I read the whole article and I'm not impressed. The crux of the article seems to be that he now admires Tim Cook and Apple because they don't spend money on progressive technologies that have a potential for harm. His examples include smart speakers, driverless cars, and cashierless stores that presumably shouldn't be pursued because of their potential for societal harm. Look, things like privacy, safety, and job opportunities for the underprivileged are immensely important, but his arguments are flawed. By the same standards, the iphone and a myriad of other important technologies should never have been pursued.
