Tim Cook and Angela Ahrendts talk iPhone X, President Trump, America, and the future of the Apple Store

At the debut of Apple’s massive new Chicago store, Apple CEO Tim Cook and head of retail Angela Ahrendts gave Buzzfeed Tech 11 minutes to ask them just about anything.

Tim Cook and Angela Ahrendts talk iPhone X, President Trump, and the future of the Apple Store. Note: Apple doesn’t like to refer to Apple retial locations as “stores.”

A great thing about America is you can have different opinions… Different opinions have generally helped the country advance… We stay out of politics, but we do engage on policy discussion. — Apple CEO Tim Cook

[protected-iframe id=”cdc5a85b2a85669e3cf7ed12025d22d3-17146794-18685410″ info=”https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBuzzFeedTech%2Fvideos%2F1494988547288783%2F&show_text=0&width=560″ width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ style=”border:none;overflow:hidden” scrolling=”no”]

Direct link to video here.

MacDailyNews Take: We love question about, reactions to, and answer regarding Angela becoming Apple’s next CEO!

67 Comments

    1. Fine. Me and my uncle will buy it up. Fashion makes money, a lot of it. Fashion has the secret to making money. Hate fashion if you must, but respect its economic power.

        1. Yes, that is true. It hurt initially, but over time I accepted reality and moved on. Companies and investment strategies change, like the seasons. I no longer waste time condemning the leaves for turning brown and falling from the trees.

        1. Absolutely correct.

          Now that gays and girls and diversity executives are in charge I fear the greatest tech company will cease to exist as we know it. We are already seeing the warning signs with lack of Mac refreshes and rendering the machines obsolete and non-upgradeable on DAY of purchase.

          Others have offered thoughts on how Angela can do do both. But with zero tech training and expertise Apple would be rolling the dice, big time …

  1. “We stay out of politics, but we do engage on policy discussion. — Apple CEO Tim Cook”

    …that blatant lie doesn’t requires no further comment, it reeks with perfidy.

    1. If Apple as a company attacked Trump personally or supported particular candidates to the exclusion of others, that would be “politics.” If some circles, supporting sound public policies is known as patriotism. Blind support of an individual leader is… Well you know.

      1. Blind support indeed. Apple has become their own “garden of pure ideology” with no respect for the sound policies of people who oppose their demonstrably feckless ideas. Replacing gun emojis with water guns anyone? Removing Confederate battle flags from apps? They’ve become reactionary leftists. AKA silly people with a big mouth CEO, who inserts himself into every POLITICAL discussion available, simultaneously alienating half the country, whilst arguably ignoring the piecemeal descent of product quality and originality.

        1. You and your ilk are far too quick to make snap judgments regarding other people’s motivations and beliefs. You know less than squat about TxUser, me, or all of the other people on this forum. Your viewpoint is limited to you and, perhaps, a little bit of room for botty and Fwhatever and kent.

          You may be intelligent. You may be knowledgeable. But, based on your numerous posts, you appear sadly incompetent in applying those abilities. You appear to lack wisdom, a sense of balance, and the spirit of compromise. You focus on triviality and miss the critical issues. You label and disparage like far too many others. You raise doubts that humanity will manage to survive its based and uglier aspects.

        2. TMac, you hit all the right issues and policy points that plague Apple Activism as they descend further into choosing political sides.

          Especially like your comment regarding what I call a middle finger to 2nd Amendment supporters that polls consistently show are not half the country, but a steady and healthy majority. If that is not playing politics with a silly pixel cartoon emoji, NOTHING is.

          Regarding unglued Melvin’s comment, your post is intelligent, thoughtful and more importantly — SPOT ON! He must come from Planet Libtardia to get so much of what you said, so wrong.

          That is the problem with him and his ilk. He does not live in Realville and reality to him is anything he says or believes much like the fantasy dim bulbs of Hollwood and left wing media.

          Rest assured, the realists here KNOW better …

          1. Then why are you here? Everyone knows Apple has always been a liberal leaning company. You choose to financially support them and whine about Cook at every turn. But you refuse to criticize your corrupt political party’s corporate connections, or have the faintest interest in seeing Trump ‘s tax returns to prove whether ornot he is on the Koch or Putin dole

            You are as hypocritical as MDN. As someone pointed out , MDN is an extensive Google user and user tracker, but uses its forum to slander the hand that feeds it.

            Do you have any principles besides personal greed?

            1. “Then why are you here? Everyone knows Apple has always been a liberal leaning company.”

              You don’t know? It’s called constructive criticism of my favorite company and praise when they excel.

              Apple may have always been a liberal company, but you would never know it under Steve. He rightly kept politics out of the business 99% of the time and warned against offending 50% of his customers not from the LEFT.

              If you fail to observe for yourself Cook has turned this business principle on its head and now a liberal and subtle leftist political activist, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

              But you refuse to criticize your corrupt political party’s corporate connections, as well. Uranium sales to Putin’s corporate connections and then $135 million ends up in the Clinton Foundation, hmmm. Just but ONE example, there are MANY, of the Clintons leaving the White House BROKE — and then earning hundreds of millions of magical dollars for speaking words from a podium courtesy of corporate connections.

              MDN uses its forum any way they like, it’s called free enterprise and freedom of speech. They are supportive and critical, in a good way, depending upon the story and actions of the players. You have NOT OBSERVED that daily MO?

              Your last comment, clearly out
              of left field and not applicable …

            1. Bombshell revelation!

              But seriously I have to say suspected it all along.

              The Clinton family uses organized crime hardball tactics, always has, destroying reputations (Bimbo Eruption Unit headed by Hilliary) and always LAWYER LAYERED and INSULATED themselves from prosecution. I suspect that is coming to an end.

              An old saying goes something like this: knowledge without justice is cunning, not wisdom …

            2. Why is it a ‘bombshell revelation” that Democrats hired investigators to do opposition research? The current White House has explained that such research is an everyday thing in politics.

              That’s why Trump Campaign principals (including the candidate’s son and son-in-law) saw no problem in meeting with people who were identified to them as agents of the Russian Government offering opposition research. They didn’t care that this involved inviting a hostile foreign government to help influence an American domestic election. That isn’t just ethically challenged; for a campaign to accept something of value from a foreign government is illegal.

              Honestly, I’d rather have such research conducted by former MI5 agents than by current FSB agents. It might be unsavory, but it doesn’t suggest subversion.

            3. “Why is it a ‘bombshell revelation” that Democrats hired investigators to do opposition research?”

              Because you are way behind, allow me to explain it to you. Clinton and the DNC have been denying, amnesia or outright lying about paying Fusion for a YEAR. And it took two Pulitzer winning newspapers to uncover the truth.

              “The current White House has explained that such research is an everyday thing in politics.
              That’s why Trump Campaign principals (including the candidate’s son and son-in-law) saw no problem in meeting with people who were identified to them as agents of the Russian Government offering opposition research.”

              Two completely different scenarios and you know it Mr. Obfuscation.

              “They didn’t care that this involved inviting a hostile foreign government to help influence an American domestic election.”

              They didn’t care, how to you know? They called you up?

              So, opposition research is noble and fine for Democrats to INFLUENCE an election, pay an investigator and LIE about it. But Trump’s son, not paying a party penny to simply listen to what they have to say is horribly WRONG. Got it, hypocrite.

              “That isn’t just ethically challenged; for a campaign to accept something of value from a foreign government is illegal.”

              You mean like $145 million during the time of the uranium deal donated to the Clinton Foundation. Could that possibly be serious Russian collusion?!?

              “Honestly, I’d rather have such research conducted by former MI5 agents than by current FSB agents. It might be unsavory, but it doesn’t suggest subversion.”

              You know little about honesty self-described FAKE straight white male conservative and DAILY Democrat attack dog, just in a genteel writing style that borders on ostentatious …

            4. How do I know that Donald Trump, Jr. and his cohorts didn’t care about accepting valuable political information from the Russian Government? I read the emails that he himself release.

              I never said that opposition research was good and noble. I think it’s terrible to rely on winning elections by ad hominem attacks and negative campaigning. Again, I was just quoting your guys, who justified the meeting with Russian agents as normal politics.

              Even if your version of the “uranium deal” weren’t conspiracy fiction, it still would not be direct aid to a political campaign. Financially, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign are as closely related as George Jones and Parnelli Jones.

            5. By your silence I guess I enlightened you on the bombshell revelation.

              Trump team, not cohorts, don’t care about accepting valuable political information? Good for them they would not have to pay for it. Smart.

              “I never said that opposition research was good and noble.”

              Until now you never said it. As your usual careful wording style, you implied it was bad for Trump and as usual your MO never mentioning Democrats do the same or worse.

              “Even if your version of the “uranium deal” weren’t conspiracy fiction”

              My version is speaking in possible general terms. The investigation on this bombshell Russian collusion by the Democrats is just getting started. Stay tuned.

              “but the it still would not be direct aid to a political campaign.”

              How do you know? The investigations just started in the last few days, Mr. Apologist.

              “Financially, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign are as closely related as George Jones and Parnelli Jones.”

              Relatives is a deflection and has nothing to do with it and you know it. Guess you never heard of money laundering. Guess you never heard of filtering funds through front groups like non-profits or legitimate businesses aka the Mafia or drug cartels. If you know the illegal drill, it can be done easily.

              Bottom line: The Democratic Party is in BIG trouble right now.

              It started with the DNC servers being hacked, and they successfully fought off attempts by the FBI to at the very LEAST examine the servers, thanks to the Obama justice officials. Democrat Collusion?

              Then e-mails revealed from the DNC PROVED collusion with the Clinton campaign to deny Bernie a fair shake at the Democrat presidential nomination.

              Fast forward to today and we have NEW revelations on the Clinton uranium deal, Russian donations to the Clinton foundation and Fusion GPS paid for by the campaign and DNC previously and repeatedly DENIED.

              Democrats and their BIG media supporters for the better part of a year, day after day, tried desperately to prove Trump Russian collusion where none is PROVEN to exist.

              In light of recent revelations, I NOW suspect it was all a carefully plotted ruse and smokescreen to go on the offensive fast and furious to deflect attention away from what the cabal of conspirators have been doing all those years.

              They knew what they were up to back then and now reduced to legal defense. This is just getting interesting. Fingers crossed the truth WILL come out and justice WILL prevail …

            6. I agree with you that the two situations are not comparable. That’s why I don’t see the latest story as a bombshell.

              For a political campaign to pay a foreign national for services rendered is perfectly legal. So is paying for opposition research. That has been going on for as long as the Republic has existed, I would guess.

              I think negative campaigns stink, but there is nothing illegal or improper about them. Since they are unsavory, negative campaigns generally try to pretend they are not. Nobody ever said—certainly I never said—that the Democrats in 2016 were any less negative in their campaign tactics than the Republicans. So what?

              Candidates pay good money to have investigators dig up dirt on their opponents because that information has a value on an open market. (Of course, if there is no dirt, the opposition has nothing to fear.)

              For a political campaign to accept a gift from a foreign national, and particularly from a foreign government, is an illegal campaign contribution. That has also been public policy since the early days of the Republic.

              As I just said, opposition research has a market value, making it a “valuable thing” falling under the ban on foreign contributions. So, just in case you didn’t get the point, what Donald Jr. described in the emails he released himself was a conspiracy to receive an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government in the form of valuable information their spy agencies collected unlawfully from American citizens. What the Clinton campaign did isn’t even interesting by comparison.

            7. “Certainly I never said—that the Democrats in 2016 were any less negative in their campaign tactics than the Republicans.”

              What you didn’t say speaks VOLUMES.

              The Republicans are not in the same dirty and negative league as the Democrats, particularly the Clinton syndicate.

              After four decades of dirty dealings, I hope the law FINALLY catches up with them …

      2. Are you fookin’ serious?

        Apple is deeply engaged in divisive politics all because of partisan Cook. He did not heed Steve’s words of wisdom and company directive. Just because he does it in a oh so slow, low key and gentle manner — does not negate the FACT …

        1. For the CEO of a large corporation to support comprehensive tax reform that will benefit not only the company but also its shareholders and employees is not political or divisive.

          For somebody to support “reforms” that will balloon the deficit and benefit only the rich is divisive.

          For that CEO to stand up for the rights of the company’s employees who do not happen to be male is neither political nor divisive.

          For someone to brag about having committed sexual assault and then blow it off as just “the way men talk” is divisive.

          For the CEO of a company with a multiethnic workforce to support diversity is neither political nor divisive.

          For someone to suggest that a mob of outside agitators that march around a college town chanting Nazi slogans (and killing a peaceful local citizen) includes “very many good people” is divisive.

          For the CEO of a multinational corporation with employees from a multitude of nations to stand up for the company’s ability to deploy its employees wherever it chooses without excessive government interference is neither political nor divisive.

          For someone to suggest that a distinguished jurist from Indiana best known for prosecuting drug cartels is unqualified to serve as a judge because his American-citizen parents were born in Mexico is divisive.

          For the CEO of a company that handles confidential information to suggest that the privacy of its customers should be paramount is neither political nor divisive.

          For someone to condemn any company that will not open its customers’ devices to unlimited government (and, unavoidably, criminal) access is divisive.

            1. I thought your point was that Tim Cook is excessively political and divisive. I responded directly to that by pointing out that most of the Cook comments you find offensive are related to his duties as Apple CEO and are neither partizan nor divisive. To illustrate, I gave some examples of political rhetoric that is divisive. I believed that I was addressing your post quite specifically.

              What do you think I am missing?

    2. botty, you are attempting to create a controversy where none exists. Cook is neither deceitful or untrustworthy. I have never met him in person, but I my judgment is that Cook is highly trustworthy and compassionate, I am am comforted by the fact that Apple is led by someone with his solid moral character.

      If I had to depend on a stranger for help in a desperate situation, then Tim Cook would be very high on my list.

      Speaking to the contrast between politics and policy, Cook has addressed actions, decisions, and consequences. He has not engaged in the attacks, name calling, posturing, bullying, and lying that characterizes our current POTUS and far too many other politicians.

      You often called Obama the worst POTUS in history. But I am afraid that Trump is actually the “winner” in this respect. And you know how Trump loves to win. His psyche depends upon winning, or the appearance of winning, or rewriting history to fabricate a win. You know the type…don’t you?

    3. We are all flabbergasted that you take Cook’s predictable corporate CEO cheerleading spin from a company that spends less time lobbying than just about every other fortune unelected multinational megacorporation and you call it lies.

      Then you repeatedly praise your liar in chief who can’t tweet fast enough to deflect all the bald faced lies he spews.

      As limp and useless as Cook is, he is approximately 9999999% more honest than your toxic political superhero.

  2. Just watching this video…

    Tim Cook has become an annoying caricature of himself. The constant hand gesturing as he speaks and the search for just the right passive aggressive words are tiresome. I’m surprised he hasn’t started to walk around wearing white robes carrying prayer beads to go with his hand gestures.

    He says silly things like “coding should be a required language.” What the hell does that mean? And no politics? He and Angela fall all over themselves to compliment Rom Emanuel who even Salon magazine admits is a national disgrace. He is your typical crooked Democrat, presiding over Chicago turning into a 3rd world nation. But hey, he’s not Trump, right? We hear you loud and clear Tim.



    OMG and the reporter? First she promises a talk about President Trump in a snarky voice indicating that she intends to speak negatively. Then when the time comes i.e. they flash TRUMP on the building across the street and immediately switch to white supremacist flags and she asks if the current Administration will “PUNISH” Apple for their garden of pure ideology.

    Never mind that Trump has done nothing but try to help Apple. Tim starts with the prayer hands again. 

God these people are sickening. 

Then Tim says the most asinine thing he could possibly say, “We stay out of politics but we do engage on policy.” They are one in the same.

    1. Huh? You disparage a comment about “lacking wisdom”(above) and then go on a rant containing ad hominems and “snark” of your own!
      Another Basement CEO™ in the #irony_desert

  3. I love all the comments here and the obvious pro-trump Bias of this site and its owners.
    The irony is that Steve Jobs was a liberal and open-minded and that is one of the reasons he was able to change the world for the better. He was also a huge Clinton supporter (http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/23/documents-show-clinton-administration-chummy-with-steve-jobs-but-dismissed-cabinet-member-suggestions ) something this site will never acknowledge. And I am most certain he would be anti-Trump and everything this clown personifies from values to ethics. Steve Jobs is the real American story, a direct descendent of a Syrian immigrant who through his own creativity and genius founded the world’s greatest company. I really wish he was still alive and see what his response to Trump would have been and how Macdailynews would try to spin it that their hero was against their new hero Trump.

    1. Your bias is no more important than the bias of others.
      Could not care less about the Steve’s bio, but really do
      miss the fact that he would hold people responsible to
      put ‘Apple’ quality into product mostly before release.
      His uncanny ability to hold the reigns tightly and carry the
      presence that translated into truly amazing showmanship
      are things seemingly no longer present at apple

  4. “regarding Angela becoming Apple’s next CEO!”
    Weird, what is with MDN’s fascination with Ahrendts? Is it the same weird fascination MDN had about Marissa Mayer of Yahoo!? Ahrendts has totally underwhelmed in her time at Apple, why would anyone think she’s CEO material.

    1. Because she was one of the most successful CEO’s in the world in her previous job, having completely turned around Burberry. But as I said earlier, she’s older than Tim, so I think they’d look for someone else.

      1. Ahrendts could do the job of CEO. She’s done it. Cook hadn’t. So there is that.

        Then again, she’s a woman. Steve Jobs was a man, not shy about kicking ass. She’d be more dainty, perhaps, but the same sorts of people would depart rubbing their asses.

        I like Ahrendts in the job because I believe she would get rid of Eddy Cue once and for all, and coax Scott Forstall back into the fold, and reduce Jony Ive’s powers. She can handle a recalcitrant board of directors. And her genius for fashion is unparalleled. Apple is fashion, and she knows that, and that is why Cook was able to get her on board in the first place.

        1. “Steve Jobs was a man, not shy about kicking ass. She’d be more dainty, perhaps”

          Hire Hilliary for lessons. Nothing dainty about that woman and her legendary behind the scenes browbeating of staff.

          I could only buy it if she brought Scott back to lead the tech charge because of her vast inexperience. And yes, Jony has gone off the abstract rails more than once …

          1. She would bring back Scott (or someone like him) precisely because of her inexperience with software engineering. But as CEO her mission would be to build the Apple brand, not to tinker with details that someone like Forstall would excel at. She would exhibit no patience with Ive’s narcissistic preciousness. Fashion consciousness is much more than that; it’s a recognition of a public hunger for invention and social relevance. Cook has it all wrong; he seems to think that social justice sells products. But it’s clear that, as always, features sell products.

            1. Agree with teensy trepidation, Herself.

              As long as someone like Scott was fully charged with developing tech, cleaning out executive and departmental deadwood while keeping Jony’s ego focused, OK.

              I’m not a slave to fashion and could not care less. That said, it makes money for Apple and yes, Angela would excel in that area.

              Spot on social justice does not sell like cutting edge features.

              Lastly, fingers crossed she would adhere to Steve’s business political MO and not take sides to divide customers in company and activist politics …

            2. Glad you agree. The only social agenda that matters is selling the maximum quantity of products and services. That’s the name of the game. Politics is another game, one that insistently crosses over into business, and that presents a very thorny problem. I hate that it has come down to this. I want to buy equipment without feeling that I am voting for or against clubbing baby seals or dooming the ecosystem. Is that too much to ask?

    2. MDN has always used the little head when elavuating women.

      I am disgusted at what empty headed women are being trotted out to show a more diverse face in Cupertino. It is fashionable at Apple now to promote women to executive positions regardless of relevant experience. That apparently is supposed to make up for the hundreds of women routinely passed over for promotion in the past. Ahrendts is example #1. $75 million signing bonus to do what any college graduate could do in their free time. Example 2: Diversity VP chartered to do what any competent HR department should be doing as normal operations. Example 3: after years of letting iTunes languish so Apple Rental Music could be pushed hard, go ahead and give Bozo St John the spotlight to show how underwhelming the latest iOS music app works, apparently while she was in negotiations to jump ship to join the Uber Titanic. Must have been a really big bonus.

      Seriously, is there any connection between performance and pay at Apple?

      These executives are just as worthless as Mayer and her stupid red ball.

  5. Isn’t it amazing how the left is so militant concerning the right and the current administration, where as the right was not when Obama was in? They just sat back and took it for 8 years, but they did not go out and ask for blood and have a million demonstrations, etc. And California democrats are just basically trying to trump Trump in every which way they can, while ignoring most of their other constituents and lawful citizens. IE. the illegals, which now in this state seem to have more support from the democrats than its lawful citizens. It is all quite sickening. I predict it will blow back on them in a big way soon via ICE occupation.

    1. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Republicans did not just sit back and take Obama. They blocked him and denigrated him at every opportunity. I haven’t heard anyone accuse Mr. Trump of being a noncitizen.

      1. Also, Trump is deliberately attempting to nullify or reverse every Obama achievement. In doing so, he is effectively carrying water for the Republican Party. Who knew that racial politics would endure for 150 years? I think Trump is better than the Party, however. He has shown himself to be a creature of change, not a die-stamped conservative. His narcissism is undisguised. I well understand men’s cravings to be adored and desired. His are a point of leverage in our political system that has not yet sunk in, probably due to outmoded journalist ethics.. which became outmoded the day he surged in the 2016 presidential polls.

            1. You’re a fine specimen, you are, as my grandmother would have said. She would have gone on to list your excesses to exhaustion, and only at the last mention that you had the heart of a lamb. Men are endlessly fascinating, cruel and tender by turns, and understood in their paradoxical complexity only by a close few, a fearless few.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.