I was pretty upset about Apple’s decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico in Apple Maps along the lines of the dictates of our current administration; a decision they were not obligated to follow. I submitted the correction in Apple Maps, but someone suggested another avenue that might get different eyes. I happen to be an Apple shareholder (from many years ago when I thought buying individual stocks made sense; if you’re a random individual, it almost certainly doesn’t). So I wrote them this letter. If you’re also an Apple shareholder, you might also consider letting them know how you feel about that choice. You can mail them at:
Apple Investor Relations One Apple Park Way MS 927-4INV Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
I have been an Apple shareholder for over two decades. I made the decision to invest after several years of using the company’s products and being impressed by the attention to detail, vision, and overall care and understanding of customers' needs that went into the products the company created. In that time, in addition to being a personal user, I have overseen deployment of Apple’s products and technologies in companies from 5-person startups to multinational corporations with offices on four continents, in roles from artists' tools, developers' workstations and production servers. I certainly haven’t agreed with every product decision, but the overall experience of using these products and being involved with this ecosystem has been very positive. Unfortunately, I write today because I have never been more disappointed with the company than I am today, nor more concerned for its future.
The crystallizing event for this concern is Apple’s baffling decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico in Apple Maps following an Executive Order. An Executive Order which, as a public company and not part of the executive branch of the Federal government, Apple is not subject to. An order which was an obvious affront to the international community, common English usage, history, and common sense. An order which would need active effort to follow. Apple made a choice to rename the Gulf of Mexico in Apple Maps, and for an outside observer it is difficult to see that choice as anything other than an attempt to curry favor with an authoritarian placing loyalty tests, at the expense of Apple’s customers, partners, and reputation.
The name itself is not important. It is, however, indicative of a much deeper problem. The phrase I’ve heard over and over from people discussing this issue is “canary in the coal mine”. Apple, more than most other companies, relies on trust. From the open microphone we allow in our homes with HomePod to the privacy and integrity of our data stored in iCloud, from the safety of the devices we hold in our hands to the security of the messages we send and store with iMessage, all of that is based on trust. It is built into Apple’s products and it is built into Apple’s brand and marketing. That isn’t built easily; it takes time and consistent effort. In a person, it takes character; in a company, it takes… whatever the proxy for character is when we’re talking about a legal entity. “Persistent predictable behavior”, maybe. Regardless, it is not easily built, but it is easily damaged. Or broken.
When Phil Schiller took the stage to talk about the “courage” it took to remove the headphone jack from the iPhone 7, I, like many observers, thought the language he used was a bit overblown for a product design decision. Still, I understood his point and agreed in principle. He was right, and it was consistent with Apple’s history. It was consistent with Apple’s history of pushing the industry forward with challenging design decisions, from removing the floppy drive to cannibalizing its own product sales for future innovations. And it was consistent with Apple’s history in other important ways, too. Apple’s decision to fight the overbearing orders issued under the All Writs Act in 2015 and 2016 come immediately to mind. It was not those particular cases that mattered (nobody is eagerly pursuing additional protections for terrorists), but rather it was an indication that Apple had the courage to stand up for its customers against the government, even to the point of incuring legal action against the company. It was a sign that, because of that courage, Apple might be worth our trust.
Apple has lost that trust.
Trust in a company should never be blind or absolute, and it certainly wasn’t here. Some of Apple’s decisions to appease the Chinese government by making iMessage more vulnerable certainly raised eyebrows. The ongoing struggle to find an appropriate balance around issues like detecting CSAM material garnered close scrutiny, and appropriately so. Many of Apple’s responses to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act could be interpreted equally well by honest observers as protecting Apple’s interest in rent-seeking profits or the security of its customers. And which of those interpretations dominated — in an individual or in the industry discourse overall — pivoted on trust. This, specifically, is why I’m concerned as a shareholder: the loss of trust is going to make each of these questions harder for Apple. Both customers and regulators are going to rightly be more skeptical of the company’s motives and actions, which will, in market terms, create significant headwinds for the company. I can no longer recommend, to my correspondents or my clients, iMessage as a secure communication option because I can no longer trust that Apple will have the courage to stand up to overzealous legal challenges to that security. I can no longer recommend iCloud as a secure data store. And I can no longer recommend Apple Maps, nor any service which uses its data, as a reasonable representation of the world we live in.
But my concern as a shareholder pales in comparison to my concern as a customer, an American, and a person living in 2025. In the face of rising right-wing extremism and very troubling signs from our nation’s government, it is disturbing to see how quickly Apple’s commitment to its purported principles crumbles under… not even pressure. The presumption of future pressure.
In a time when we need courage more than ever, Apple has taken the coward’s path. And we all — Apple’s customers, shareholders, the company itself, and the society in which it operates — are poorer for it. I hope there’s enough courage left there to change course.