The behavior of Apple

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

By the way, "I used to like you but you broke my secret rules so now I don't" belongs in Barrens chat, not in a mature discussion.

[jhempel24]

Every post n this thread was great unto I read world walkers. That was just disgusting. Why can't a company do something right because its the right thing?

This was a very human reaction when having such a high a spot in the community. Its about people helping people in need. Not hmmmm....we should help them but only because its good for business.

Im not an apple fan, I don't like the product or what the company has turned into, but this story proclves that even Apple knows when its time to stop being a business and be a place that can truly help people.

Thanks for the post OP.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Im not an apple fan, I don't like the product or what the company has turned into, but this story proclves that even Apple knows when its time to stop being a business and be a place that can truly help people.

If they stopped "being a business", why didn't they give away battery packs rather than sell them? Why didn't they also let other people sleep inside the store, rather than have them stay outside?

Taustin's post explained things very well: Apple did not lose out by doing what they did, and they actually gained. That doesn't detract from what they did being a nice gesture, but it doesn't mean that the gesture was purely altruistic.

[jhempel24]

Wow that was incredibly short sighted. They gave them the means to charge their stuff, which is tue same thing. They would have had to charge the new ones anyway. As far as the others, you have to ddraw a line somewhere, letting them sleep there using their free widow and electricitry isn't terrible.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Wow that was incredibly short sighted. They gave them the means to charge their stuff, which is tue same thing. They would have had to charge the new ones anyway. As far as the others, you have to ddraw a line somewhere, letting them sleep there using their free widow and electricitry isn't terrible.

It also means that they didn't "stop being a business". They were simply a business that made a nice gesture, with that gesture also benefiting Apple.

The only thing genuinely 'giving' is offering to cover the expenses of employees who wanted to try to get home. But as DixieGal said, in the second post: "I hope this is true."

As I said, though, it doesn't stop it from being a nice gesture from a company. It means the gesture wasn't purely altruistic.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

(Buncha naive, hateful drive snipped for brevity

Guess you missed the part where I explained that you can't fake caring. If their sole motivation is money, people will figure it out, especially their own employees. Really. People are pretty smart about that sort of thing.

You seem to have a real issue with the idea that doing the right thing can be a good business decision. And that doesn't make it any less the right thing to do. That's said world to live in.

(And I say this as someone who has little use for Apple or its products. I've always found Apple's business practices to be more than a little douche-baggy, in the way they treat their customers, and now, developers for their app store. But in this case, they've clearly stepped up, good business or not, and good for them.)

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Every post n this thread was great unto I read world walkers. That was just disgusting. Why can't a company do something right because its the right thing?

Because that's not what they're in business to do. Companies are expected to do something right because it benefits their owners -- including the fractional owners called stockholders. If they do otherwise -- if they harm their own business -- then they're not meeting that fiduciary requirement, and (depending on conditions and jurisdiction) possibly violating the law. There have been shareholder lawsuits over bad decisions intended to benefit the company; it would be financial suicide to make decisions intended to harm it.

This was a very human reaction when having such a high a spot in the community. Its about people helping people in need. Not hmmmm....we should help them but only because its good for business.

How can you tell?

Apple did what was good for Apple. Yes, it was also good for other people. But I maintain that they would not have done something that was good for other people but harmful to Apple. They will make back what they spent on staff hours and electricity a hundred times over in increased sales.

Im not an apple fan, I don't like the product or what the company has turned into, but this story proclves that even Apple knows when its time to stop being a business and be a place that can truly help people.

When did they stop being a business?

I see nothing but them being a business -- being a legal, practical, and profitable business -- in the whole story.

Let's look it over, section by section:

First, the author is an Apple employee, and presumably not a disgruntled one. So he's probably going to tell the story in a way that makes Apple look the best. It's important to take that into account.

Next, the actions in question:

Employees led the customers to safe places. That's standard procedure in earthquake-prone areas. When I worked for a retailer in an area which is known for earthquakes, we were taught the same thing.

They set up surge protectors with iStuff charging devices so people could charge their Apple products. That's just treating their customers well so that they will continue to be customers. Any good company does this. Customers are a business asset. You have to buy them (advertising, etc.). If you use up the ones you have, it costs you more to buy new ones. Smart companies keep the customers they already have. Apple is a smart company.

When they closed up, they left their wi-fi network accessible. Well, um, so does Staples; I've used theirs from my netbook at all hours of night. Maybe they normally shut it down when they go home for the night, maybe they leave it up, I don't know. But I do know that it's not a crippling burden on Apple to leave their access point running.

Note: When I first read that post, the update about letting the employees sleep at the stores, or putting them up in hotels, was not (to my knowledge) yet present. Checking the post again for this summary, I just read that for the first time. I would have been less harsh about Apple if that had been there (or if I had read it) the first time through. Now, thanks to people like jhempel calling me names, I don't really have that option. I should, therefore, point out one quote: "...and that they would write off on it all." In the long run, it's all just a business expense to Apple. Still, I would like to have said "Apple did better than I would have expected." The insults removed that as an option. I'm not sure that's to Apple's benefit.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

A company kept its stores open late to serve its customers, and in the process introduced its products to many prospective customers.

I don't see the mind-blowing charity here. Just a business doing business in a time of opportunity.

It's both - they were doing good AND potentially gaining new customers. Who ultimately cares about the motive, as long as it helped people?

I have a personal story that is much less dramatic: we had some severe power outages a couple years ago, and my husband and I, without heat for several days, went to Panera (power thanks to a generator) to hang out where it was warm and eat some warm food. The manager/employees all stayed late and let us (and many other people from our neighborhood) stay. I really appreciated that. But let's not chide anyone here, in addition to just being "good" socially, it also generated business. And I still tend to purchase from that Panera just because of how well they treated me that one night.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by CallOfCth'reader

If they stopped "being a business", why didn't they give away battery packs rather than sell them? Why didn't they also let other people sleep inside the store, rather than have them stay outside?

Taustin's post explained things very well: Apple did not lose out by doing what they did, and they actually gained. That doesn't detract from what they did being a nice gesture, but it doesn't mean that the gesture was purely altruistic.

Spot on.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by taustin

You seem to have a real issue with the idea that doing the right thing can be a good business decision. And that doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.

I never said it was. I said they made their decisions for business reasons, and they should be looked at as decisions made for business reasons. I never said those decisions (by any company) couldn't also be the right thing to do.

Customers, at least smart ones, look at their return on investment the same as businesses do. Should I shop here where the prices are cheaper, or there where the guy who owns the place helps me out? (people who use the help from #2 and buy at #1 are parasites) In neither case is the business making their decision for altruistic reasons. In one case, the business thinks that lower prices will bring in more customers, and their total profit would be higher than it would be with a higher per-unit profit but fewer sales. In the other, the business thinks that personal service will bring in more customers, and their sales will increase while keeping up the higher per-unit profit. They don't lower prices because they like you; they do it because they like your money. And they don't help you out because they like you, either; they help you out because people they help spend more money. In either case, they're trying to predict how the customers will want to maximize their ROI, and position themselves to be the business that provides what the customers are looking for.

What I don't get is why people seem to find this so shocking. This is nothing new. It undoubtedly predates Homo sapiens, back to when some erectus swapped a sharpened stick for a deerskin. It may not be comforting to think that business decisions are made for business reasons, and "we do it all for you" is just marketing, but they are, and it is. There's nothing hateful about saying that businesses make decisions based on what will help them rather than harm them.

Do you not decide where you will spend your money based on the benefits you expect to see from it? For instance, if you choose to patronize a local store rather than a big chain, don't you do so in expectation of personal service, or just having that local business present to keep the area around it vibrant? Or, on the other hand, if you choose to patronize a big chain, don't you do so because you can buy more of what you need for the same amount of money, and maybe have some left over to do other things you want with? You don't say "well, I think doing this is really bad for me, and I won't get any benefit out of it, but I'll do it anyway." That would be crazy. We're not crazy. Neither is Apple.

There's nothing hateful about it; just acceptance of the fact that there aren't any rainbow unicorns, and rational people do things for rational reasons. Businesses make the best decisions they can for their business, just like individuals make decisions that benefit those individuals. The big difference is that individuals have a lot more freedom to make decisions that benefit themselves in intangible ways (feeling good about their contribution to society, for instance) while businesses are constrained to produce benefits that can be shown on a balance sheet and printed in the annual report.

I mentioned at one point charitable donation as something that individuals do because they feel good about doing it. That's an intangible benefit. Would you give money to a charity if you hated yourself for it? If every time you thought about it, you wished you hadn't done it? Obviously not. Certainly not more than once. You give money or time to charities because you're buying something from them: you're buying good feelings. You think "I'm glad I did that" and that feeling of happiness is worth as much or more to you than the money or time it cost you. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have done it. For a lot of people, it isn't worth the cost, and they donate nothing.

I really have to wonder, why the insults? Why the mud-slinging? I've said that a business made a good business decision, and their decisions in general are made for business reasons, and a lot of people want to take issue with that. What would the alternative be? Should someone praise Apple for making a bad business decision? (Apple Lisa, anyone?) Are there people really arguing that this action -- which has gotten them very good publicity, I might point out -- was a bad idea? Or that it will hurt Apple in the long run?

Seriously, I'm asking: how does pointing out that a business made a business decision for business reasons justify the level of vitriol that has been flung my way?

Originally Posted by queentess

And I still tend to purchase from that Panera just because of how well they treated me that one night.

A number of years ago, a printer I owned stripped its little plastic gears. HP troubleshot it on the phone, than said "the FedEx guy will be there tomorrow morning." He was. They swapped out my printer. HP has since sold me a scanner, another printer, a computer (well, not for me, but I made the buying decision) and entirely too much printer ink. They did right by me, so I figure it's good to buy stuff from them instead of someone who might or might not be there when a printer eats its gears. And I've told many people who wanted advice on electronics purchases why I like HP. They made out like bandits from that printer swap. Which was exactly the point. They didn't swap my dead printer for a working one because it was the right thing to do; they did because there was a good chance that I'd tell other people "yeah, those guys at HP did right by me." Which I just did. It's good business.

[jhempel24]

Prove their decision was pure business. That's how you are coming off. Anything you say is just speculation. I lean on thebside of human beings in their most dire state are generally good. You seem to skew the other way.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Prove their decision was pure business. That's how you are coming off. Anything you say is just speculation. I lean on thebside of human beings in their most dire state are generally good. You seem to skew the other way.

Prove their decision was pure altruism. That's how you are coming off. Anything you say is just speculation.

We are all just expressing what we believe, which is speculation for all of us.

I lean on the side of human beings, in their most dire straits, being generally good as long as it doesn't endanger them or their loved ones.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Prove their decision was pure business. That's how you are coming off. Anything you say is just speculation. I lean on thebside of human beings in their most dire state are generally good. You seem to skew the other way.

There are human beings, and there are businesses -- which, despite being "corporate persons" are not the same thing.

Natural persons have the freedom to do things which bring them solely intangible benefits. Donating to charity, for example, makes a person happy. Or it makes me happy, anyway, and I can't see why anyone would do it if it made them unhappy, so I have to assume I'm typical in that way. Businesses, on the other hand, have to make, and increase, their profits. Any benefits they get from their decisions have to go somewhere on that profit & loss statement. You can count something as advertising, or even employee morale boosting (on the theory that happy employees will work harder) but there's nowhere to put "because it's the right thing to do." "Right" and "wrong" don't enter into it. "Legal" and "illegal", which are not necessarily the same thing, do.

Take, for example, a small hydro power station which used a particular lubricant. The fellow in charge of engineering wanted to switch to a variety which was much less hazardous to the environment. However, the stuff he wanted cost more. The managers would not approve it because he wanted to trade an intangible benefit (less environmental harm from the inevitable leaks) for a tangible cost (a higher price for the lubricant). The stuff they were using was legal, so whether it was right or wrong didn't enter into it; it was legal, and it was cheaper. The decision they made was bad for ... well, everyone but the stockholders ... but it was legal, so they went with it.

I have no reason to doubt that the people who work in those Apple stores are, as you said, generally good. Most people are, and Japan in particular seems to encourage that behavior. But that's them as individuals, when they have the freedom to seek intangible benefits. That is, again, a freedom that individuals have but businesses do not. And when they are making decisions on behalf of Apple, they are making decisions as a representative of a business, with all the constraints that implies, rather than with the greater freedom of an individual. They are making business, not personal, decisions.

(incidentally, the engineer did some work on his own time and found figures to prove that if there was a major leak, the stuff they were using would cost more to clean up and tick off the people in the area far more, causing the power plant additional permit costs, impeding expansion, etc. He got his goo)

[Penforhire]

Nothing wrong with a win-win situation.

[leebase]

People see what they want to see. Myself, I was encouraged to hear of ANY company stepping up and helping out. They employees could have gone home to take care of their own, but they didn't. Apple leaders said "stay or go home as you see fit and if you need to stay in a hotel, do so, on us". I'd like to think my company would have done the same, but I've worked for others that I KNOW would not.

This isn't a company saying "buy out product and we'll donate a (tiny fraction) to a cause". This is a company who's employees stepped up big in a bad situation because it was the right thing to do, and who's management stood behind them and supported them because it was the right thing to do.

I'm sure the Android phone owners who were welcomed in to charge and share the wifi will remain Android phone owners...or that the possibility of changing their minds was the furthest motivation in why the Apple employees helped.

Lee