Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job

bigyabai

Well, this is hilarious timing. The EU certainly isn't going to retract their case, so now Apple products will be divided into "the ones with consumer regulations" and "the ones without".

I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.

imglorp

Faith what now? Yes, it's decent product but...

It's a $3T company. It got there by extracting the maximum possible from customers, app developers, and labor. They are well known for exploiting offshore workers [1] many times over. They force customers to upgrade off working hardware. They force customers to buy multiple devices when one could do the job. There are monopoly complaints world over. Customers who are happy with this have Stockholm Syndrome.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-ap...

gosub100

Suppress developer wages and abuse the H1B program too.

collingreen

Don't forget the suicide nets at Foxconn instead of improving working conditions

latexr

> I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple.

I hope the opposite. Faith is exploitable and leads to complacency and accepting excuses. I hope Americans do not have faith in Apple and that will either make them work harder to earn and keep that trust, or that it’ll lead to the mask coming down. Having trust in someone covertly deceiving you looks like the worst possible outcome.

jjulius

>I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.

With stuff like this, why should we extend them trust?

jachee

I’m 95% sure that was a tongue-in-cheek statement.

hagbard_c

> I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple

Faith is a good word to use when discussing the true believers following the fruit factory. The company has been very successful in turning commercial transactions into quasi-religious ceremonies and managed to convince people that they can trust their judgement. Well, yes, you can certainly trust their judgement as long as you realise that their judgement revolves around profit maximisation. While this in itself does not need to be a problem is does become a problem when one half goes into the transaction based on faith with the other half being aware of this.

Don't be deluded, you can trust them just as much/little as you can trust other large vendors. If you like their products you can buy them but it does not make sense to 'trust their judgement' once supervision is lifted since it is not a question if they will abuse this trust but when and the answer is they already have, many times over. Every time they claim their products do not offer freedom of choice because of ${reasons} they abuse this trust because they fail to state that ${reasons} is a constant which is initialised as follows:

   const reasons=profit_maximisation

throw4847285

> Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order.

d0mine

^ The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Karl Marx

throwaway5752

Naked political corruption! Welcome to America in 2025.

And Hacker News gestalt generally thinks politics is off topic - guess what happens to "disruptors" in a crony capitalistic system?

Hacker News and YCombinator, more than anyone, should be at the vanguard of stopping this. It will set innovation back by a decade by the end of the current administration's term.

rchaud

With tech and politics becoming more intermingled each day, it won't be long before we see articles like "[flagged]: The decline of Hacker News in the Era of Techno-Feudalism"

rchaud

Apple CEO Tim Cook made a personal $1 million "donation" to the Trump inauguration in January 2025:

> Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-mil...

CalChris

Did Cook, in the spirit of unity, make a similar donation in 2020?

recursivecaveat

Apple donated $43K in 2021: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00765040/1513848/f13... I guess the price of a spirit of unity has been undergoing massive inflation.

rchaud

That is Apple, the corp. This $1m tribute is coming straight from the CEO's pocket.

crazygringo

Presumably not, because that administration wasn't corrupt and wasn't demanding those kinds of things.

lenkite

Did you also call Obama's inaugural funding as corruption, when he was donated $53 million in 2009 and ~$43 in 2013 ?

Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ?

Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family.

Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?

rchaud

Of course not, that would be "political".

93po

Stuff like this doesn't have to be disclosed when given to PACs, so there's no way to really know

codyb

Was super disappointing to see him up there at the inauguration. E-mailed tim.cook@apple.com and told him as much.

Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently.

Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.

rchaud

May as well have emailed no-reply@buy-more-iphones.apple.com

swiftcoder

He certainly doesn't read your emails, but they do get rolled up in a sentiment analysis most places

null

[deleted]

dimal

Amazon and Meta did too. Then Bezos changed the Washington Post editorial page policy that they could only write about personal liberties and free markets (subtext: not Trump). I wonder what Meta got in return. It seems like this relatively cheap $1M payoff was a subtle “kiss the ring” of the emperor. Good business. Shareholders would approve.

pseudalopex

> I wonder what Meta got in return.

Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies...

[3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

[4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...

jedberg

He was in a tough spot. I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin, but also he knows Apple needs tariff relief, and paying a “donation” to Trump is a good way to do that.

He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)

probably_wrong

That poor, poor powerless company.

Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...

kube-system

Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.

pornel

It's incredible that paying fealty to the president is talked about so casually, and framed as just a normal and necessary thing to do.

This is something that should be expected in an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.

freedomben

I agree completely, and I think it's disgusting and despicable. But honestly this sort of thing has been happening for many, many decades, maybe even centuries, it's just been done a lot more discreetly in the past. The big difference now is that it's so blatant.

While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.

tombert

That, or these CEOs have no real opinions or principles of their own and simply do what they think will be advantageous for them and their company, and literally no other thought goes into this.

I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it.

Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

Vegenoid

“Yeah, sucks, but what are you supposed to do? Have to pay the president so he doesn’t use the government to harm my business out of retribution”

No. Reject this.

toyg

> Apple needs tariff relief

Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid.

> I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin

Why, are you a personal friend of his?

The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.

roboror

Calling morals vs money a tough spot is pretty weak, especially considering it didn't work.

fumar

So for the greater good support the current administration with donations? Is that right?

righthand

For the greater good of Apple, not the people. Donating to authoritarians doesn’t benefit customers it benefits Apple.

sneak

He literally did support the admin; to claim he doesn’t really is disingenuous. He gave the current admin a million dollars.

If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you?

It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.

readthenotes1

Should we etch swastikas in all iPhones? Not sure how close we are to corporations working under government direction here (part of literal fascism iirc)

jimnotgym

Hypothetically, if the Trump regime comes to an end, this could be pretty bad for Apple, couldn't it?

croes

Drain the swamp for sure.

At which point does the ordinary MAGA hat realize Trump isn't working for them?

cssinate

It's gotta be tough! When you've made that your entire personality, it's hard to drop it. You've made friends, and perhaps lost others, by being this person. To just admit "I was wrong" potentially means alienating all of their friends and family. I'd imagine it's why so many people are still so vehemently flat earthers.

acdha

It’s especially hard when those beliefs have lead you to justify treating other people horribly. If you’ve gone around accusing people of grooming children for abuse because they thought gay or trans people deserved basic human rights, if you’ve said supporting immigration means supporting rapists and murderers, etc. it’s much harder to come back from that than if it was more traditional policy differences like whether we should have a particular tax rate. I think that’s intentional in some cases, just as with cults where pushing extreme claims and breaking outside ties makes it harder to leave.

sorcerer-mar

Yes it is quite literally a cult. It has all the key characteristics including but not limited to the ones you mention.

netsharc

And admitting it would mean bursting the bubble of "I'm an intelligent person." (and even "a good person"). It's easier to construct a virtual reality where you're still the one with the clue and everyone else are just utter morons.

Also, with everything being written down nowadays (on your social media), changing your opinion means inviting mockery of past comments being dug up to be flung at you. Then again, the idiots in power seem to have developed a thick skin for this.

A little over a month ago: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/g-s1-50605/conspiracy-theorie... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194910

ziddoap

>"changing your opinion means inviting mockery of past comments being dug up to be flung at you."

This has to be one of the most damaging things about social media, in my opinion. I never really understood why changing your mind about something as you get new information is looked down on and mocked, but it is.

ajmurmann

The social issue go much beyond this. The country to a large degree has sorted itself along party lines. Changing your political opinion in either direction will likely lead to arguments with people you are close to and might get you ostracized from your friend group or even family. For most people this is much worse than being ridiculed online!

matwood

> And admitting it would mean bursting the bubble of "I'm an intelligent person." (and even "a good person").

Or, "I do my own research".

sitkack

This is why you keep those friends, and instead of replacing your identity, you keep it and kick out the false profits. We need a Martin Luther moment in MAGA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

freedomben

Can you say more about what a Martin Luther moment in MAGA would be? You mean like a MAGA person willing to rise up and (figuratively) nail theses to the door, aka call out the bad parts of the movement? Some people have tried and they get bounced out pretty quickly. Trump is the master at ending people for criticizing him, even lightly

UncleMeat

My aunt shares AI-generated memes about hispanic and palestinian people crying as they are rounded up by ICE. Her key motivation above all others is making particular groups of people she hates suffer. Everything else is acceptable as long as she gets that.

It's a concerning vision for the country.

giraffe_lady

Yeah it's unpopular to point this out right now but racism is a key political motivator for a lot of people, with varying degrees of awareness of that. He is working for them.

mrguyorama

The people who threw rocks at the Little Rock Nine, the first black kids let into an alabama "White's only" school are barely retired. They still vote.

They never changed their mind.

freedomben

> Her key motivation above all others is making particular groups of people she hates suffer. Everything else is acceptable as long as she gets that.

May I ask, how do you know this? Does she say that about her own motivation? If not, why would she say she does it?

UncleMeat

Because she gets drunk and sends me endless texts at 2am, often including slurs.

I've spent decades having to deal with this person. I assure you that I am not misrepresenting her.

reverendsteveii

Consider how many people never realized that Jim Jones didn't have their best interests at heart and now consider that we've fully automated the process that brought those people to that point.

wil421

They don’t care. I sent someone a link about NIH cutting funding for the place that created the cancer killing treatment that saved his Wife last year.

“They know what they’re doing.” Is all I get from this baloney.

ziddoap

"I was wrong" is really hard to say at the best of times. I sometimes struggle with it when I make a little mistake at work.

Trying to say "I was wrong" after years of making your whole life, social circle, etc. about whatever thing you were wrong about is incredibly hard. It takes a very strong mental to do that. And, I wager for some/most people who fall deep into any cult-like movement (whatever it may be: conspiracies, etc.), they didn't start with a super strong mental fortitude in the first place, making it even more difficult.

derbOac

I agree completely but the thing I also find puzzling sometimes is how the public discourse seems to have forgotten about the rampant misinformation that's been going on for the last several years. Basically huge numbers of people have been lied to for a long time.

It's almost as if the scope of the corruption and incompetence is so extensive that there isn't enough time to reflect on the misinformation process that everyone was so focused on for so long.

Obviously not everyone succumbed to it but even today the coverage in major outlets is completely distorted. Media just accept what the administration is saying as if it still has some kind of verdicality by virtue of power, a historically unprecedented example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. People constantly arguing that the Trump administration won't actually do this or that, that it's all a bluff, and so forth, are similarly misleading.

The discussions about mandates is bizarre to me for this reason, not just because of the tiny magnitude and minority nature of the electoral win, but because Trump and his administration vehemently denied doing exactly what they are currently doing. They dismissed it as insane paranoid ramblings of a deficient left. It's not just that they are failing to keep an electoral promise, they are doing the exact things they denied that they would do, and criticized their opponents for claiming they would do.

I guess I bring this up because it seems to me a lot of people have basically been lied to. Being a victim has its own shame and reluctance but it seems like a more tractable — and accurate in many cases — way to engage with some people than them being wrong.

bad_user

Consider that we're living in a post-truth world, so you may not like the answer.

With enough propaganda, it's easy to blame whatever self-inflicted problem on others.

willidiots

I literally had a 90 year old woman approach me at the dentist yesterday, complementing my Model 3 and telling me "I just love Elon. I had a dream about him last night!" For these types, it's a cult of personality, not logic or policy.

I was also at the gun range last week and overheard a conversation between two Trump supporters. They were outraged by his behavior since taking office, and said outright "if we had to vote again right now, half of us wouldn't vote for him".

freedomben

I've heard similar sentiments expressed as well, even from a person who was a vocal advocate for Trump in this last election. He is still hoping that this is 5D chess and just very temporary pain, but after the blanket tariffs from a couple days ago he's starting to openly admit that he isn't pleased. I guess time will really tell

myvoiceismypass

It’s really embarrassing to admit when you get worked over.

So, never.

nova22033

> Morgan Lewis, which specialises in representing management in labour disputes, has also acted for Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Amazon in their challenges against the agency.

Of course

guerrilla

The US has been corrupt for a long time with its revolving door but it's getting so blatant that frankly it's shocking. As a ruling class, you want to at least pretend to have some illusion of fairness. It's starting to looking some backwater Balkan nation or something.

derbOac

Not trying to be hostile but while everywhere has corruption, and the US definitely has a history of things to be shameful of, it's been nowhere near the scope of what we're seeing now, at least in recent history.

I see arguments about "this is the way it always has been" as essentially normalizing rampant authoritarian corruption. To me, it's taking projection and accepting it as fact without evidence.

Also, regardless, it seems two wrongs don't make a right, and the appropriate response is to reject it when it it exists.

impossiblefork

Not this kind of corruption. There are places where prosecutors have real independence.

JKCalhoun

I've come to the conclusion though that I prefer that it is now out in the open. There's a better likelihood heads will eventually roll (as a figure of speech).

deltaburnt

Pessimistically I think it's more out in the open because they think it won't catch up to them.

rchaud

I'd say you're half right. Heads do roll in authoritarian regimes.

seivan

[dead]

9283409232

Why pretend any more? You go full mask off and half the country still cheers you. Trump could get on stage, say "there will be no more elections and I am now king" and half the country will be okay with it while the other half puts their hands in their pocket and feigns helplessness.

spencerflem

His approval rating was 30% before the markets crashed. The only people supporting Trump are his cultists and the congressional Democrats.

mrguyorama

It doesn't matter what his approval rating is as long as republicans that "don't approve of him" still show up at the polls. Which they do.

Because they will insist that "I don't like the guy" right before they participate in a "Trump vs generic democrat" poll where they vote for Trump.

9283409232

If Trump was really so unpopular, Republicans would throw their weight behind getting rid of him or blocking him in Congress. They still believe that is political suicide with their base which means either he is still popular with their base or they believe he is popular with their base which results in the same inaction.

bananapub

the headline is perhaps unclear, so from the article:

> The US labour watchdog froze two cases against Apple days after Donald Trump nominated an attorney who represents the tech group to be the agency’s top legal official.

> Trump last week nominated Crystal Carey, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, to be the NLRB’s general counsel. She is listed in the agency’s records as an attorney acting in Apple’s defence in both cases against the Silicon Valley tech group.

the level of just complete capture of the regulatory state by random rich companies is amazing, even beyond trump's first time bullshit like "Appoint the CEO of Exxon to be Secretary of State"

dralley

At this point I'm practically begging for corrupt-but-competent assholes over the total clowns that are actually running the show this administration.

Steve Mnuchin (especially) and Rex Tillerson were two of the best appointments last time around. These guys have no redeeming value. And they're far more brazen about the corruption, too.

JKCalhoun

Increasingly it looks like there is a strata of the private-jet set that take care of one another, keep the rest of us under their thumb. I can't think this is going to end well for any of the parties.

noitpmeder

Who's going to stop them?

disgruntledphd2

Sounds of guillotine being sharpened...

yapyap

Thank you for the clarification.

Ugh, knowing you have a clearly malicious actor as top dog of the country -_- it can’t get more frustrating. Except for the fact that a big part of the country supports it as well.

I do wonder if they even believe in him wholeheartedly or just put on an act cause they’re in too deep and don’t want to give the people who said they were making the wrong choice the “satisfaction” of admitting they were right.

pasc1878

It is no it an act it is "clean the swamp" that it is get rid of all the controls that the bureaucrats in Washington do. The reason a lot of them exist is to protect the public is probably lost on the public but fully understood by the ones doing it.

NickC25

Putting a bunch of foxes to guard the henhouse isn't cleaning the swamp. It's replacing the old swamp, which was nakedly self-interested, with a new swamp, which is also nakedly self-interested.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

whycome

Cases of Apples

9283409232

I did not expect this because of all the big tech companies, Apple has been the most antagonistic to Trump. I actually thought the FTC was going to come down hard on Apple this administration has a measure of revenge. Is Trump doing Apple a solid here hoping they return the favor?

latexr

> Apple has been the most antagonistic to Trump.

The most reluctant or the least vocal to comply, maybe, but far from antagonistic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/apple-ceo-tim-cook-and-preid...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-ceo-tim-cook-meet-w...

https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-don...

ToucanLoucan

Not meaning to be a dick or anything, but you and folks like you are too focused on the surface level culture war crap. Apple is not activist, it's a business. It's progressive by corporate standards I guess, in that it isn't outwardly rejecting its minority employees (yet) but they'll still circle the wagons for the actual holders of power.

Capital has always sided with populists and always will, because populists reinforce the status quo capital benefits from. You'll see the same thing with ostensibly liberal establishment media organizations. Like their presenters may hate Trump and his administration on the outside, but their owners love the fact that they have millions of viewers re-glued to their televisions for the latest stupid bullshit the White House is pulling, and no matter what they may ideologically disagree on, Ellen DeGeneres and Donald Trump have INFINITELY more in common with one another than either do with any working class person.

To put it short: It's the MONEY son, the MONEY. Oh they'll bicker and spat at one another in public, sure, but most of these folks are perfectly fine with one another when the cameras aren't rolling. They don't give a shit. Rightly or wrongly, wealthy minority folk think they don't need to worry about the reactionary Right, and honestly, they're probably correct given how fixated said reactionaries are on Drag Queens supposedly being a threat to children when it feels like we have daily news stories of cops, clergy, and teachers diddling kids.

readthenotes1

An example of this is the charity roast in NYC in 2024. Trump and Schumer sharing a table laughing cordially....

https://youtu.be/XI0MUoW28VE?feature=shared

As for apple, their serfdom labor practice during Covid was shockingly public

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/04/04/trump-a...?

(I call it serfdom labor because people were not allowed freedom of movement without threat of imprisonment.)

coldpie

I'm confused how you came to this conclusion. Tim Cook donated millions of dollars to Trump personally, and Republican policies are extremely pro-big-tech so it makes sense that they would support each other. Anti-worker policies like this are exactly what I would have expected from this admin.

righthand

I wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban. The policies are more anti-regulation, which big-tech wants right now.

jaxtracks

I'm confused, are you saying the TikTok ban is detrimental to US-based big tech? Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.

I was also under the impression we're also entering a regulatory climate where amount of regulation isn't so much decreasing (TikTok ban for example is heavy handed), but that big tech has much more involvement in forming that regulation, which is useful for moat-building.

I'm not too knowledgeable on these, it's just the general gist I've been picking up so far this year, looking for correction if I got the wrong idea.

coldpie

> I wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban.

The government stepping in and eliminating one of (American) big tech's biggest competitors is an extremely pro-(American)-big-tech move.

> The policies are more anti-regulation, which big-tech wants right now.

Well, yeah. Exactly. They're all on the same team. They want fewer barriers in the way of their quest for more personal power.

nemothekid

>wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban

The USG forcing a sale of the 3rd largest social media platform to FAANG from China is extremely pro-big-tech.

Also, the most recent administration is seeped with VCs. The Vice President JD Vance is a Peter Thiel protege.

Bud

[dead]

null

[deleted]

scarface_74

You don’t remember the dog and pony show Cook did with Trump about manufacturing Mac Pros in America - all ten of them that they sell in a year?