this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
385 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

87788 readers
4591 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

End your legacy more like; he's been at Apple for a bloody long time

[–] ulkesh@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I meant legacy as CEO. But yeah, he seemed competent. Now he seems like all the rest of them -- spineless.

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I mean, maybe that decision wasn't really his? Sounds like it could've been Tim Apple's last minute order to do everything his majesty world leader supreme wants.

The article isn't clear on that, I wouldn't write off Johnny just yet.

[–] ulkesh@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

He’s the CEO now. It makes no difference what Cook may or may not have done in his final days.

Ternus is allowing this to happen or he directed it to happen. Either way, he’s spineless because he won’t tell Trump to fuck off. If he changes course in the near future, then my opinion will change. But they kept the stupid name change of the gulf, they’ll likely keep this as well.

And to the people who would say “well what choice does he have?” That’s a form of appeasement. And I seem to remember some kind of history where that didn’t work out too well for business and government appeasing a dictator.

[–] veekz@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago

Eh, his calculus was likely the following:

  • Trump has in the past threatened economic or financial penalties over minor, and major, disagreements
  • Trump is in his last term, so he likely isn’t concerned with the political, legal, etc. ramifications of his actions
  • Apple, as a company, still manufactures the majority of its product lines outside the US
  • Trump is still trying to use tariffs in the US to manipulate markets and force business actions
  • Either I capitulate and save Apple from potentially billions in fiscal pain and / or years of legal representation to fight said pain, or make this change and avoid all of it
  • The cost of this capitulation is mostly a PR / company image issue + plus dev time to implement the change, versus a very real monetary loss

I don’t agree with his decision, but given the options available I do agree trying to keep the peace with the vindictive, unstable world leader of Apple’s largest market is in their best interest.