But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.
This is a myth and wrong. You shouldn't be propagating such an untruth.Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.
The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."
Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."
Apple has always been unprincipled, never interested in anything but money.[...]
I’ve worked for Apple, and can say with confidence that they do have goals beyond just making money. (And in some areas, like supplier responsibility and environmental impact, Apple is far ahead of any competitor.) [...]
"Far ahead of any competitor" is a bold statement.
I bet you meant 'I worked at apple and it seemed like they cared.' Or have you also worked in multiple departments at every single one of their competitors?
They must be doing some amazing stuff then, to make up for the fact that they have more versions of charge cables than average
they don't make it easy to replace batteries
and they purposefully slow down older devices.
I don't know... I think it has potential. After the sanctions that China placed on Australian coal and iron, we've seen nothing but a strong economy. The world is realising that relying less on China isn't necessarily bad or unachievable. Even average consumers here have been turning away from Chinese produce and electronics for years. Seldom do you see food made in China in Australian supermarkets anymore and the same goes with consumer goods and electronics. Household products made by Bosch/Siemens is one example, it's used as a marketing tool.
But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.
This is a myth and wrong. You shouldn't be propagating such an untruth.Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.Soooo close but no cigar: your quote is true. So is my claim. How can both be true? Because not all corporations are publicly traded. The case you linked to was one regarding a privately-held company, which has much more freedom to manage itself how it wants. But once you have publicly traded shares, the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value comes into play, and there have been many court decisions supporting this. I specifically said “publicly traded” because this is the key condition.
From https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-valueQuoteThe leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."
Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."(Emphasis mine.)
The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.
Maybe the Taiwan's chip fab houses should stamp "Taiwan Is A Sovereign Nation" round the edge of their silicon, in 60nm. Or even inside multi layer boards.
Talk about cherry-picking! From the very same article you selectively quoted:
The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.
Taiwan goes to considerable effort not to poke the Chinese dragon needlessly. Eventually that will not be enough, but enough provocation now would provoke a war or punitive actions.
That article is an opinion piece
I’ve worked for Apple, and can say with confidence that they do have goals beyond just making money. (And in some areas, like supplier responsibility and environmental impact, Apple is far ahead of any competitor.)
They must be doing some amazing stuff then, to make up for the fact that they have more versions of charge cables than average [...]
How is that any more complex than what other brands have, between micro USB, mini USB, USB-C, and various specialty plugs on the device end, and USB A, USB-C, or micro USB OTG on the charger end? It’s a comparable matrix of combinations, if not bigger.
they don't make it easy to replace batteries
Nor do most competitors, and unlike the competitors, Apple has a large network of its own stores, resellers, and a mail-in program, all of which replace the battery quickly and at reasonable cost.
and they purposefully slow down older devices.
This isn’t true, and it never was.
Ever since then, every iOS update has maintained performance really well.
Well at least we can all agree the best thing Apple makes is their stock, we probably all owe a decent chunk of our retirements to them.
I look forward to that happening. I suspect it won't.
I don't know... I think it has potential. After the sanctions that China placed on Australian coal and iron, we've seen nothing but a strong economy. The world is realising that relying less on China isn't necessarily bad or unachievable. Even average consumers here have been turning away from Chinese produce and electronics for years. Seldom do you see food made in China in Australian supermarkets anymore and the same goes with consumer goods and electronics. Household products made by Bosch/Siemens is one example, it's used as a marketing tool.
Quote from: tookiThat article is an opinion piece
Which turns out to be good enough when you want to push your point but not for anything else.
On the other hand the author is "Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School", and I reckon her opinion is rather more pertinent than your repetition of an Internet myth.
Take number of USB cable models and divide by number of companies that use them. Then do the same with lightning cables.
Imagine if every company acted like apple and each one had their own cables.
and they purposefully slow down older devices.
This isn’t true, and it never was.Tell it to the judge.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns