zlacker

>>bertma+(OP)
Well written, but its starting point seems to be “Apple used to be force for good”. — It is a corporation. It wants your money. This is not new. This is not any different from Lilly (Mounjaro), or Google, or any other, er… corporation.

The idea that a CEO will stand up to his democratically elected dictator is absurd. Why should he, when the dictator is merely implementing the policies he said he would during the campaign and still got elected? Why should he make himself and his company and his shareholders martyrs?

Because many people hold Apple to higher standards, that is why.

>>clutte+M7
> The idea that a CEO will stand up to his democratically elected dictator is absurd. Why should he, when the dictator is merely implementing the policies he said he would during the campaign and still got elected? Why should he make himself and his company and his shareholders martyrs?

This is exactly what Apple did when they stood their ground against the FBI in the case of the San Bernardino shooter though. Of course, Obama could hardly be called a dictator, and wasn't a petty, vindictive man like our current president. But it'd still be good to see Cook rediscover that "fuck you, make me" attitude from the old Apple.

>>nozzle+6j
From a spectators perspective I'd say they called the presidents bluff back then - but it's not bluffing right now... So if they try that attitude with Trump, there is going to be catastrophic fallout. Hence their compliance.

>>ffsm8+Gj
It was made clear to the public in that dinner with tech CEOs, how they bent the knee, spoke sweet flattering words, and gave gifts to the naked king. That was some medieval theater, and they all knew if they upset the king, he will crush their wealth like a tower made of Lego bricks.