1402

Jon Stewart’s Apple TV Plus show ends, reportedly over coverage of AI and China (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

255 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Show me what law enforcers a company to profit.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year 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

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

there is no law forcing a company to profit

Thank you. We’re done now.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

lol I'm almost impressed by the brute force of your refusal to comprehend.

It's uhhh, impressive.

By your logic/refusal to understand how simple things work, a doctor has no duty to help you, no company is at fault if its products harm you and a lawyer can do whatever they want to maximize their own profit.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Show me the “legal responsibility to maximize profits” in the law books and the police codes used to enforce said laws or STFU.

You know what? Nevermind.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You mean like I already did?

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

Why do you think people buy shares? Just fans of three digits and numbers that change?

Edit: Italicized the relevant section to make things easier for you.

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023

1402 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

60084 readers

2501 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS