Also, I don’t think apple’s controls are all that good. MacOS X has quiet time for kids, etc. I don’t think iOS has that. Android also allows more invasive apps to take over more of the OS if parents so desire to exert more control over the device. You can see some of the rigmarole that this parent control app has to deal with on iOS: https://screentimelabs.com/help/ios-differences/
Regardless, the fund in question hasn't made specific suggestions for what Apple - apparently the market leader in this particular feature - could do better. Perhaps Jana has no such ideas and merely feel that publicly attacking Apple will be sufficient to get the creative juices flowing. In that case they are wrong. If they don't feel like actually contributing features in question then they should, at most, be telling others to look at the design work Apple has done and copy it. They should not be making generic exhortations to Apple to "work harder", because that looks strongly like virtue signalling and is thus ignorable.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/heres-why-steve-jobs-never-let...
Fink isn't part of society? Blackrock isn't part of society? Who counts as "society"? If Fink and Blackrock are excluded, do you have a guideline for who is allowed to decide these things on behalf of society?
Society can make collective decisions using collective mechanisms. Mostly: voting and markets. But it can also be things like organised religions, other voluntary communities and so on.
When one guy has accumulated large sums of money by promising to invest it only on the basis of yield and then turns around and starts throwing that weight around, he's effectively overriding the collective judgement of many other people who can't cause as immediate an impact on any specific firm as he can.
By investing with an organization, individuals and institutions are authorizing that organization to make investment decisions on their behalf within the stated objectives and requirements of a given fund. In this case, Fink's thesis is that social responsibility will lead companies and consequently funds investing in those companies to outperform in the long run, which is in line with the firm's obligations as a fiduciary. If investors feel like this perspective isn't representative of their individual judgement, they can take their money elsewhere. If investors continue to invest with BlackRock, they're deferring to Fink's judgement on this issue and nothing is being "overridden".
That is rather the key point, I think. Why Apple indeed?
The phrase "virtue signalling" is rather widely used and abused, but if it has any definition at all it would have to mean something like this: the very public and noisy display of moral purity through mounting public attacks on those claimed to be less morally pure, specifically for the purpose of boosting your own credentials.
If this firm Jana Partners and Calstrs actually cared about the topic of children and electronics, and was pursuing some well thought out logical agenda to increase child safety in industry, it would make more sense to publicly request down-tier phone vendors whose child-related feature set was not as good as Apple's to rise to their level. They would use Apple as an example for everyone else, not attack Apple and imply that they don't care enough. Objectively they seem to care more than most manufacturers do, even if it's only a small amount (I guess Android has some similar features too these days).
But if this firm is merely posturing and engaged in "virtue signalling", and doesn't actually care much about numerically significant outcomes on children, then it makes perfect sense to attack Apple because the goal is to be as noisy and attention grabbing as possible and Apple has more brand recognition than most firms do.
If major investment funds are being taken over by social activism, this doesn't seem like good news for anyone. What makes us think that Fink in particular has such great wisdom or insight into how society should be remodelled. What if his idea of "contributing to society" looks rather different to most other people's? And what will the people who put money in his funds think, when they discover that he's using their money to advance his own pet political causes?
When I was younger I used to think that faceless financial types like Fink were bad, a part of The System and activism was wonderful. Now I'm older I think the world could use a bit less naive activism and a bit more understanding of how it got the way it is before people go and throw wrenches into it. Fink should get back to delivering returns and let society itself decide what "contributing to society" means.