations flow in over this.

This seems staged (1)

Fusione (980444) | about 6 months ago | (#46375583)

Such public display of the topic, the good guy apple feeling that comes out of it. I really feel like I just got hit with a very low flying advertisement

Not going down well in my investment circles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46375587)

Apple may well be truly fucked now. My investment circles have taken note of this idiotic policy and are adjusting their portfolios as we speak.

This will not end well for Apple.

And that is what happens when you ignore the invisible hand of the market and side with the statists.

I hope Apple will become a lesson to all other corporations who think they can side with the enemy and still prosper.

Cook said it because Apple is rolling in cash (1)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 6 months ago | (#46375597)

You best believe that if Apple was limping along financially then they wouldn't have splurged on such green energy ventures. Don't misunderstand me. Apple has the cash and they can spend it as they wish. But Cook is making a moral argument and it's only the success of the iPhone/iPad that allows him to do so.

Exactly (1)

no-body (127863) | about 6 months ago | (#46375633)

this is a, if not the major problem that ROI = $'s ** x is the only measure how things are followed, the more the better, and not what would be adequate on a global scale. That's where currently all systems fail flat.

I am not really an Apple fan but this is a good one!

Obvious NCPPR Agenda is Obvious (5, Informative)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 6 months ago | (#46375639)

Funny how the good folks at the NCPPR didn't demand that Apple stop their philanthropic activities, which by NCPPR logic would also hurt shareholder value. For some reason, they only objected to Apple's "green" initiatives...I wonder why?

Either way, those "think tank" guys should go back to school and learn how capital assets are actually priced. [wikipedia.org] If the NCPPR had gotten their way, it's likely that Apple's stock price would have gone down, not up.

Oh my fascism (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46375655)

'We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards,'

Sort of laughable considering how Apple does business, to be complaining about fascism.

Take the Maps app in OSX 10.9 (Mavericks) on my Macbook pro without GPS the maps app is able to detect exactly where I am. The reason this works is because Apple has geo-located every wifi access point anywhere someone with an iPhone is.
The iPhone scans everything around adds the GPS data and uploads it to Apples server.
So I suppose most fanbois will say "that's a feature", but after turning it off in "privacy" (laugh) settings I applied the new SSL patch and behold, location services was once again active even after locking that panel.
Didn't do that on the desktop.
You have no true location privacy with any Apple computer, and I would wager even with WiFi off and Location Service off it still silently looks at the area around and sends your location data to Apple.

Remember this:
http://petewarden.github.io/iP... [github.io]

Only in America ... (5, Funny)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 6 months ago | (#46375699)

... could the ethical operation of a company be characterized as irresponsible.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>