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.

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.

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.