or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Satorical

Bingo. I'm in this category too, and got the same message last month based on about 2.5Gb of usage. One of the reasons I jumped on board to begin with was because it was promoted as an unlimited plan. I wouldn't have forked over my cash if I had known they would renege on the agreement--that's why it's called an agreement.
[QUOTE=JayBeeson;2033076]I'm also both an Apple fan/user and a stockholder. I think Cook's reply was disappointing. I'd like specific responses to the allegations made. If the auditors can be bought off, doesn't that undermine the imprimatur Apple says it has? Spend the money, fix the problems. If everything in the article is a lie, prove it--the NYT did its research (read the articles; they're not just based on easily-dismissed former employees). I don't expect gainsay in...
That does it, I'm resurrecting the spirit of Upton Sinclair.
I've used Apple products for more than 25 years, and I'm a devoted fanboy (and stockholder). But I'm not close-minded, either. Read the articles. If the main company profiled was M$, would you apologize for it as well? My hope is that Apple and other companies demand better conditions for workers at its supplier companies. With this public shaming, those within the company who have advocated for change should have more leverage in the debate. We may have to pay...
Like Apple needs more money. It would be a total waste of time for them to do something like this. I can't imagine its CFO suggesting this.
The easiest way to be an analyst is to apply past results to future performance. This does not account for innovation, which is where Apple shines. The same thing happens all the time in tech, where innovation matters. Look at how few analysts thought the Wii would be anything but Nintendo's last gasp.
Another analyst who doesn't understand how Apple works. Any acquisition will be for things that help it make better stuff, not for legal reasons. The company sticks to its knitting.
That strikes me as a self-serving, after-the fact, slightly paranoid interpretation. I don't see how China could gripe about WTO rules when it worked so hard to get into the organization. As for environmental issues, steel production is hardly the whole story. The examples you cite don't ring true given the country's massive coal burn rate.
My point was less about the technology and more about the idea that Apple shouldn't be doing business in China at all. I know it's idealistic to think the US could avoid all trade with the world's largest country, or that anyone except the Chinese could change the political scene. That doesn't mean I have to like it; ergo my opinion that Apple, Google, and other companies deserve what they get for operating there. You're quite right about sanctions--they don't work. But...
Civil lawsuit. Class-action this mofo, stat.
New Posts  All Forums: