I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything.
> he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people
This might be more meaningful and would actually mean he is putting something on the line / has skin in the game. Which is why I can't imagine Cook doing that. He would be putting Apple's business in China in danger by doing that.
> There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject.
Yes, but the more meaningful actions Cook / Apple could take, the more likely it would damage their business. So it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures.
> I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything.
I disagree about its impact. He legitimizes the oppression of the Chinese people with his presence; he says 'this is ok'.
> it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures
It is against their immediate financial interest; my whole point is that there are other interests too.
That's not actually true, though I agree that it is often repeated and there is pressure from shareholders and others. It's not and never has required absolute obedience; and IIRC even that idea in the theoretical sense was developed in the 1980s, long after the advent of large public companies.
> Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market?
His choices are not so extreme. He doesn't have to show up at this conference, for example, or he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people. There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject.