|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Though it might be considered good business looking after ones shareholder, to
have your products built by kids under slave like conditions in countries that
have lax labor laws while turning a blind eye to such conditions would hardly be
considered moral by the majority in society.
In the same vein, the majority in society would not consider a job in the
prostitution business a moral career choice. In fact, the majority would
consider it a highly immoral choice.
It should never only be about making money!
And that's the point, Apple seems to have lost the plot and is chasing money at
all cost with no consideration to its brand or standing in the community and
definitely no consideration towards any moral principles, only chasing the
dollar at any cost.
This whole Apple thermonuclear war strategy does in fact look like a turf war
often seen in movies waged by drug or prostitution cartels. This is not the
movies. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
When I was in high school, I learned that the purpose of the
stock market was to raise capital for a company so that it
could expand, implement new projects, or bring out new
products.
That hasn't been the purpose of the stock market for a long,
long time now. With millisecond trading, options, short
selling and derivative trading, not to mention abuse of junk
bonds, the idea of stock has gotten father and farther
removed from its original purpose.
Corporate performance counts less than meeting the
forecasts. Making money [by the company] is now second place
to making money [for the investor].
Same administration that gutted corporate board
responsibility, removed liability for corporate agents, and
quit enforcing antitrust laws. Way back when.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
"Apple is required to do what it thinks is best for it's
shareholders, if they think this is the best way
to make money... they should do it from that point of view."
But it isn't best for one's shareholders to ruin the brand
reputation of the company. These legal actions could be
profitable in the short run but disastrous in the long run,
if they destroy the loyalty Apple fans have had for so long.
As for "fiduciary responsibility", it isn't necessariy
"maximizing shareholder value" - it is to carry out the
company's mission conveyed to stockholders in what I think
is called the articles of incorporation (IANAL). So if this
document says the company is supposed to maximize value,
that is indeed what they are required to do, but a company
could be sold to shareholders with a more "moral" mission,
so to speak. IIRC Google is required to maintain a neutral
carbon footprint with carbon offsets, even if it costs some
money that would otherwise add to the company's profits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Apple is required to do
what it thinks is best for it's
shareholders, if they think this is the best way
to make money... they should do
it from that point of view.
If the shareholders are who a
company primarily works for, the shareholders are effectively what I would call
customers. The product they buy for money is more money, and the purpose of the
people buying goods or services is to supply that money. Somehow that doesn't
sound like a sustainable economic model to me, and this mentality may well be
part of the worldwide financial crisis. Perhaps we should go back to the old
fashioned idea that a company's purpose is to add value in a market and serve
their customers (buyers of products and services), while shareholders supply
capital and get a fair share of the profits in return. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|