public company

Apple

Industry Retail

A public consumer-electronics and software-platform company selling devices, services, and app distribution, with strong products, lock-in, and monopoly litigation exposure. Apple remains weak because of identity capture, ideological disavowal, and youth capture, even where the product or service has practical value.

Why this matters: High-quality products can still deepen market dependency and platform extraction.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score 17* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE17 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material32

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap32

Penalties-15

Private Government badge

Apple receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $2.9M on public policy issues.

Evidence: [15]

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Policy Capture.

Strengths

Extraction7/10
Product Integrity5/5
Labor Sovereignty4/7

Penalties

Policy Capture-7
Youth Capture-2
Unilateral Terms-2
Identity Capture-2

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims15
Direct axis claims14
Coverage14/14

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	2 / 10	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 78 scored entries below, 21 tied, 127 above on Ownership. Linked evidence Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	2 / 10	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 71 scored entries below, 22 tied, 133 above on Governance. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple’s investor materials show a public corporation governed by board and shareholder structures, not by workers, app developers, customers, or device owners affected by platform rules. [3]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. That places Apple in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 140 scored entries below, 32 tied, 54 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple’s financial statements show very large product and services revenue, and the platform model lets Apple extract value through hardware margins, services, and app-ecosystem control. [4]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. That places Apple in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 112 scored entries below, 39 tied, 75 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple’s public-company governance and supply-chain/platform structure leave workers, developers, and suppliers without binding control over core rules, even where the company publishes conduct standards. [5]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	3 / 7	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. That places Apple in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 81 scored entries below, 45 tied, 100 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple sells high-cost devices and services with some accessibility value, but the model does not structurally support people outside employment or purchasing power. [6]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	4 / 7	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. That places Apple in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 88 scored entries below, 30 tied, 108 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple’s services and ecosystem revenue model preserves company margin and platform control, while public records do not show a strong pattern of absorbing costs for weaker counterparties. [7]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. That places Apple in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 22 tied, 173 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 134 scored entries below, 92 tied, 0 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple’s products and operating systems provide high practical utility and integration, but DOJ allegations about ecosystem restrictions show product value is entangled with lock-in. [8]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	3 / 5	Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. That places Apple in the middle of Scale Integrity: scale brings useful reach but also weakens accountability, transparency, or local constraint. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 50 scored entries below, 58 tied, 118 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures. [1] context The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct. [2] Apple operates globally across devices, app distribution, payments, messaging, and services; that scale magnifies both product quality and the consequences of closed ecosystem control. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-7	OpenLobby records APPLE lobbying on tax with about $2.9M in spending across 32 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. OpenLobby records APPLE lobbying on tax with about $2.9M in spending across 32 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. That warrants a substantial Policy Capture penalty because private institutional pressure is being applied to public rules while affected people cannot democratically govern that agenda. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Linked evidence OpenLobby records APPLE lobbying on tax with about $2.9M in spending across 32 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. [13]
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-2	The FTC approved an order resolving allegations that Apple charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without parents’ express informed consent, including a 15-minute window for additional charges after password entry. The FTC approved an order resolving allegations that Apple charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without parents’ express informed consent, including a 15-minute window for additional charges after password entry. That warrants a substantial Youth Capture penalty because young people are treated as manipulable consumers, data sources, attention targets, or culture markets. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 10 scored entries below, 2 tied, 214 above on Youth Capture. Linked evidence The FTC approved an order resolving allegations that Apple charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without parents’ express informed consent, including a 15-minute window for additional charges after password entry. [11]
Unilateral Terms ? Non-negotiable clickthrough or adhesion terms that turn ordinary customer, user, subscriber, patient, tenant, or public-facing access into a one-sided contract, especially forced arbitration, class-action or mass-action waivers, unilateral modification, venue restrictions, broad indemnity, account termination discretion, or essential-service access conditioned on unreadable terms. Range: -5 to 0.	-2	Apple's Unilateral Terms penalty is material but not floor-level because the current linked terms are broad, non-negotiable, and tied to a major app and media ecosystem, while this record… Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Unilateral Terms rollout; full column calibration should be revisited as terms-of-service evidence is added. Linked evidence Apple Media Services Terms define a contract governing purchases, licenses, rentals, subscriptions, app access, accounts, termination, indemnity, usage rules, and service/content availability for Apple media and app services. [14]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Apple's integrated device, app, payment, and messaging ecosystem creates customer identity and workflow pressure that is difficult to exit. Apple's integrated device, app, payment, and messaging ecosystem creates customer identity and workflow pressure that is difficult to exit. That warrants a substantial Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 13 scored entries below, 10 tied, 203 above on Identity Capture. Linked evidence Apple's integrated device, app, payment, and messaging ecosystem creates customer identity and workflow pressure that is difficult to exit. [10]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Apple's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Apple exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as… Apple's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Apple exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. That warrants a substantial Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Apple's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Apple exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. [12]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 84/100

14 verified linked claims 14 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 14/14 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 14/20

14 verified linked claims

Source quality 17/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

14 direct claims across 14 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

14/14 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Apple is a publicly traded corporation governed through shareholder-facing investor and board structures.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 4, 2026

Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%

2The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in 2024 alleging monopolization of smartphone markets through restrictive conduct.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 4, 2026

DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

3Apple’s investor materials show a public corporation governed by board and shareholder structures, not by workers, app developers, customers, or device owners affected by platform rules.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

4Apple’s financial statements show very large product and services revenue, and the platform model lets Apple extract value through hardware margins, services, and app-ecosystem control.

Extraction Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

5Apple’s public-company governance and supply-chain/platform structure leave workers, developers, and suppliers without binding control over core rules, even where the company publishes conduct standards.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

6Apple sells high-cost devices and services with some accessibility value, but the model does not structurally support people outside employment or purchasing power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

7Apple’s services and ecosystem revenue model preserves company margin and platform control, while public records do not show a strong pattern of absorbing costs for weaker counterparties.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

8Apple’s products and operating systems provide high practical utility and integration, but DOJ allegations about ecosystem restrictions show product value is entangled with lock-in.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

9Apple operates globally across devices, app distribution, payments, messaging, and services; that scale magnifies both product quality and the consequences of closed ecosystem control.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Apple FY2024 consolidated financial statementsGeneral web source · 58%
Apple investor relationsOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%

10Apple's integrated device, app, payment, and messaging ecosystem creates customer identity and workflow pressure that is difficult to exit.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 4, 2026

DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%
Apple OneGeneral web source · 58%

11The FTC approved an order resolving allegations that Apple charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without parents’ express informed consent, including a 15-minute window for additional charges after password entry.

Youth Capture Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

FTC: Apple children in-app purchase final orderPrimary public record · 100%

12Apple's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Apple exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Apple official siteOfficial self-description · 68%
DOJ Apple monopolization lawsuitPrimary public record · 100%
Apple OneGeneral web source · 58%

13OpenLobby records APPLE lobbying on tax with about $2.9M in spending across 32 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role.

Policy Capture Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — APPLE lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

14Apple Media Services Terms define a contract governing purchases, licenses, rentals, subscriptions, app access, accounts, termination, indemnity, usage rules, and service/content availability for Apple media and app services.

Unilateral Terms Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 13, 2026

AI scaffold

Apple Media Services Terms and ConditionsGeneral web source · 58%

15Apple receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $2.9M on public policy issues.

Private Government Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — APPLE lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

BQUALIFIED44 Ace Hardware retailer-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED43 Do it Best member-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED42 Dr. Bronner's private benefit corporation · same market BQUALIFIED47 John Lewis Partnership employee-owned retailer · United Kingdom BQUALIFIED45 Second Use Building Materials employee-owned building-material salvage business · Washington, Pacific Northwest

Competitors

BQUALIFIED44 Ace Hardware retailer-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED43 Do it Best member-owned hardware cooperative · same market BQUALIFIED42 Dr. Bronner's private benefit corporation · same market CPERFORMATIVE41 Patagonia private company · same market CPERFORMATIVE38 REI Co-op consumer cooperative · same market CPERFORMATIVE37 Taylor Guitars private instrument maker · same market DEXTRACTIVE34 Framework Computer private repairable-electronics company · same market DEXTRACTIVE34 Grove Collaborative public benefit household-products company · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Apple Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 7, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding youth-capture-assessment

Added source-backed Youth Capture penalty -2 based on evidence specific to youth data, child-directed marketing, loot-box/gambling-like monetization, or youth-culture manipulation.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding toxic-products-assessment

Added tentative AI-generated Toxic Products penalty 0 and directory value for current toxic, addictive, pesticide, livestock, chemical, or consumer-safety product exposure.

May 5, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai_scaffolding score

Published tentative AI-generated scaffolding score 26 for initial human review under gcd-rubric-v1.

View Full Audit Log