Technology

58133 readers

4497 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1303

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

submitted 11 months ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

249 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

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The entity is the civil court system, and while there is no law written "no company can work in a way that doesn't maximize profit", upon taking investment, it's typical that companies, the fiduciary, come under the expectation that they'll be working for the sake of their beneficiary's interests. In public companies, this interest is clear-cut. Investors want dividends and to see the value of the company increase. This is typically done through maximizing of profits.

So while it's not explicit that they must forever maximize profits, companies can be successfully sued for not doing so.

Learn more:

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Companies have also been sued for not maximizing profits and won the case. "Best interests" can mean a lot of things. It can mean short term profit for one shareholder, long term profit for another, and stable, guaranteed profit for a third.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then stop calling it a law.

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Nobody called it a law. It's a legal responsibility, and it is law, but it is not "a" law.