cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228

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.

  • @BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2642 years ago

    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.

    • @Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Whatisawaffle
        link
        fedilink
        137
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        “Public companies…legally have to put shareholders first.”

        I thought this too, but it is apparently a myth.

        "There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false.

        To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

        https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

          • @darmabum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            182 years ago

            well-being of the business…ahead of well-being of his employees.

            Hey, I mean, like, corporations are people too, man.

            • @SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              162 years ago

              So corporations too should have to go to jail if they break the law. Or in this case close down the building and not perform any commercial activity for a certain time

              • Arghblarg
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Funny how that worked out huh? All the benefits of personhood, but none of the downsides, like mortality, having to pay fair taxes, incarceration for crimes, possible death penalty for killing citizens …

                • @OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  42 years ago

                  That is literally the whole point of corporations, they’re designed to allow people to take more risk. Business law 101.

                  (If you grossly abuse it, they will “pierce the corporate veil” and arrest those responsible, but again, that’s only if you’re grossly abusing it)

              • @nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Still a sticky problem from labor’s perspective, unless the corporate time-out includes salary and healthcare payments. Maybe except the C suite?

                But then you might as well keep the company open (Unless it is currently doing harm), and throw the directors in jail.

                I always understood stock investing as assuming the risk something like that could happen (I’d a director fucks up, you lose, or vote him out of the job). But now that all of our retirement is tied to the fucking thing it can’t work that way.

        • nfh
          link
          fedilink
          English
          282 years ago

          Specifically, the thing that is wrong is the idea that the only way to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders is to maximize profit. They have a legal obligation to put their shareholders’ interest first, and maximizing short term profit is not the only way to do this. Benefit corps give some of their revenue to a cause, sometimes companies invest in long-term stability or profitability.

          • kirklennon
            link
            fedilink
            212 years ago

            It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.

            • eric
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              So bizarre that companies are capable of believing in gods.

        • @TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Lol try being a CEO and answering to your shareholders about how you’re not trying to maximize profits and growth. Like it may not be legally required but you’re kind of required to just by the nature of the role itself.

      • kirklennon
        link
        fedilink
        28
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        It was put to an actual shareholder vote. The individual shareholders voted yes because he was overpaying. The board was fundamentally irrelevant.

      • @Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        262 years ago

        Where’d did this “legal responsibility to maximize profit” bullshit come form?

        There is no such law, an no entity to enforce the responsibility.

        • @Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          ~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.

        • @Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          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.

            • @Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -12 years ago

              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.

            • @Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -12 years ago

              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!

                • @Lauchs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  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

      • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

  • @zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1602 years ago

    definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform

    You are either paying the subscription or not, your inner states mean nothing to them or us.

    • @UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I can think of an old great daily news show that still doesnt have a permanent host… please!!!..

      Or run for president.

      • @Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        462 years ago

        I’ve been saying, “Stewart for President” for decades now. He is perfect for the job. He would never want that job, which I just see as further qualification.

        • @Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          232 years ago

          He fought congress for two fucking decades for 9/11 first responders and the families to get paid, he comes more than prepared to every talk, and he’s not afraid to shut someone down and call out bullshit.

          I’d say he’s over qualified for work in politics

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            232 years ago

            Ukraine got their version of Jon Stewart to become their president and he’s successfully fighting off a Russian invasion. Sounds like an endorsement to me.

        • @FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 years ago

          It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it… anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job

          Let’s just kidnap Jon and pressgang him into the Oval Office. He’d be the best president since that peanut farmer, maybe better

        • Pxtl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -12
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Back when he was hosting the Daily Show? Yes. Now? I’ve watched his show a bit and… I think he went a little nuts on that farm of his.

          He sounds like vegan Joe Rogan now. Too much conspiracy, too much long anticapitalist ranting while his guests sit awkwardly and say “uh, okay”.

          He’s a good guy and what he did for 9/11 first responders was amazing, but he’s not the man he used to be.

    • maegul (he/they)OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Well sure, point is producing Stewart’s show was a notable choice that indicated favourable things about the platform/studio.

  • @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1072 years ago

    reduces my loyalty to the platform

    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.

    • Troy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      No, but they have at least two good sci fi series.

      • @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Yeah I’m not gonna lie, their streaming platform is incredible but I ain’t giving them any money LOL

        • @Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          They have one or two good shows, but it’s a HUGE stretch to claim the entire offering is “incredible”.

          I’ve gotten it for free through tmobile for over a year now, and it’s the least used platform I subscribe to.

    • @RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -12 years ago

      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?

  • @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    94
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Insert South Park Disney Mickey Mouse China meme

    Big props to John for walking away.

    • @AdamHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      How did Apple not see this coming up as future conflict with it’s talent. Its almost like they didn’t watch the fucking show, or the causes he devoted himself to after retiring. It’s a rare thing I know, but not everyone can be bought. His entire platform that he’s built up over the years, would have collapsed if he had pulled a John Cena.

  • @0xb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    922 years ago

    Let this be the regular reminder that any time that a gigantic for profit corporation seems to be doing the right thing it’s a mere coincidence and they are following their bottom line. The moment those two depart, they will look after their bottom line right thing be damned. There are no moral corporations.

    Maybe those good things they do while are convenient to them are moral and bring real benefits and can be followed and celebrated, but ultimately they are a convenient mask to trick customers. So don’t ever be loyal to a brand, be loyal to principles.

  • BargsimBoyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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!

  • @OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    812 years ago

    Canceling Apple TV over this, knew they were spineless, but this is pathetic since it’s one of the few shows I watch on it. Growing really tired of all these service subscriptions as it is.

    • @littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Same. This is my 3rd to last subscription. The ones left standing are Spotify and Shonen Jump. Because they still deliver what they are supposed to without bullshit.

    • @AdamHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I had Netflix and then cancelled it as a cost saving measure during COVID. I also have Prime which I never even bother with, because of it’s fucking format. I wound up with an early sub to YouTube because I got completely enthralled with Time Team. I found that it pretty much has everything I want to watch. I never thought that would’ve happened because I initially considered YT a lower tier service.

  • @Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    792 years ago

    Damn that’s a real shame, no surprise Jon walked out. That man actually has standards, he don’t need the money he was there because he cared and wanted to put out a positive voice that analyzed the bullshit we all have to deal with and his platform enabled that perfectly, just like his work for vets and burn pits.

    I hope he transitions elsewhere but keeps the content as-is

  • @foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    692 years ago

    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.

  • Nine
    link
    fedilink
    English
    652 years ago

    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

  • @Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    602 years ago

    There is something particularly amusing and very ironic that a mega-corp like Apple, the most valuable company in the world, is standing up to defend a communist dictatorship and won’t accept any dissent.

  • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Grayox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      412 years ago

      Democracy offically died in America the day Citizens United was approved by the Supreme Court.

  • @Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    552 years ago

    According to The Hollywood Reporter, ahead of its decision to end The Problem, Apple approached Stewart directly and expressed its need for the host and his team to be “aligned” with the company’s views on topics discussed. Rather than falling in line when Apple threatened to cancel the show, Stewart reportedly decided to walk.

    Good for Jon Stewart. He held the line even when the money people demanded that he compromise. Maybe a VP pic. I could see it.

    • @variaatio@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      He is successful enough, old enough and made enough money, that he can just retire. Threatening him is an empty threat. He is 60 and probably given his long career earned more than he can spend in rest of his life, unless he goes super yacht and private jet crazy.

      The whole show was a come back from retirement essentially. A voluntary indulgence on his part. Surely lucrative indulgence, but indulgence still. Apple needed him, he didn’t need Apple.

      Most of the crew probably will leave for other project with a letter of recommendation from John in their pocket.

  • @timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    492 years ago

    Apple tv sucks anyway. I’d like to remind people that it’s near the end of the mls season and they still have no android mobile app. They actively piss on anyone not totally in line with their ecosystem, etc.