Not sure I would really call Apple a leader in altruism, they are certainly good in this respect but calling them a leader is a bit much imo. Their policing of the supply chain is excellent, don't get me wrong, but they wouldn't have a tens of billions cash stockpile if their altruism was as extensive as portrayed by DED. He appears to be rather neurotic in his portrayal of Apple, the bias has become so ridiculous he has zero credibility anymore; I used to like his articles but now it's like a cult leader preaching. In any case a more altruistic Apple would donate more cash to charities or maybe even set up their own charity to help people. Either that or charge less in the first place, doing their part to keep the distribution of wealth a little more even. The article is written as if Apple is the only company helping out in this pandemic; there are many, many other companies too that are doing just as much and more.
The butthurt is strong in this one.
What you wrote makes zero sense. Being a civic leader and having cash in the bank are not mutually exclusive. At all. There's no logical argument to support that absurd claim.
As for the rest, this is an editorial column, aka an opinion column. If you don't like the opinions, that's fine, but nobody promised you only opinions you agree with. I'd love to see you write and publish an opinion column of your own and we could all read it and I'm sure the comments would all be excellent and you'd be embraced by the entire tech community. Right?!
Of course these actions are good. Certainly. But goodness may or may not be the primary motive.
Personally, I suspect that the primary motive is to limit the damage to the company‘s bottom line. The longer the crises, the greater the recession, the greater the loss.
It’s smart leadership. Money well spent from which ever angle you look at it. It’s a win-win.
But it’s not altruistic. For that it would have to be selfless - which it is not.
As Cook said, the environmental and accessibility work Apple does doesn't improve the ROI (sorry, not that many blind Mac customers), yet they do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do. If you refuse to believe what you see, or what you hear them say, then nobody can help you. Take you position far enough and nothing anyone anywhere does it altruistic because if you enjoy the way it feels to do good things for others then it's no longer entirely selfless, etc...
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Amazon have all made various ineffectual announcements about their ad policies. At the same time, they continue to allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity. Incredibly, this is being done in full public view.
You couldn't just stick with discussing Apple?
You do the same all day in the comments section.
Yeah, it truly is a disorder. It'd be like a Yankees fan hanging around Mets forums to talk about the Yankees all the time. You just have to wonder what the fuck...
Not sure I would really call Apple a leader in altruism, they are certainly good in this respect but calling them a leader is a bit much imo. Their policing of the supply chain is excellent, don't get me wrong, but they wouldn't have a tens of billions cash stockpile if their altruism was as extensive as portrayed by DED. He appears to be rather neurotic in his portrayal of Apple, the bias has become so ridiculous he has zero credibility anymore; I used to like his articles but now it's like a cult leader preaching. In any case a more altruistic Apple would donate more cash to charities or maybe even set up their own charity to help people. Either that or charge less in the first place, doing their part to keep the distribution of wealth a little more even. The article is written as if Apple is the only company helping out in this pandemic; there are many, many other companies too that are doing just as much and more.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Amazon have all made various ineffectual announcements about their ad policies. At the same time, they continue to allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity. Incredibly, this is being done in full public view.
You couldn't just stick with discussing Apple?
You do the same all day in the comments section.
You haven't been around here long apparently. I'm rarely the first to mention Google. I believe you're actually more likely to inject them into a discussion first. So as you were soldier...
Nah, you've just been more careful since it was getting outright comical some years back -- "Paging GatorGuy" was a common gag in anticipation of your many links explaining how actually Google did it first. Thankfully after being slapped down so many times you've toned it down.
... as portrayed by DED. He appears to be rather neurotic in his portrayal of Apple, the bias has become so ridiculous he has zero credibility anymore; I used to like his articles but now it's like a cult leader preaching.
His defensiveness of Apple is weird, conspicuous, and embarrassing, at this point. It’s like he’s trying to get Apple’s attention for a job in their PR department.
Nah, it's the perpetually-butthurts like you who keep coming back to an editorial columnist you disagree with every...single...week...that are weird and/or embarrassing.
The reality is, most of the tech and wall street writers get Apple very, very wrong. Like when Gurman claimed the X was a flop -- then it turned out to be the best selling model the entire time it was out. A thousand other examples. Only writers like DED, PED, and the Macalope are able to point out the stupids and use reason to explain why.
The emotionally-driven butthurts do not like this, however.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Amazon have all made various ineffectual announcements about their ad policies. At the same time, they continue to allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity. Incredibly, this is being done in full public view.
Isn't Apple taking a cut too by receiving billions of dollars from Google every year by making their search engine the default in Safari? Maybe Apple should stop receiving money from Google, and change the default search engine to a company with better privacy track, in addition of removing Google Search / YouTube, Facebook / Instagram, Twitter and Amazon apps. Based in your post, it would be the best for Apple customers, right?
Apple doesn't inject fraudulent messaging in front of users and take a cut of it. YouTube very much does. Facebook/IG does. Twitter does. Apple maybe has a problem with apps that are trying to defraud people, but it actively roots those things out.
Google pays for access to Appe's platforms, but that access does not allow it to shove ads or videos in front of people.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Amazon have all made various ineffectual announcements about their ad policies. At the same time, they continue to allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity. Incredibly, this is being done in full public view.
Isn't Apple taking a cut too by receiving billions of dollars from Google every year by making their search engine the default in Safari? Maybe Apple should stop receiving money from Google, and change the default search engine to a company with better privacy track, in addition of removing Google Search / YouTube, Facebook / Instagram, Twitter and Amazon apps. Based in your post, it would be the best for Apple customers, right?
Apple doesn't inject fraudulent messaging in front of users and take a cut of it. YouTube very much does. Facebook/IG does. Twitter does.Apple maybe has a problem with apps that are trying to defraud people, but it actively roots those things out.
Google pays for access to Appe's platforms, but that access does not allow it to shove ads or videos in front of people.
My point is not about ads or videos Google shoved to users, but from a business POV. Do you think that Apple should support and do business with a company that, based in your own editorial, "allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity."? Would you make default a search engine or allow in your app store something from companies with the description you gave?
Not sure I would really call Apple a leader in altruism, they are certainly good in this respect but calling them a leader is a bit much imo. Their policing of the supply chain is excellent, don't get me wrong, but they wouldn't have a tens of billions cash stockpile if their altruism was as extensive as portrayed by DED. He appears to be rather neurotic in his portrayal of Apple, the bias has become so ridiculous he has zero credibility anymore; I used to like his articles but now it's like a cult leader preaching. In any case a more altruistic Apple would donate more cash to charities or maybe even set up their own charity to help people. Either that or charge less in the first place, doing their part to keep the distribution of wealth a little more even. The article is written as if Apple is the only company helping out in this pandemic; there are many, many other companies too that are doing just as much and more.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Amazon have all made various ineffectual announcements about their ad policies. At the same time, they continue to allow frauds to promote and sell fake masks, bogus cures, disinfection robots that don't do anything, and disseminate false information on their social ad networks -- all while taking a cut profiting from advertising this fraudulent activity. Incredibly, this is being done in full public view.
You couldn't just stick with discussing Apple?
You do the same all day in the comments section.
You haven't been around here long apparently. I'm rarely the first to mention Google. I believe you're actually more likely to inject them into a discussion first. So as you were soldier...
Nah, you've just been more careful since it was getting outright comical some years back -- "Paging GatorGuy" was a common gag in anticipation of your many links explaining how actually Google did it first. Thankfully after being slapped down so many times you've toned it down.
That was a silly fib the first time I remember you inventing it a few years ago. You weren't able to actually find an example back then either. It's still just as silly a little fib today @StrangeDays , ; but it doesn't keep me from agreeing with you on some of the other things you say in other threads despite that occasional silliness.
The iKnockoff slaves who give up their data/privacy for free will be out in full force on this one.
I love DED articles because it shatters their belief that Apple is some evil corporation with an evil CEO twirling his mustache and stoking a black cat.
I for one, certainly hope Tim Cook isn't stoking his cat!
The iKnockoff slaves who give up their data/privacy for free will be out in full force on this one.
I love DED articles because it shatters their belief that Apple is some evil corporation with an evil CEO twirling his mustache and stoking a black cat.
I for one, certainly hope Tim Cook isn't stoking his cat!
The global financial meltdown in 2008 and the current coronavirus crisis underline an uncomfortable truth for corporations and the wealthy: the most important part of the economy is just average people doing their jobs and spending money to support themselves and their families. As soon as those average people get laid off en masse and aren't spending as much anymore, the economy goes into a steep nosedive. The economy is not controlled by charismatic CEOs or know-it-all billionaires. It's controlled by average people, and it's been decades since those average people were treated like they should be first in line for government policy. That's DEFCON 1 to the corporate world and the wealthy. They need to find ways to make it appear as if they're still in control, thus the "task forces" and the "hey, we flew in some medical supplies from China".
Of course these actions are good. Certainly. But goodness may or may not be the primary motive.
Personally, I suspect that the primary motive is to limit the damage to the company‘s bottom line. The longer the crises, the greater the recession, the greater the loss.
It’s smart leadership. Money well spent from which ever angle you look at it. It’s a win-win.
But it’s not altruistic. For that it would have to be selfless - which it is not.
In your world, no act of kindness goes unpunished. What a cynical view of mankind, what an unhappy way to live. In truth there is no such thing as pure motives. Humans are too complex for that. Even a seemingly pure selfless act has a selfish aspect because it is driven by a desire to feel good about oneself, or more desperately, to get relief from psychological pain.
No one would bother to act kindly towards others if the world was run your way where every act of giving is rewarded with suspicion, derision, and condemnation.
The global financial meltdown in 2008 and the current coronavirus crisis underline an uncomfortable truth for corporations and the wealthy: the most important part of the economy is just average people doing their jobs and spending money to support themselves and their families. As soon as those average people get laid off en masse and aren't spending as much anymore, the economy goes into a steep nosedive. The economy is not controlled by charismatic CEOs or know-it-all billionaires. It's controlled by average people, and it's been decades since those average people were treated like they should be first in line for government policy. That's DEFCON 1 to the corporate world and the wealthy. They need to find ways to make it appear as if they're still in control, thus the "task forces" and the "hey, we flew in some medical supplies from China".
That's all true, but you may be missing the point. The central lesson here is that corporations must work together with governments in response. The idea that the private sector is immune and can just freeload from the public sector and everything will be fine is rotten to the core and is being exposed. There's a segment of the wealthy that will always be essentially evil -- they use their money and power to hollow out both corporations and governments in order to enrich themselves. They may be able to cover up their failures in this pandemic using all the expensive propaganda tools at their disposal, they've already begun, but this is only the beginning of what will be a series of deadly crises in the coming century. The lesson here and now, for those who care to learn from this, is that we need corporations and governments to be both strong and to be able to work together in the face of global catastrophe.
The old saying holds true -- you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. Rarely has this adage been so true in such a visible way.
Apple is making an effort to be part of the solution. You can, too. But it's going to feel like a drop in the bucket because too many governments and corporations are in the hands of people who just don't give a shit about anything other than themselves, their money, and their power.
Comments
What you wrote makes zero sense. Being a civic leader and having cash in the bank are not mutually exclusive. At all. There's no logical argument to support that absurd claim.
As for the rest, this is an editorial column, aka an opinion column. If you don't like the opinions, that's fine, but nobody promised you only opinions you agree with. I'd love to see you write and publish an opinion column of your own and we could all read it and I'm sure the comments would all be excellent and you'd be embraced by the entire tech community. Right?!
The reality is, most of the tech and wall street writers get Apple very, very wrong. Like when Gurman claimed the X was a flop -- then it turned out to be the best selling model the entire time it was out. A thousand other examples. Only writers like DED, PED, and the Macalope are able to point out the stupids and use reason to explain why.
The emotionally-driven butthurts do not like this, however.
Google pays for access to Appe's platforms, but that access does not allow it to shove ads or videos in front of people.
That was a silly fib the first time I remember you inventing it a few years ago. You weren't able to actually find an example back then either. It's still just as silly a little fib today @StrangeDays , ; but it doesn't keep me from agreeing with you on some of the other things you say in other threads despite that occasional silliness.
No one would bother to act kindly towards others if the world was run your way where every act of giving is rewarded with suspicion, derision, and condemnation.
The old saying holds true -- you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. Rarely has this adage been so true in such a visible way.
Apple is making an effort to be part of the solution. You can, too. But it's going to feel like a drop in the bucket because too many governments and corporations are in the hands of people who just don't give a shit about anything other than themselves, their money, and their power.