[justapassenger]

It’s because they couldn’t figure out how to get better ROI from data processing than they get from positioning themselves as tron, fighting for the user.

Once they figure it out, their story will change very quickly. It’s naive to think that sending data to other huge company is proper solution.

[WorldMaker]

It's because they don't have a business model that requires them to squeeze "ROI" lemonade from data processing lemons. Google's ad tech-driven business model will always require them to optimize that ROI. Their clients are advertisers and the advertisers want all the lemonade they can get and that snowball's the ROI.

Apple's clients are much more directly the users. Their financials seem to make it clear that they are way more profitable from user-oriented products and services than anything they could return on data processing and sale to advertisers or worse. They "couldn't figure it out", because they don't need to squeeze any lemons, they have far better things to sell than lemonade. (It's Google that looks far more undiversified beyond their single lame lemonade stand, and way more at risk if advertisers get bored of the taste of lemonade.)

[germinalphrase]

Call me naive, but maybe having a formerly closeted homosexual baby boomer from Alabama at the helm underscores the stakes a bit.

[justapassenger]

It’s easy to have principles when they make you money. If current strategy will start to slow down, do you think shareholders will be more concerned with Tim’s personal story, or continued revenue growth? With or without Tim as a CEO.

CEOs are easily replaceable when business slows down. Especially if you aren’t rockstar founder, with majority of voting rights, and just a very effective administrator.

[germinalphrase]

No doubt, but until that time - this CEO may take the threat of privacy loss a little more seriously than others who have not been part of a group that has been targeted for social and civil discrimination/violence.