TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.
Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.
Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.
We are in a dystopian future, where cooperate interests trump reporting.
Independence or the free media does not exist anymore, they are all governed by the economic interests of the 1%. Democracy is hereby dead, and nobody is fighting to save it anymore.
Bummer. That’s some weak and feckless megacorp bullshit. Just like something Stewart would cover, which is why this show was such a great power move. And yet? Infinite profit over all else, so never mind.
Look at John Oliver, he talks shit about HBO constantly. Do they care? Nope, because he has more Emmys than anyone could know what to do with. Respect your talent and reap the rewards. Pretty basic stuff, Apple.
The difference is HBO is a media company that largely operates in the US, and Jon Oliver making fun of them isn’t going to hurt their business at all. Apple is a hardware company that also makes media. And selling hardware in China is critical to their business. Since the CCP owns China, they can get their panties in a twist and just ban Apple. Like they did with government devices.
As a publicly owned company they have a legal responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.
Public companies don’t get to take moral stands when there’s money on the line. They legally have to put shareholders first.
Nah, Apple is an ad aggregation company same as Google. They use hardware and software to lock users into their products so they can show them ads and collect their data to make the ads more targeted. In return ad companies pay them to serve ads to their users. That’s how they make money.
~Court precedent. Shareholders have sued and won for corporations “failing to uphold fiduciary responsibilities” and other similar bullshit. So, now it’s baked into corporate culture.~
Update: See reply below. Courts have upheld that corporations have no requirement to seek profits over all else.
It’s frustrating but very much a real thing. You might google “fiduciary duty to shareholders.” Basically, once a company is public, the board has to act in the best interests of the shareholders (which means maximizing returns and/or shareprice.)
This is terrible for the world but pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t help.
You can commit a crime by violating a duty. A common one of which you’ve probably heard is “duty of care” I.e., a doctor can be charged with a crime by not fulfilling their duty of care to a patient.
You’re getting confused or you might not actually understand how companies work, so I’ll break it down.
There is no law forcing a company to profit. (Though Companies are generally formed for that purpose.) A private organization could do whatever it wants within legal bounds. (This is how non profits, charitable foundations etc exist.)
But, what happens next is many companies go “public” by selling shares. In essence, they put a percentage of themselves on the market and people by shares in that company, such that they, legally speaking, own a tiny percentage of that company. Part of that purchase is that the company now has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. As noted before, a duty is a legal concept like assault, negligence etc. And I explained fiduciary duty earlier, you can look through.
Here is kind of a classic example of a company losing a case because its directors breached their fiduciary duty to minority shareholders:
That’s not true. Courts have specifically ruled that maximizing returns is NOT required. The companies do have to consider the best interests of the shareholders, but that does not strictly mean maximizing profits:
I would re-read that article a bit more closely. The point they’re making is that recently there have been developments such that maximizing profits is not seen as the SOLE principle behind decision making above all else.
For example, they cite Hobby Lobby which has Christian practices that doubtless cut into profits but are allowed as part of the company’s mission.
But my apologies, a more accurate phrasing would’ve been duty to shareholders and the company.
Still, unless Apple has a really interesting company charter, annoying a capricious manufacturer of almost everything the company needs that is ALSO one of the world’s largest markets, well, not that tough a multi billion dollar decision.
Cancelled my Apple TV just now. Really enjoyed the show and not a ton of other content on there that actually came with the sub. If I’m going to have to pay anyway and you’re not supporting your good shows then what’s the point.
But I thought Apple was the good guy, looking out for us folk and doing privacy-focused things!
What? That’s just marketing garbage? Nah, surely Apple wouldn’t just be a shitty company just like everyone else. Better buy some more overpriced products to support them!
Has anyone ever really believed that? It became very apparent very quickly that their MO was getting customers to buy only Apple products and then to replace them as often as they could get away with.
Meh, realistically I don’t think Jon does it because he needs money.
He seems like the kind of person who does things because it’s the right thing to do. So taking away his platform isn’t going to make him go away or shut him up.
It might take a while for him to get another one but I’m confident this guy will be on his deathbed telling people in power they suck & should do better.
Nebula is foaming harder. Honestly they should offer him some sort of syndication, getting Stewart on their platform would solidify them as the YouTube replacement.
Why the fuck would you have any loyalty to Apple? They sure as shit don’t have any loyalty to their customers. In fact they piss in the face of their customers and tell them it’s raining.
Hell, they tell them its apple juice and people are swallowing as if their lives depend on it. A few people i know use apple products like the iphone, and then complain when certain software doesn’t run on it. I told them thats why they should have stayed with android. And they just get angry because apparently Android is for poor people?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
i would totally help crowdfund a jon stewart show
We are in a dystopian future, where cooperate interests trump reporting.
Independence or the free media does not exist anymore, they are all governed by the economic interests of the 1%. Democracy is hereby dead, and nobody is fighting to save it anymore.
Democracy offically died in America the day Citizens United was approved by the Supreme Court.
Say it with me everyone - CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
Bummer. That’s some weak and feckless megacorp bullshit. Just like something Stewart would cover, which is why this show was such a great power move. And yet? Infinite profit over all else, so never mind.
Look at John Oliver, he talks shit about HBO constantly. Do they care? Nope, because he has more Emmys than anyone could know what to do with. Respect your talent and reap the rewards. Pretty basic stuff, Apple.
The difference is HBO is a media company that largely operates in the US, and Jon Oliver making fun of them isn’t going to hurt their business at all. Apple is a hardware company that also makes media. And selling hardware in China is critical to their business. Since the CCP owns China, they can get their panties in a twist and just ban Apple. Like they did with government devices.
As a publicly owned company they have a legal responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.
Public companies don’t get to take moral stands when there’s money on the line. They legally have to put shareholders first.
Nah, Apple is an ad aggregation company same as Google. They use hardware and software to lock users into their products so they can show them ads and collect their data to make the ads more targeted. In return ad companies pay them to serve ads to their users. That’s how they make money.
Where’d did this “legal responsibility to maximize profit” bullshit come form?
There is no such law, an no entity to enforce the responsibility.
~Court precedent. Shareholders have sued and won for corporations “failing to uphold fiduciary responsibilities” and other similar bullshit. So, now it’s baked into corporate culture.~
Update: See reply below. Courts have upheld that corporations have no requirement to seek profits over all else.
It’s frustrating but very much a real thing. You might google “fiduciary duty to shareholders.” Basically, once a company is public, the board has to act in the best interests of the shareholders (which means maximizing returns and/or shareprice.)
This is terrible for the world but pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t help.
Duty ≠ law
Duty is a legal concept, silly Billy.
You can commit a crime by violating a duty. A common one of which you’ve probably heard is “duty of care” I.e., a doctor can be charged with a crime by not fulfilling their duty of care to a patient.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/breach-of-duty/
I almost want to look up confidently incorrect. Just maybe learn from this and try googling when you are unfamiliar with a term, you look less silly!
Show me what law enforcers a company to profit.
You’re getting confused or you might not actually understand how companies work, so I’ll break it down.
There is no law forcing a company to profit. (Though Companies are generally formed for that purpose.) A private organization could do whatever it wants within legal bounds. (This is how non profits, charitable foundations etc exist.)
But, what happens next is many companies go “public” by selling shares. In essence, they put a percentage of themselves on the market and people by shares in that company, such that they, legally speaking, own a tiny percentage of that company. Part of that purchase is that the company now has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. As noted before, a duty is a legal concept like assault, negligence etc. And I explained fiduciary duty earlier, you can look through.
Here is kind of a classic example of a company losing a case because its directors breached their fiduciary duty to minority shareholders:
https://casetext.com/case/ebay-domestic-holdings-v-newmark
That’s not true. Courts have specifically ruled that maximizing returns is NOT required. The companies do have to consider the best interests of the shareholders, but that does not strictly mean maximizing profits:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
I would re-read that article a bit more closely. The point they’re making is that recently there have been developments such that maximizing profits is not seen as the SOLE principle behind decision making above all else.
For example, they cite Hobby Lobby which has Christian practices that doubtless cut into profits but are allowed as part of the company’s mission.
But my apologies, a more accurate phrasing would’ve been duty to shareholders and the company.
Still, unless Apple has a really interesting company charter, annoying a capricious manufacturer of almost everything the company needs that is ALSO one of the world’s largest markets, well, not that tough a multi billion dollar decision.
Apple is pretty reliant on China for other aspects of their business though. HBO doesn’t make phones.
Sorry, Jon. This country is owned.
Cancelled my Apple TV just now. Really enjoyed the show and not a ton of other content on there that actually came with the sub. If I’m going to have to pay anyway and you’re not supporting your good shows then what’s the point.
Sad to see for Jon Stewart.
Its okay I hear the daily show is looking for a new host
But I thought Apple was the good guy, looking out for us folk and doing privacy-focused things!
What? That’s just marketing garbage? Nah, surely Apple wouldn’t just be a shitty company just like everyone else. Better buy some more overpriced products to support them!
Money talks
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/23450967/apple-airdrop-limited-china-goverment-protests
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/07/apple-made-secret-5-year-275b-deal-with-chinese-government
https://thehackernews.com/2021/05/how-apple-gave-chinese-government.html?m=1
Has anyone ever really believed that? It became very apparent very quickly that their MO was getting customers to buy only Apple products and then to replace them as often as they could get away with.
Apple has always sucked Winnie’s balls.
Because we all know how easy it is to silence Jon Stewart.
Something tells me he could get more funding for a show with a gofundme than Apple+ is authorized to spend.
deleted by creator
Someone thought Apple was being altruistic by hosting Stewart’s show? What the hell would you think that for?
Meh, realistically I don’t think Jon does it because he needs money.
He seems like the kind of person who does things because it’s the right thing to do. So taking away his platform isn’t going to make him go away or shut him up.
It might take a while for him to get another one but I’m confident this guy will be on his deathbed telling people in power they suck & should do better.
We need more people like him
Paramount is foaming at the mouth.
Nebula is foaming harder. Honestly they should offer him some sort of syndication, getting Stewart on their platform would solidify them as the YouTube replacement.
Now he and Hassam can start a new show.
Vaush, Hasan, and Stewart. They can bring back a better version of Crossfire.
Insert South Park Disney Mickey Mouse China meme
Big props to John for walking away.
Why the fuck would you have any loyalty to Apple? They sure as shit don’t have any loyalty to their customers. In fact they piss in the face of their customers and tell them it’s raining.
Hell, they tell them its apple juice and people are swallowing as if their lives depend on it. A few people i know use apple products like the iphone, and then complain when certain software doesn’t run on it. I told them thats why they should have stayed with android. And they just get angry because apparently Android is for poor people?