upvote
If you think Ternus wouldn't do it, you are in for a bad time.
reply
Well, I hope I'm not, but yes, I will be quite disappointed if so.
reply
Apple is a multi-trillion dollar public company.

It would be unusual for a leader of such a thing not act in accordance w/ shareholders' best interests, as well to defy likely board guidance.

reply
Most shareholders may not care beyond the next quarter, but CEO action that led to those results were made couple of years ago at least, and current action will do as much to determine not the next quarter, but one slightly further in the future. Hence Jamie Dimon, for example, making a different decision in a similar matter. As Dimon explained: “[…] we have to be very careful about how anything is perceived, and also how the next DOJ is going to deal with it. So, we’re quite conscious of risks we bear by doing anything that looks like buying favors or anything like that”[1].

---

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/business/video/jp-morgan-chas...

reply
“Capitulating to the current regime on everything is in shareholder’s best interests” is neither a foregone conclusion nor a statement of fact. It’s economic myopia at best.
reply
Let me be clear - I'm not happy about it. But ignoring such a reality reminds me of that quote comparing Job's best friend to a lawnmower.

That said, I'd love to enlightened to how it's myopic, or rather, what course(s) of action you would take, keeping in mind that Apple is a multi-trillion dollar public company.

reply
I’m telling you that thinking a->b is myopic. It could be that shareholder value would’ve been higher had Tim Cook told Trump (or Biden, or Trump, or Obama) to go fuck himself. Perhaps the people who spend money on iPhones, specifically, would’ve been more inclined to buy a new iProduct, than they are now that he’s bent the knee.

Myopia is thinking “well he did it so it must have been good”. There are myriad other things he could’ve done, that have a strong argument towards higher shareholder value.

Edit to add: Think TSLA, if you want a concrete example. If that stock was at all trading on fundamentals (and if they had a remotely capable or competent board) and not Magic Memes, Musk’s hard right pivot was inarguably bad for the brand and shareholder value, even if it made the President temporarily happy.

reply
Counterfactuals are weak opinion, at best.

Given that Apple is doing well, the onus is on someone claiming that Apple would have done better, having a strong argument.

Not "could" have done better, because things could obviously have gone better, worse, or anything else, given any substantive or random difference. Could means nothing.

(And I say this as someone very disappointed with how Cook handled that.)

reply
I’d rather hear from someone suggesting, counterfactually, that they would have done worse had they not capitulated. What’s that argument like?
reply
My condolences in advance
reply
Wouldn’t Ternus have had a hand in the Apple Silicon backdoor?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003230

reply
Unlikely and it also doesn’t really seem like a backdoor
reply
It's less than the other tech CEOs who seem to evade criticism on HN. Elon literally worked for Trump, accomplished nothing, and ended up just leaking everyone's social security data. Thiel and Palantir are profiting from war and building out the surveillance state. Bezos made a $75M documentary about Melania. Larry Ellison took over TikTok US to squelch any criticism of US and Zionist war atrocities.
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply