Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:13 UTC
Apple Well, this is an interesting double standard. Remember Apple's reaction to Palm trying to tap into iTunes? They were pretty pissed, right? Well, it seems that in Apple's world, it's not okay to access their services unauthorised, but when Apple needs to do the same to someone else's services, it's suddenly not a problem. As it turns out, Apple violated Facebook's terms of service, knowingly, and willingly.
Thread beginning with comment 439267
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hypocrisy?
by Zenpsycho on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:24 UTC
Zenpsycho
Member since:
2010-09-03

Isn't it a bit nonsensical to apply traditional interpersonal ethics to a corporation? Corporations are legally and ethically obligated to optimise shareholder profit by any means. The whole concept of the golden rule, and hypocrisy doesn't make any sense at all within that moral framework.

In addition, it's a bit fallacious to conflate Apple with Steve Jobs himself. As fascistic and totalitarian as Jobs is, he's only one guy and can't be personally involved in EVERY single little decision that apple makes, and even if he was involved, he would be bound by his legal obligations as the CEO of a corporation, regardless of whatever his personal views or ethics might be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hypocrisy?
by WereCatf on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:30 in reply to "Hypocrisy?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Corporations are legally and ethically obligated to optimise shareholder profit by any means.

Actually incorrect. There is no law against running a company poorly and producing no income to the shareholders as long as shareholders themselves are happy. Of course the shareholders will want as high income as possible, but the law doesn't actually require you to do anything possible to ensure that.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hypocrisy?
by Zenpsycho on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:36 in reply to "RE: Hypocrisy?"
Zenpsycho Member since:
2010-09-03

I'll give you that since I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't really invalidate my point. Apple's obligations are to the shareholders, not to Palm or Facebook.

Edited 2010-09-03 04:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1