I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
It is beacuse governments either hide their due dilegence proces that was followed and try to keep out of people's minds by downplaying this or they have special interest in having this exploit and control it. Sometimes it is tu turn spy to make it work for both sides.
The real mystery is why Bloomberg published the story in the first place? It fits so well with the new protectionist policies of the government. The story is the high tech way to say "your servers have cooties". You can't see them but they are there, trust us!
That's where the sausage in this sandwich is.
Or running with the story was a huge misjudgement or they have a bombshell waiting to drop and they are bleeding things as far as they can before letting it go.
Who knows!
All I know is that everyone loves a sausage sandwich!
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
You were not being invited. It was meant to be rhetorical.
Of course you were inviting me by telling me what I thought, and I corrected what you assumed it was. Simply really, if I don't want your input I won't use your name and call you out. You might try doing the same.
And while we’re at it, what about those 30 other companies supposedly involved? Did Bloomberg release the names of those 30 other companies? I have not read a single article that answers that question. So did Bloomberg just smear Apple and Amazon because they are the biggest and would get the most viral responses? Somebody, provide a link where I can find out who the 30 other companies are, please.
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Who are you to decide what a person makes? If you're okay with that then I should be allowed to delve into your private affairs and decide what you make and vice-versa. Fair is fair. What's the definition of greed? The definition as you'll see does not fit into your narrative. Not one bit. And for the record I'm not against corporations.
Oh, well since the GCHQ says it's not true, I guess we definitely should believe them.
....and Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership, and Amazon’s leadership, and AI’s sources. Corporations who are legally barred from lying to their investors. Vs Bloomberg and it’s unnamed sources and zero evidence provided.
Lying has to be proven for it to be illegal. And you have to prove that the lie was done deliberately, instead of it being just a crappy investigation Amazon/Apple did. So, if Amazon did find a problem and decided not to collectively decimate their and Apple's stock prices along with the trust for their respective services, the report would ....ehh.. omit certain details, because the companies did not do (cough) thorough enough investigation into the matter. How about that? Plausible deniability and stuff....
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Not saying Apple said anything inaccurate at all, but I don't think Mr. Cook himself nor any other Apple executive made any comments or claims so no particular individual would be held personally accountable if something wasn't exactly 100% correct. Could be mistaken about where the denials came from or who might be liable but I don't think so.
Anyway I'm leaning hard towards trusting Amazon and Apple on this one, even if there's some truths in the Bloomberg story (or not).
AAPL getting killed today because perpetually negative AAPL short Einhorn sold all of his Apple stock. This is a big buy signal, IMO. Einhorn was a dummy.
AAPL getting killed today because perpetually negative AAPL short Einhorn sold all of his Apple stock. This is a big buy signal, IMO. Einhorn was a dummy.
He's probably selling the good stuff (AAPL) to pay for his other value-destroying moves, I am guessing.
AAPL getting killed today because perpetually negative AAPL short Einhorn sold all of his Apple stock. This is a big buy signal, IMO. Einhorn was a dummy.
"David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital has today sold its last bit of Apple shares due to fears of its Chinese relationships in light of recent U.S. tariffs."
AAPL getting killed today because perpetually negative AAPL short Einhorn sold all of his Apple stock. This is a big buy signal, IMO. Einhorn was a dummy.
"David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital has today sold its last bit of Apple shares due to fears of its Chinese relationships in light of recent U.S. tariffs."
Exactly. More nonsense which drives panic selling.
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Who are you to decide what a person makes? If you're okay with that then I should be allowed to delve into your private affairs and decide what you make and vice-versa. Fair is fair. What's the definition of greed? The definition as you'll see does not fit into your narrative. Not one bit. And for the record I'm not against corporations.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I am free to believe a 400:1 executive-to-worker ratio is beyond reasonable, is fucking absurd, and a sign of corporate greed run amuck. As are others like me. And we’re free to advocate this position.
Oh, well since the GCHQ says it's not true, I guess we definitely should believe them.
....and Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership, and Amazon’s leadership, and AI’s sources. Corporations who are legally barred from lying to their investors. Vs Bloomberg and it’s unnamed sources and zero evidence provided.
Lying has to be proven for it to be illegal. And you have to prove that the lie was done deliberately, instead of it being just a crappy investigation Amazon/Apple did. So, if Amazon did find a problem and decided not to collectively decimate their and Apple's stock prices along with the trust for their respective services, the report would ....ehh.. omit certain details, because the companies did not do (cough) thorough enough investigation into the matter. How about that? Plausible deniability and stuff....
No, that’s still conspiracy theory nonsense. Workers could not squash this sort of security breech. Someone would know, and it would be known to executive management. Apple and Amazon are very specific in their denials, it’s not a matter of plausible deniability.
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Not saying Apple said anything inaccurate at all, but I don't think Mr. Cook himself nor any other Apple executive made any comments or claims so no particular individual would be held personally accountable if something wasn't exactly 100% correct. Could be mistaken about where the denials came from or who might be liable but I don't think so.
Anyway I'm leaning hard towards trusting Amazon and Apple on this one, even if there's some truths in the Bloomberg story (or not).
If you don’t believe Apple’s denial was run by Cook before being issued, you have no idea how business works and should stick to teaching school children or something. Cook would absolutely be fired.
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Not saying Apple said anything inaccurate at all, but I don't think Mr. Cook himself nor any other Apple executive made any comments or claims so no particular individual would be held personally accountable if something wasn't exactly 100% correct. Could be mistaken about where the denials came from or who might be liable but I don't think so.
Anyway I'm leaning hard towards trusting Amazon and Apple on this one, even if there's some truths in the Bloomberg story (or not).
If you don’t believe Apple’s denial was run by Cook before being issued, you have no idea how business works and should stick to teaching school children or something. Cook would absolutely be fired.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/04/bloomberg-spy-chip-murky-world-national-security-reporting/ "Yet, to Apple — and Amazon and other companies implicated by the report — they too might also be in the dark. Assuming there was an active espionage investigation into the alleged actions of a foreign government, you can bet that only a handful of people at these companies will be even cursorily aware of the situation. U.S. surveillance and counter-espionage laws restrict who can be told about classified information or investigations. Only those who need to be in the know are kept in a very tight loop — typically a company’s chief counsel. Often their bosses, the chief executive or president, are not told to avoid making false or misleading statements to shareholders."
Now in this instance Apple's Chief Legal Counsel at the time, Bruce Sewell, says he didn't know anything about it either so it's becoming ever more likely Bloomberg got some bad info fed to them. There is a surprisingly high amount of effort being put into denials, something Apple has not done before to this extent AFAIK, and on a story that had it been true would not have even reflected badly on Apple anyway IMHO. Something hit a nerve I guess.
Comments
Or running with the story was a huge misjudgement or they have a bombshell waiting to drop and they are bleeding things as far as they can before letting it go.
Who knows!
All I know is that everyone loves a sausage sandwich!
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
So, if Amazon did find a problem and decided not to collectively decimate their and Apple's stock prices along with the trust for their respective services, the report would ....ehh.. omit certain details, because the companies did not do (cough) thorough enough investigation into the matter.
How about that? Plausible deniability and stuff....
Anyway I'm leaning hard towards trusting Amazon and Apple on this one, even if there's some truths in the Bloomberg story (or not).
I am free to believe a 400:1 executive-to-worker ratio is beyond reasonable, is fucking absurd, and a sign of corporate greed run amuck. As are others like me. And we’re free to advocate this position.
If you don’t believe Apple’s denial was run by Cook before being issued, you have no idea how business works and should stick to teaching school children or something. Cook would absolutely be fired.
"Yet, to Apple — and Amazon and other companies implicated by the report — they too might also be in the dark. Assuming there was an active espionage investigation into the alleged actions of a foreign government, you can bet that only a handful of people at these companies will be even cursorily aware of the situation. U.S. surveillance and counter-espionage laws restrict who can be told about classified information or investigations. Only those who need to be in the know are kept in a very tight loop — typically a company’s chief counsel. Often their bosses, the chief executive or president, are not told to avoid making false or misleading statements to shareholders."
Now in this instance Apple's Chief Legal Counsel at the time, Bruce Sewell, says he didn't know anything about it either so it's becoming ever more likely Bloomberg got some bad info fed to them. There is a surprisingly high amount of effort being put into denials, something Apple has not done before to this extent AFAIK, and on a story that had it been true would not have even reflected badly on Apple anyway IMHO. Something hit a nerve I guess.
Bloomberg: not required.
Anonymous sources: not required.
Not difficult to figure out who to believe.