So again, companies are fighting and vocal about "freedom", equality, lgbt rights etc only when it's convinient for them, as soon as they see that it might make them lose money - they will do whatever it takes to keep that cash flowing. Look at Tim Cook, how vocal he was in US with his LGBT support and anti-Trump position and other topics, but as soon as he sees that he can lose cash from China he does almost the same thing as what he is fighting against in US. How are these companies leaders different from those people in China who sit at a top of food chain and do same things because they worry about losing money after losing control...
that he can lose cash from China he does almost the same thing as what he is fighting against in US
I'm kind of wondering how you think its possible to run a large company while 'losing cash' because your supply chain is suddenly unavailable? Or because your competitors have a lower cost structure than you do?
Do you know what American consumers will do if Tim Cook doesn't feed them the bullshit about how it's realistic to impose American values on their Chinese partners? American consumers will go buy a f'ing Samsung. Samsung's ethical record is horrifying and truly shameful - far worse than anything Apple has ever done or consented to - but American ignorance of and indifference to other cultures spares Samsung the same burden that Apple and Tim Cook bear. Cook needs to feed his customers the bullshit; Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei etc don't.
Apple's issue isn't just about 'losing money'. Their supply and manufacturing chain is in China. They have their throat laid bare on this one, and if they stood on principle, their throat would be cut in short order.
Then he should not yell left and right how he is fighting for freedom and human rights, just so he can win some "points" from people...It's always easy to make it look like you are fighting against something bad when your ass is safe and warm...
There can be some ethical issues orthogonal to profit and loss considerations though. Now would shareholders be able to sue Cook for losing money by fighting the Chinese government, I have no idea, but its not quite as simple as that, that's letting them off the hook too easily in my opinion.
Whatever the truth of fiduciary duty may be, it is definitely not any company's fiduciary duty under American law to expand to China and serve customers there, even if it would make investors more money.
"As expected, Apple CEO Tim Cook accepted the Free Expression Award at the Newseum in Washington D.C. tonight. At the event, Cook was presented the award and made brief comments on what it means to him and Apple, as well as touching on the importance of companies taking a stance…" [1]
I'm not disputing the idea that Tim Cook has taken stances on certain issues including human rights. I'm disputing the idea that by complying with a Chinese law means he's "doing almost the same thing as what he's fighting against". That's rubbish.
Do you consider Google to be engaging in illegal activities by refusing to censor content according to China's wishes? Then yes, I am suggested Apple engage in illegal activities.
"The law is the law" is a very simplistic way of looking at things.
Laws can be challenged in court. Google is doing that with a Canadian law right now[1].
Laws can be found unconstitutional. Laws can be overturned. Laws can be repealed.
Laws can be unenforced. For example smoking weed in Colorado. A simple "the law is the law" outlook might conclude that it's illegal to sell weed in Colorado, and any business doing so "will simply be subjected to massive damage".
Laws can be interpreted and misinterpreted by judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc. Smart people can disagree about what a law means. Some interpretations say anyone under 13 who reads the New York Times website is a criminal under the CFAA[2].
Some people argue that the average person commits 3 felonies a day[3].
I am sure a lot of leaders in china do not agree with what is going on there and draconian laws but they can't say anything against it since they will lose control and revenue if they get dropped from the top. Same with apple, it might not agree with what they are doing but they are too worried about their revenue stream to speak up against it. The difference is that at least Chinese don't act like hypocrites in this case. They don't proclaim to be fighters for human rights and freedoms.
Same thing is happening in Russia for example with corruption. A lot of new people who come work in higher positions just could not go agains the corrupted system, if someone that has control over their position tells them to do something, they will do it because otherwise they will be end up with no job and money. Those who speak up without worrying about their lost revenue are the real heros, not Tim Cook who was made look like one with his recent announcements
Many of these specific laws are very directly anti-free-expression. Complying there while accepting a free expression award is about as clear as possible an example of "doing almost the same thing as what he's fighting against".
Shutting down voluntarily is also legal. Remember that the question wasn't about business strategy. The question is whether he is "doing almost the same thing as what he's fighting against". And the answer seems to be yes.
Expensive options are not the only way to solve this dilemma. They could simply amend their position on free expression to explain why this is an exception. Such an explanation might not even reflect badly on them.
> as soon as he sees that he can lose cash from China
...or the company being severely damaged by asset seizures, manufacturing capabilities decimated, and people going to prison for flagrantly engaging in illegal activities.
