Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jan 2017 13:43 UTC
In the News

Alphabet Inc.'s Google delivered a sharp message to staff travelling overseas who may be impacted by a new executive order on immigration from President Donald Trump: Get back to the U.S. now.

Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai slammed Trump's move in a note to employees Friday, telling them that more than 100 company staff are affected by the order.

The Trump regime's measures also impact the visa program for, among other long-time US allies, The Netherlands. Did anyone tell the Trump regime that it's a very bad idea to make it harder for your third largest investor to, uh, actually invest? Are these men really that dumb?

Interesting to note, though, that Google had to be actually impacted by the Trump regime before it spoke up (only in an internal memo, but still). Meanwhile, Elon Musk is kissing the ground Trump walks on, and Tim Cook, CEO of the most arrogantly and smugly (supposedly) liberal tech company is meeting with Trump, Trump's daughter (...?) and other Republican leaders. From other tech giants who always touted the liberal horn of equality and progressiveness - a deafening, but quite revealing, silence.

So far, it seems like the tech industry leaders are opting for appeasement instead of resistance to the Trump regime's corruption, conflicts of interest, racism, war on science, and Christian extremism. I would be disappointed if it wasn't so utterly predictable to anyone who wasn't blinded by the fake smiles, hollow promises, and empty praise of equality, science, and progressive ideals.

They still have time to be remembered as people who stood up for those that need it the most. I'm afraid, though, we will remember them as spineless cowards, hiding behind shareholders while the free world crumbles to dust.

I hope it'll be worth it.

Permalink for comment 640546
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Trump / Apple
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 2nd Feb 2017 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Trump / Apple"
Member since:


"I'm far from being the biggest Jobs fan, but I think that he and Trump are worlds apart - despite the superficial similarities. Jobs was practically the embodiment of every "American Dream" cliche there is: the son of an immigrant who started one of the world's most successful companies from his parent's garage. Trump, in contrast, was handed a huge fortune & real estate empire as inheritance.

Jobs also has, IMO, a much better track record as a businessman. Jobs took his largest business failure (getting ousted from Apple) and eventually turned that around through NeXT's effective reverse-takeover of Apple & proceeded lead the company to the most successful period in its history.

Sure I can agree that trump is overrated in every way. He likes to pretend he built wealth from scratch, but there's hardly any evidence he'd be special if he didn't have the family wealth to start with and fall back on during his many failures.

That said, sometimes steve jobs got too much credit too. That's the thing, steve jobs fans like to give him enormous credit, but it doesn't necessarily follow that apple only did well exclusively because of him.

I agree that he's often given too much credit, I'm not one of those folks who treats Jobs as if he had personal, hands-on involvement in every aspect of every Apple product released during his tenure. And I know of several instances where Apple succeeded despite Jobs, rather than because of him: E.g. Jobs initially tried to sabotage the Macintosh project, because he saw it as competition to his pet-project, the Lisa - had he succeeded, Apple may very well have ended up the same was as Atari & Commodore.

Apple's sales went up significantly under Sculley after Job's departure and continued to go up significantly. I don't know where to find it now, but there was a graph that showed just how well apple did under Sculley.

Yeah, the Sculley years were decent - as a techy, I personally prefer the pre-Jobs return Macs to the post-return models. That didn't really continue through the Gil Amelio years, though - Apple was in pretty bad shape by the late 90s. I was at MacWorld '96 in Boston, the atmosphere resembled a store in the final hours of its going-out-of-business sale.

Still, many people like to give steve jobs all the credit for it, even the five years he wasn't there. Here's the thing though, a lot of people who make it into lucrative positions are never challenged to repeat it because they don't have to. Thus it makes it genuinely hard to determine how much was really luck & timing versus a unique skill.

Oh yeah, there are all sort of ways that things could have gone differently, especially if the opportunity to be purchased/take over Apple hadn't presented itself - E.g. if Be hadn't held out for more money than Apple was willing to pay, or if Apple's earlier internal attempts to replace MacOS had succeeded.

And there's some details of Jobs' return to Apple that are a little sketchy - reportedly he helped drive down Apple's stock price shortly before his return, by selling off a large amount of his shares (done anonymously at the time & only revealed later). But even that I think is an interesting illustration of the differences between Jobs and Trump: when Jobs screwed people over and bent the rules to achieve his goals, he was at least usually successful in those goals - while Trump has a history screwing people over and bending the rules too, he still managed to fail at most business ventures.

Reply Parent Score: 2