And Steve Job's Apple was an ethical company because... he pushed people to produce sleek devices? Which is fine, but then I'd propose that growing the company was ethical because it helped retirement portfolios and employed lots of people. The only Apple product I own is a prime-day deal Beats Pill, but I'm not going to claim that Apple grew because of bribes. People do seem to love their products, in ways I find irrational sometimes.

> And Steve Job's Apple was an ethical company because...

Did I say that?

Yep, Cooks new role is essentially lobbyist.

I'm not going to argue your wants with you because they are your own. Don't buy Apple products if you don't like the way they operate as a company. I don't particularly care for appeasing the administration, either, but it's not like Cook broke the system, so I'm not going to dance on his retirement over it.

Where can I get my gold bar, please?

I like Apple's products. I just purchased an iPhone 17 Pro. It does not mean I cannot still criticize them because of their monopolistic practices.

I was doing Apple support since 1995, I saw how they changed.

I mean, they certainly would never have given Trump a gold bar to forgive this case now, would they?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/tech/apple-sued-antitrust-doj...

> I want ethical companies

This will never exist.

We should want regulated and lawful companies, which we don't have right now.

> I want ethical companies that grow because of good products, not because of market capture and bribes.

Then avoid becoming a customer/user of companies that grew because of market capture or bribes.

Why do you think they got most of their components exempted from tarrifs?

I'm aware of the open bribery by the administration. That has nothing to do with my comment.

Right, and without that open bribery they would have had 100% tarrifs on all of their iphones, macbooks and semiconductors, which is an overwhelming portion of their revenue.

Now obviously, this only covers a small portion of Tim's reign over apple, but is it not fair to say you'd have a different overall view of his tenure if he was an honest businessman and ate the tarrifs like he was supposed to, probably tanking the stock in the process?

I would probably have a stronger gripe with the ridiculousness of the tariffs than Tim Cook's refusal to bribe the president. Also, to say that not bribing would make him an "honest businessman" is slightly unfair. He has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and if he is aware that lobbying to the president personally to avoid tariffs is what it takes to avoid tanking Apple's profit and share price, he is required to do that.