Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.
How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
I hate most lawsuits because the majority of the time, lawyers are in it for the money more than betterment of someone or society at large. With that said, I myself called for batteries when that story first broke. Makes absolutely no sense for ANY BUSINESS to not have concrete polls or similar to prevent accidental lead-foot drivers, especially elderly drivers, from plowing throw a building by accident. And while newer cars like Toyota have features like Safety Sense which prevents such accidents, that doesn't help people who drive older cars which lack those features.
Now while barriers can and should apply to any business, Apple more than other businesses need them because sometimes you have thugs who deliberately drive cars through the front of the store at night to steal products. A good set of barriers would help thwart that.
I just wish it didn't take a lawsuit to get the right thing done. And then it should be a discussion between Apple and the landowners, where Apple should not have to bear the total cost.
P.S. I'm happy at least ONE AppleInsider article today allows Comments. Totally hilarious to see all the Musk/Twitter articles today banning comments (i.e., stopping free speech) when it comes to topics that discuss free speech. I've long taken issue with AppleInsider about that. There are risks with freedom, but it's worth it. No need to go full CCP to limit speech AppleInsider owners don't like. You're not a true advocate of liberty until you afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I don't go around calling for total bans on those things. And no, calling for more freedom to comment doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. So long as no crimes are being committed and no laws broken, it's a fact that some speech may be pretty naught (personally, I had profanity), but that doesn't mean we need to censor anything and everything we don't like. Loosening the comment restrictions is the right thing to do. There really can be a proper balance, without the need to complete block all comments under multiple articles. Blocking comments is more than just limiting speech. It's like AppleInsider is playing parent, spanking kids for having been naughty in other threads. And yes, I've spoken to at least one AppleInsider author in the distance past who told me about SEO and how AppleInsider content appears in search engines as justification for censoring comments, but that argument was not persuasive at all in my humble opinion. Strive for free speech whenever possible. Thanks.
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.
How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
Apple, its in-store employees, and the people shopping in the store are the victims here. Blaming victims is never a good look. Not installing barriers in front of this particular location cannot be construed as Apple "asking for it" or inviting mayhem, regardless of whether their stores in other locations have been targeted by smash & grab robbers.
I understand and share your concerns wrt safety, especially after seeing the tragic aftermath. But I don't think it's really fair to move the goalposts for Apple, especially after the fact, simply because Apple is associated with a tragic incident, and more so when they are also one of the victims. That's the entirety of any differences in perspective we have around this situation.
We don't know why this particular Apple store didn't have bollards installed in
front its customer entrance, but I assume it was an informed decision
involving multiple stakeholders including Apple, the property/mall
owner, local law enforcement, and the municipality. There is no doubt that Apple and Tim Cook are very deeply concerned about all of the victims of this tragedy. I also expect they will take positive actions in response to reduce the likelihood of this occurring again at any of their stores. They gain nothing by exposing themselves, their employees, and their customers to what are now known risks. Hopefully other retailers in similar circumstances will follow Apple's lead and take preemptive actions as well.
Not the responsibility of a brick and mortar store to install crash barriers. This incident was not due to a defect in the vehicle. It was entirely driver error. The driver should be jailed and have their license suspended until they are able to pass a safe driving course.
P.S. I'm happy at least ONE AppleInsider article today allows Comments. Totally hilarious to see all the Musk/Twitter articles today banning comments (i.e., stopping free speech) when it comes to topics that discuss free speech. I've long taken issue with AppleInsider about that. There are risks with freedom, but it's worth it. No need to go full CCP to limit speech AppleInsider owners don't like. You're not a true advocate of liberty until you afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I don't go around calling for total bans on those things. And no, calling for more freedom to comment doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. So long as no crimes are being committed and no laws broken, it's a fact that some speech may be pretty naught (personally, I had profanity), but that doesn't mean we need to censor anything and everything we don't like. Loosening the comment restrictions is the right thing to do. There really can be a proper balance, without the need to complete block all comments under multiple articles. Blocking comments is more than just limiting speech. It's like AppleInsider is playing parent, spanking kids for having been naughty in other threads. And yes, I've spoken to at least one AppleInsider author in the distance past who told me about SEO and how AppleInsider content appears in search engines as justification for censoring comments, but that argument was not persuasive at all in my humble opinion. Strive for free speech whenever possible. Thanks.
I'm not surprised by your post.
Maybe there's a compromise solution, like relocating articles that the AppleInsider moderation team flags as deviating from its commenting expectations to a different sub-forum, but only as long as the non-culled comments don't explicitly break any stated rules or guidelines? I personally have no desire to engage in an unmoderated forum.
I can definitely see where the comment section of some articles do end end up going down very off-topic rabbit holes that have little to do with AppleInsider's mission statement and primary purpose. Of course any changes like I've suggested would impose more workload on the AppleInsider staff. The fact that there is already infrastructure in-place in the "All Forums" part of the AppleInsider site may lessen the required effort. I don't know.
Fundamentally, as guests on AppleInsider we aren't really in a position to make any demands, but suggestions are always fair game. We should always respect the concerns of our host and recognize that they are running a business here. We also need to be mindful of the need to self-regulate and apply our own self-moderation mechanisms, which I think sometimes get desensitized in the midst of a hot topic. I understand how it happens and I'm not immune to the temptation to get sucked into some of the rabbit holes or step dangerously close to the boundaries of the rules.
I think it's basic human nature to engage and participate and voice our opinions but we must always be aware of where the boundaries are and try not push things too far. We also need to take responsibility for what we "say" and self-test whether our posts are actually relevant to the topic at hand, ensure that what we post represents our original ideas, and make sure that what we post reflects our own personal perspectives and understanding of the topic itself or a topic-relevant adjacency. There are no real personal consequences of us shit-posting here other than getting banned, but AppleInsider can suffer business repercussions if their site becomes too toxic for advertisers to be associated with.
Nothing I've said has anything to do with free speech, but it has everything to do with us being considerate for what AppleInsider provides for us in terms of allowing us to participate in discussions around topics and subjects that are of shared interest to everyone. We really should never do anything that places AppleInsider in a negative business position. I'm assuming that shutting down comments is a damage control action, not an imposition on our freedom of self expression.
Again, maybe there's a middle ground with mutual benefits that can be proposed by those who feel slighted by the eradication of comments from a topic. Fire away with some suggestions.
Hehe, back in the day, there was a subforum on AppleInsider called AppleOutsider. Of course, political discussion got heated, and there was breakout forum called PoliticalOutsider.
It was all nuked in the early aughts. It is a for the greater good. People don't need to have these types of discussions. Keep it off AI. If you want to discuss it, do it by private message.
"100% preventable crash"
Well, the crash would have still happened, the car would just have crashed into pillars, gates, potted plants, who knows what else, and theoretically killing and injuring pedestrians in front of the store. And, it's still possible for a car to flip on its side and slip through them, and go right into the store, no? Or a motorcycle, or someone taking a creative path passed the barriers to go through the front of the store, side of the store, etc.
One of my bosses was almost killed in his own bedroom when a couple of YOLOs decided to street race, on a road that ended in a cul de sac. My boss didn't even live in the cul de sac. He lived behind the houses of the cul de sac. Street racer, drunk probably, manage to not hit the house on the end of the cul de sac, but went beside it, went through the back yard, go through the fence into my boss' property, and a tree stopped the car. That tree wasn't in front of his bedroom. 20 feet to the side? Car would probably have crashed through his bedroom windows. There's always a creative path.
Not a good look for Apple and the property owners since the back of the mall has several barriers and barriers were installed in front of the store after the crash. Will be interesting to see the negotiations and requirements between the mall owners and Apple for the Hingham location. Read elsewhere (can't find now) that the property owners did not want barriers/bollards around store fronts. Apple has several locations with barriers in the form of bollards, planters, fencing, etc.
In each legislative term since 2013, Carolyn Dykema, a Holliston state representative who left the State Legislature in January, filed a bill that would mandate that barriers be placed between certain parking spaces and retail businesses. Each of her five tries died before reaching a floor vote.
“When you start paying attention, it’s really quite shocking the number of crashes and the frequency of them,” Dykema said when reached by phone on Tuesday.
I don’t think this is “a look” for Apple in any way. They are following all requirements imposed on them. What about all of the other stores in the mall that have unprotected entrances? Do they also have a bad look? It’s not that I’m against safety barriers at all, having seen the results of a very similar incident fairly recently in my home town, but you can’t single out and slam Apple for not doing something that they and other retailers are not required to do. Just because Apple has a lot of money doesn’t require them to follow a different set of rules or live up to implied expectations. If communities want to prevent these tragedies it’s up them to enact laws and set standards to make it happen. Everyone should have to follow the same set of rules.
The reason why stores have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention. The bad guys don’t want to draw attention to their illegal activities which makes the back entrances more vulnerable.
Again, I’m not anti-safety and I recognize that these accidents occur more often than they should, especially in areas with a higher proportion of elderly drivers, some of whom should probably not be driving. But I also believe that we need to take a systems approach to solving the problem. I’ve spent some time working with functional safety for industrial machinery and one thing that strikes me as odd in the commercial sector is the total lack of emergency shutdown mechanisms in automobiles.
I can’t imagine an auto maker putting a big red e-stop button on the dashboard of every new car, mostly because drivers would be unlikely to use it under emergency circumstances, but I do think that auto makers should be involved in helping to solve the unintended acceleration problem from their side as well. They can’t solve it alone, just like retrofitting passive barriers on a massive scale can’t solve the problem alone. Some level of cooperation and shared responsibility needs to be applied, including community based legal mandates, on-vehicle safety systems, applying more scrutiny to age related license renewal, and avoiding driver distraction.
You win notice that Toyota is not (yet) on the list of entities being sued. Apple has more money, so they go after that side first. It’s contradictory to suggest at the same time that both Apple and Toyota might be to blame. But if their suit against Apple fails, you can be sure that Toyota will then be sued.
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.
How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
You do know there’s a restaurant directly at the end of the street the Toyota sped down. A restaurant that is set back only a fraction the distance from the curb. A restaurant that the driver HAD TO swerve to avoid, thus putting him on a path into the Apple Store. A restaurant that has outdoor seating (in warmer weather) right there directly in line with the street the Toyota sped down. See Google maps, which shows a summertime view with diners sitting out there three feet from the curb. Oh, and there are zero bollards in front of that restaurant.
So Apple, which is not lined up with the street and is set back 30 feet, should have had bollards but not the restaurant? Maybe the restaurant should be sued. If it had bollards maybe the driver would have sacrificed his vehicle on them rather than swerving to avoid driving through the low wall with huge picture windows of the restaurant.
I hate most lawsuits because the majority of the time, lawyers are in it for the money more than betterment of someone or society at large. With that said, I myself called for batteries when that story first broke. Makes absolutely no sense for ANY BUSINESS to not have concrete polls or similar to prevent accidental lead-foot drivers, especially elderly drivers, from plowing throw a building by accident. And while newer cars like Toyota have features like Safety Sense which prevents such accidents, that doesn't help people who drive older cars which lack those features.
Now while barriers can and should apply to any business, Apple more than other businesses need them because sometimes you have thugs who deliberately drive cars through the front of the store at night to steal products. A good set of barriers would help thwart that.
I just wish it didn't take a lawsuit to get the right thing done. And then it should be a discussion between Apple and the landowners, where Apple should not have to bear the total cost.
P.S. I'm happy at least ONE AppleInsider article today allows Comments. Totally hilarious to see all the Musk/Twitter articles today banning comments (i.e., stopping free speech) when it comes to topics that discuss free speech. I've long taken issue with AppleInsider about that. There are risks with freedom, but it's worth it. No need to go full CCP to limit speech AppleInsider owners don't like. You're not a true advocate of liberty until you afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I don't go around calling for total bans on those things. And no, calling for more freedom to comment doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. So long as no crimes are being committed and no laws broken, it's a fact that some speech may be pretty naught (personally, I had profanity), but that doesn't mean we need to censor anything and everything we don't like. Loosening the comment restrictions is the right thing to do. There really can be a proper balance, without the need to complete block all comments under multiple articles. Blocking comments is more than just limiting speech. It's like AppleInsider is playing parent, spanking kids for having been naughty in other threads. And yes, I've spoken to at least one AppleInsider author in the distance past who told me about SEO and how AppleInsider content appears in search engines as justification for censoring comments, but that argument was not persuasive at all in my humble opinion. Strive for free speech whenever possible. Thanks.
Free speech is the right of citizens to speak out against government. It has nothing to do with a business like Twitter or AppleInsider. So many people invoke the mantle of Free Speech in a context where it has zero bearing. AppleInsider has the right to allow or disallow any content it deems necessary to manage its business, including the right to disallow any comments at all. Same as you have in your own home. People complain about this as though AppleInsider should not be allowed its own rights. Think about that.
Not a good look for Apple and the property owners since the back of the mall has several barriers and barriers were installed in front of the store after the crash. Will be interesting to see the negotiations and requirements between the mall owners and Apple for the Hingham location. Read elsewhere (can't find now) that the property owners did not want barriers/bollards around store fronts. Apple has several locations with barriers in the form of bollards, planters, fencing, etc.
In each legislative term since 2013, Carolyn Dykema, a Holliston state representative who left the State Legislature in January, filed a bill that would mandate that barriers be placed between certain parking spaces and retail businesses. Each of her five tries died before reaching a floor vote.
“When you start paying attention, it’s really quite shocking the number of crashes and the frequency of them,” Dykema said when reached by phone on Tuesday.
I don’t think this is “a look” for Apple in any way. They are following all requirements imposed on them. What about all of the other stores in the mall that have unprotected entrances? Do they also have a bad look? It’s not that I’m against safety barriers at all, having seen the results of a very similar incident fairly recently in my home town, but you can’t single out and slam Apple for not doing something that they and other retailers are not required to do. Just because Apple has a lot of money doesn’t require them to follow a different set of rules or live up to implied expectations. If communities want to prevent these tragedies it’s up them to enact laws and set standards to make it happen. Everyone should have to follow the same set of rules.
The reason why stores have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention. The bad guys don’t want to draw attention to their illegal activities which makes the back entrances more vulnerable.
Again, I’m not anti-safety and I recognize that these accidents occur more often than they should, especially in areas with a higher proportion of elderly drivers, some of whom should probably not be driving. But I also believe that we need to take a systems approach to solving the problem. I’ve spent some time working with functional safety for industrial machinery and one thing that strikes me as odd in the commercial sector is the total lack of emergency shutdown mechanisms in automobiles.
I can’t imagine an auto maker putting a big red e-stop button on the dashboard of every new car, mostly because drivers would be unlikely to use it under emergency circumstances, but I do think that auto makers should be involved in helping to solve the unintended acceleration problem from their side as well. They can’t solve it alone, just like retrofitting passive barriers on a massive scale can’t solve the problem alone. Some level of cooperation and shared responsibility needs to be applied, including community based legal mandates, on-vehicle safety systems, applying more scrutiny to age related license renewal, and avoiding driver distraction.
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
The reason why there are safety barriers and bollards behind the
stores is because that's where the loading docks are or where
deliveries trucks, forklifts and garbage trucks operate. They are there
to protect against structural damages caused by vehicles weighing over 5
tons and most likely going less than 5MPH, with many of them backing
up. They are not there to protect the customers inside, from a vehicle
crashing in at 60MPH.
The glass used for
the front of the Apple Store is not regular glass. Notice the "hole" the
truck left after crashing through it. The "hole" is not much bigger
than than the truck itself. This "glass' is like a laminated auto
windshield. It did not shatter like glass at all. Most of it stayed
intact. Most likely it's close to 2 inches thick. I'm willing to bet
that it's going take a lot more than a car jumping the curb at 35MPH,
because of the driver accidentally stepping on the gas while parking, to
go through this "glass".
Most smash and
grab uses a hammer on the glass front, not a car. And I'm willing to
also bet that even a 10lb sledge hammer will not break through this
Apple Store glass for a smash and grab. It will only leave a "hole" the
size of the hammer head in the laminated layer of the glass. Cars are
usually use for smash and grab only when the store is closed and there
are no customers inside and no traffic outside.
This
Apple store was inside a mall. There is no parking spaces directly
in.front of the store. There is over 30ft consisting of a sidewalk,
planters, curb and a two lane road, to the nearest parking spot, in
front of the store. The speed limit for the road is probably no more
the 30MPH but most drivers are only going less than 25MPH. If speeding
is a problem on the road, then there would be speed bumps in place. The
front of the store looks out to a parking lot with cars driving less
than 25MPH, not at the bottom of a freeway off ramp.
And
just because there are safety barriers and bollards in front of other
Apple stores, how do you know that it was Apple that placed them there?
Maybe those safety devices were already in place when Apple leased the
store? And how do you know the terms of the lease. Maybe with the lease
at other stores, Apple is allowed to install such safety devices, while
here, the mall did not allow for it. And do you really expect Apple to
apply the same standard of theft and loss prevention for stores in
nearly crime free areas, as the ones in the middle of SF, Chicago, LA or
NYC?
So far, not one thing you stated is proof
of negligence on Apple part. For sure Apple (with their insurance)will
help pay for any actual damages suffered by their employees and
customers. But suing Apple for punitive damages will require proof of
negligence on Apple part.
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.
How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
You do know there’s a restaurant directly at the end of the street the Toyota sped down. A restaurant that is set back only a fraction the distance from the curb. A restaurant that the driver HAD TO swerve to avoid, thus putting him on a path into the Apple Store. A restaurant that has outdoor seating (in warmer weather) right there directly in line with the street the Toyota sped down. See Google maps, which shows a summertime view with diners sitting out there three feet from the curb. Oh, and there are zero bollards in front of that restaurant.
So Apple, which is not lined up with the street and is set back 30 feet, should have had bollards but not the restaurant? Maybe the restaurant should be sued. If it had bollards maybe the driver would have sacrificed his vehicle on them rather than swerving to avoid driving through the low wall with huge picture windows of the restaurant.
Correct me if I'm wrong: the restaurant wasn't hit, was it? You think they wouldn't be sued had they been hit? There should have been bollards, barriers, planters, whatever. Just like Apple has at other locations. I mentioned earlier that there was chatter that the property owners didn't allow/want bollards. If Apple didn't put up barriers at the behest of the property owners, they should have them held solely responsible for what happens in a situation like this. Discovery and depositions will sort that out. In any event, Apple and the property owners are being sued as it's really common sense, or a lack thereof. On Apple's end they have other stores with barriers. They've had stores that suffered Crash & Grabs. Including at least two locations that were hit twice. Like others have said, they'll more than likely settle and those barriers put up the day after the crash will become a permanent feature. Other locations without barriers will probably also see barriers or other safety measures.
Free speech is the right of citizens to speak out against government.
I have the utmost respect for you as a moderator, but I disagree PROFOUNDLY with the above sentence and here's why. You are deliberately limiting the two words "free speech" to a government/legal/country level. I speak of "free speech" as the ability of people to speak. So when you read "free speech" in MY posts, please take those two English words "free speech" at face value.
In my book, "free speech" does NOT mean mean anything goes. Like I said, it must be within the confines of the law, which varies country by country. Laws make speech freer when laws exist but are kept minimal. But like I said, my use of the words "free speech" transcends a legal or government only discussion. I am basically appealing to the powers that be at AppleInsider to consider something regarding that.
As to what AppleInsider allows or disallows, that is indeed your prerogative, just as it was with Macworld. They once had a forum and I participated in it as regularly as I now do in this forum. Then Macworld decided to close their forum, and now significantly fewer people visit their main website anymore as a result. Quite obviously, that is why AppleInsider has a forum -- so as to attract more people to this site because you know that people these days prefer engagement that a forum offers.
I am still a Macworld subscriber, so it's not like I am bashing them about their now defunct forum, although I would argue killing it was a wrong move. Nor am I bashing AppleInsider, believe it or not. It's rather obvious I prefer the news content here on AppleInsider as evidenced by the many years I've been commenting in the forum here, largely without issue. So in light of that, I feel I have the moral obligation to speak out when I see something odd or humorous going on. It's not a matter of "rights," but instead a matter of speech. And that speech is not speech afforded to me by any government or constitution but rather speech I appeal to AppleInsider staff for. For myself, yes, but for every other good member of this forum too. Yes, you've given us limited speech now, and I thank you. But please just open it up a little bit more.
Allowing more comments under articles here on AppleInsider would not result in chaos, nor do I feel it would somehow tarnish AppleInsider's image. The presence of @radarthekat in this forum is one very strong proof there would not be chaos. This forum is indeed MODERATED, and I've never taken issue with that moderation. Indeed, this forum is moderated well. I would say, even better than most other forums where pettiness and personal vendetta by power hungry mods tend to beat forum members over the head for daring to say any little thing they the mods dislike. That never has been the case here, which is why I have high praise for this forum and for its moderators such as @radarthekat ;. But my giving that heartfelt praise for forum mods, and for this forum, and for AppleInsider in general does not silence my heartfelt feeling that speech could to be a bit freer. More specifically, I think it's not so necessary to ban all comments under articles that are hot button issues.
I have disagreed with people in this forum because they have said some outrageous things. One person did that recently in fact, and all posts related to that, even my own, which said nothing wrong, was obliterated by a mod, although other comments in that thread were allow to remain. I haven't complained about that because like I said, moderation is okay when something runs afoul. I am only speaking about the ability to post freely under more articles that AppleInsider tends to ban comments. I may not even comment under some of those articles, but the knowledge that one can speak a few words under them is refreshing.
Lastly, I admit that I can be a bit provocative in my writing, but that is deliberate on my part. I've been "online" since my 300 baud modem days in the early 80's, and I've found that it's risky to be bold, but it almost always triggers much needed thought. Thanks for thinking about this forum and the benefits of freer speech. Keep up the great work!
Free speech is the right of citizens to speak out against government.
I have the utmost respect for you as a moderator, but I disagree PROFOUNDLY with the above sentence and here's why. You are deliberately limiting the two words "free speech" to a government/legal/country level. I speak of "free speech" as the ability of people to speak. So when you read "free speech" in MY posts, please take those two English words "free speech" at face value.
In my book, "free speech" does NOT mean mean anything goes. Like I said, it must be within the confines of the law, which varies country by country. Laws make speech freer when laws exist but are kept minimal. But like I said, my use of the words "free speech" transcends a legal or government only discussion. I am basically appealing to the powers that be at AppleInsider to consider something regarding that.
As to what AppleInsider allows or disallows, that is indeed your prerogative, just as it was with Macworld. They once had a forum and I participated in it as regularly as I now do in this forum. Then Macworld decided to close their forum, and now significantly fewer people visit their main website anymore as a result. Quite obviously, that is why AppleInsider has a forum -- so as to attract more people to this site because you know that people these days prefer engagement that a forum offers.
I am still a Macworld subscriber, so it's not like I am bashing them about their now defunct forum, although I would argue killing it was a wrong move. Nor am I bashing AppleInsider, believe it or not. It's rather obvious I prefer the news content here on AppleInsider as evidenced by the many years I've been commenting in the forum here, largely without issue. So in light of that, I feel I have the moral obligation to speak out when I see something odd or humorous going on. It's not a matter of "rights," but instead a matter of speech. And that speech is not speech afforded to me by any government or constitution but rather speech I appeal to AppleInsider staff for. For myself, yes, but for every other good member of this forum too. Yes, you've given us limited speech now, and I thank you. But please just open it up a little bit more.
Allowing more comments under articles here on AppleInsider would not result in chaos, nor do I feel it would somehow tarnish AppleInsider's image. The presence of @radarthekat in this forum is one very strong proof there would not be chaos. This forum is indeed MODERATED, and I've never taken issue with that moderation. Indeed, this forum is moderated well. I would say, even better than most other forums where pettiness and personal vendetta by power hungry mods tend to beat forum members over the head for daring to say any little thing they the mods dislike. That never has been the case here, which is why I have high praise for this forum and for its moderators such as @radarthekat ;. But my giving that heartfelt praise for forum mods, and for this forum, and for AppleInsider in general does not silence my heartfelt feeling that speech could to be a bit freer. More specifically, I think it's not so necessary to ban all comments under articles that are hot button issues.
I have disagreed with people in this forum because they have said some outrageous things. One person did that recently in fact, and all posts related to that, even my own, which said nothing wrong, was obliterated by a mod, although other comments in that thread were allow to remain. I haven't complained about that because like I said, moderation is okay when something runs afoul. I am only speaking about the ability to post freely under more articles that AppleInsider tends to ban comments. I may not even comment under some of those articles, but the knowledge that one can speak a few words under them is refreshing.
Lastly, I admit that I can be a bit provocative in my writing, but that is deliberate on my part. I've been "online" since my 300 baud modem days in the early 80's, and I've found that it's risky to be bold, but it almost always triggers much needed thought. Thanks for thinking about this forum and the benefits of freer speech. Keep up the great work!
I usually enjoy reading your thoughtful posts, but I don't think you understand fully why AI is doing things the way they are doing. And you need not look any further than @Dewme's post # 27 on this topic. Please read his post and respond to that. That would be an interesting response, I guess.
This is never going to trial. Apple and the plaintiffs will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum.
It should be noted that Apple Store Palo Alto had stanchions installed several years ago (before the pandemic) due to an auto-assisted burglary attempt.
Clearly Apple could have done more to prevent the Derby Street incident.
That is a totally false statement. The stanchions were already in place when the auto assisted burglary took place in 2016. They were not in place in the original design but most likely put there later to discourage double parking in front of the store. And yes, many smash and grab robberies have a getaway car double parked and waiting directly outside the store.
Here's an article showing the Apple Store opening after the repair. it also has photos of the store with the damaged caused by the auto. Notice the stanchions are already there and did not prevent the auto from smashing into the glass storefront. The article stated that the crook drove down the sidewalk, before turning into the Apple Store.
If a plane, helicopter, tree, telephone pole, power line transformer, etc., crashed through the roof of the store and injured or killed someone in the store would Apple be liable because they didn’t have protective barriers mounted over the roof of their store to handle such scenarios? I don’t think so, but in any case, I’m quite certain Apple carries very high maximum liability insurance to deal with such cases.
I think the statistics covering the occurrence of such events will show they are much less likely than incidents involving motor vehicles leaving the road and impacting the building.
Overall, this is why regulations exist: the likelihood of an event happening, the potential damage and the cost of mitigation should all be factored into the decisions made by the relevant government authority. It would be prohibitively expensive for each individual business to conduct such research; delegating the task to a central authority is the sensible approach. Complying with the regulations is the extent of the legal obligations for any company.
When the regulations are proven to not have been followed, repercussions ensue. Should the regulations prove insufficient to deal with (quite possibly changing) circumstances, the regulations must be changed - unfortunately, placing blame and ensuring appropriate punishment becomes a very difficult task because changing regulations and enforcing the changes is a time-intensive process and any incidents that occur during the implementation phase inevitably lead to claims that the process was mis-managed, the risks were mis-judged, etc, etc.
If SEO is one of the issues relating to comment restrictions, perhaps forums.appleinsider.com should have a robots.txt file consisting of "Deny all"
No guarantee that the indexing spiders will comply, but in my experience the reputable ones do and the disreputable ones rarely send their data to the reputable ones for free. Small downside, in my opinion.
Free speech is the right of citizens to speak out against government.
I have the utmost respect for you as a moderator, but I disagree PROFOUNDLY with the above sentence and here's why. You are deliberately limiting the two words "free speech" to a government/legal/country level. I speak of "free speech" as the ability of people to speak. So when you read "free speech" in MY posts, please take those two English words "free speech" at face value.
In my book, "free speech" does NOT mean mean anything goes. Like I said, it must be within the confines of the law, which varies country by country. Laws make speech freer when laws exist but are kept minimal. But like I said, my use of the words "free speech" transcends a legal or government only discussion. I am basically appealing to the powers that be at AppleInsider to consider something regarding that.
As to what AppleInsider allows or disallows, that is indeed your prerogative, just as it was with Macworld. They once had a forum and I participated in it as regularly as I now do in this forum. Then Macworld decided to close their forum, and now significantly fewer people visit their main website anymore as a result. Quite obviously, that is why AppleInsider has a forum -- so as to attract more people to this site because you know that people these days prefer engagement that a forum offers.
I am still a Macworld subscriber, so it's not like I am bashing them about their now defunct forum, although I would argue killing it was a wrong move. Nor am I bashing AppleInsider, believe it or not. It's rather obvious I prefer the news content here on AppleInsider as evidenced by the many years I've been commenting in the forum here, largely without issue. So in light of that, I feel I have the moral obligation to speak out when I see something odd or humorous going on. It's not a matter of "rights," but instead a matter of speech. And that speech is not speech afforded to me by any government or constitution but rather speech I appeal to AppleInsider staff for. For myself, yes, but for every other good member of this forum too. Yes, you've given us limited speech now, and I thank you. But please just open it up a little bit more.
Allowing more comments under articles here on AppleInsider would not result in chaos, nor do I feel it would somehow tarnish AppleInsider's image. The presence of @radarthekat in this forum is one very strong proof there would not be chaos. This forum is indeed MODERATED, and I've never taken issue with that moderation. Indeed, this forum is moderated well. I would say, even better than most other forums where pettiness and personal vendetta by power hungry mods tend to beat forum members over the head for daring to say any little thing they the mods dislike. That never has been the case here, which is why I have high praise for this forum and for its moderators such as @radarthekat ;. But my giving that heartfelt praise for forum mods, and for this forum, and for AppleInsider in general does not silence my heartfelt feeling that speech could to be a bit freer. More specifically, I think it's not so necessary to ban all comments under articles that are hot button issues.
I have disagreed with people in this forum because they have said some outrageous things. One person did that recently in fact, and all posts related to that, even my own, which said nothing wrong, was obliterated by a mod, although other comments in that thread were allow to remain. I haven't complained about that because like I said, moderation is okay when something runs afoul. I am only speaking about the ability to post freely under more articles that AppleInsider tends to ban comments. I may not even comment under some of those articles, but the knowledge that one can speak a few words under them is refreshing.
Lastly, I admit that I can be a bit provocative in my writing, but that is deliberate on my part. I've been "online" since my 300 baud modem days in the early 80's, and I've found that it's risky to be bold, but it almost always triggers much needed thought. Thanks for thinking about this forum and the benefits of freer speech. Keep up the great work!
We have no quarrel and I appreciate your well thought out response. The issue I have is that a lot of folks hoist the flag of free speech as a US constitutional right and then they proceed do misinterpret/over-interpret that right to imply that it is being infringed here. That’s the reason I react to the phrase as I do, as it simply does not apply here. If it did, then Trump and others would have been able to sue Twitter, but alas, they or their lawyers understood that there was no ‘Free Speech” suppression as far as the law of the land is concerned.
Maybe it would be better to speak of allowable comments and allowable context when referring to our desire to express ourselves here on AppleInsider or on Twitter, Facebook, et al. That terminology would make it more clear to readers that we aren’t referring to our first amendment rights but rather about our preferences for how these privately owned but publicly visible forums are, or are not, constrained.
Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.
How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
This wasn’t a crash and grab. This was an idiot who had a car accident. Apple has 0% fault here. Anyone trying to justify blame upon them for this is insane. That guy could have easily crashed through the front windows of any of the stores on that strip. It wouldn’t have made the news if not for the fact it was Apple. This is a non story and a BS lawsuit.
Comments
Now while barriers can and should apply to any business, Apple more than other businesses need them because sometimes you have thugs who deliberately drive cars through the front of the store at night to steal products. A good set of barriers would help thwart that.
I just wish it didn't take a lawsuit to get the right thing done. And then it should be a discussion between Apple and the landowners, where Apple should not have to bear the total cost.
P.S. I'm happy at least ONE AppleInsider article today allows Comments. Totally hilarious to see all the Musk/Twitter articles today banning comments (i.e., stopping free speech) when it comes to topics that discuss free speech. I've long taken issue with AppleInsider about that. There are risks with freedom, but it's worth it. No need to go full CCP to limit speech AppleInsider owners don't like. You're not a true advocate of liberty until you afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I don't go around calling for total bans on those things. And no, calling for more freedom to comment doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. So long as no crimes are being committed and no laws broken, it's a fact that some speech may be pretty naught (personally, I had profanity), but that doesn't mean we need to censor anything and everything we don't like. Loosening the comment restrictions is the right thing to do. There really can be a proper balance, without the need to complete block all comments under multiple articles. Blocking comments is more than just limiting speech. It's like AppleInsider is playing parent, spanking kids for having been naughty in other threads. And yes, I've spoken to at least one AppleInsider author in the distance past who told me about SEO and how AppleInsider content appears in search engines as justification for censoring comments, but that argument was not persuasive at all in my humble opinion. Strive for free speech whenever possible. Thanks.
Maybe 3 feet - yeah should be bollards.
30 feet maybe building should have had bollards between road and 27feet of pedestrians. Or some garden beds
It was all nuked in the early aughts. It is a for the greater good. People don't need to have these types of discussions. Keep it off AI. If you want to discuss it, do it by private message.
"100% preventable crash"
Well, the crash would have still happened, the car would just have crashed into pillars, gates, potted plants, who knows what else, and theoretically killing and injuring pedestrians in front of the store. And, it's still possible for a car to flip on its side and slip through them, and go right into the store, no? Or a motorcycle, or someone taking a creative path passed the barriers to go through the front of the store, side of the store, etc.
One of my bosses was almost killed in his own bedroom when a couple of YOLOs decided to street race, on a road that ended in a cul de sac. My boss didn't even live in the cul de sac. He lived behind the houses of the cul de sac. Street racer, drunk probably, manage to not hit the house on the end of the cul de sac, but went beside it, went through the back yard, go through the fence into my boss' property, and a tree stopped the car. That tree wasn't in front of his bedroom. 20 feet to the side? Car would probably have crashed through his bedroom windows. There's always a creative path.
In my book, "free speech" does NOT mean mean anything goes. Like I said, it must be within the confines of the law, which varies country by country. Laws make speech freer when laws exist but are kept minimal. But like I said, my use of the words "free speech" transcends a legal or government only discussion. I am basically appealing to the powers that be at AppleInsider to consider something regarding that.
As to what AppleInsider allows or disallows, that is indeed your prerogative, just as it was with Macworld. They once had a forum and I participated in it as regularly as I now do in this forum. Then Macworld decided to close their forum, and now significantly fewer people visit their main website anymore as a result. Quite obviously, that is why AppleInsider has a forum -- so as to attract more people to this site because you know that people these days prefer engagement that a forum offers.
I am still a Macworld subscriber, so it's not like I am bashing them about their now defunct forum, although I would argue killing it was a wrong move. Nor am I bashing AppleInsider, believe it or not. It's rather obvious I prefer the news content here on AppleInsider as evidenced by the many years I've been commenting in the forum here, largely without issue. So in light of that, I feel I have the moral obligation to speak out when I see something odd or humorous going on. It's not a matter of "rights," but instead a matter of speech. And that speech is not speech afforded to me by any government or constitution but rather speech I appeal to AppleInsider staff for. For myself, yes, but for every other good member of this forum too. Yes, you've given us limited speech now, and I thank you. But please just open it up a little bit more.
Allowing more comments under articles here on AppleInsider would not result in chaos, nor do I feel it would somehow tarnish AppleInsider's image. The presence of @radarthekat in this forum is one very strong proof there would not be chaos. This forum is indeed MODERATED, and I've never taken issue with that moderation. Indeed, this forum is moderated well. I would say, even better than most other forums where pettiness and personal vendetta by power hungry mods tend to beat forum members over the head for daring to say any little thing they the mods dislike. That never has been the case here, which is why I have high praise for this forum and for its moderators such as @radarthekat ;. But my giving that heartfelt praise for forum mods, and for this forum, and for AppleInsider in general does not silence my heartfelt feeling that speech could to be a bit freer. More specifically, I think it's not so necessary to ban all comments under articles that are hot button issues.
I have disagreed with people in this forum because they have said some outrageous things. One person did that recently in fact, and all posts related to that, even my own, which said nothing wrong, was obliterated by a mod, although other comments in that thread were allow to remain. I haven't complained about that because like I said, moderation is okay when something runs afoul. I am only speaking about the ability to post freely under more articles that AppleInsider tends to ban comments. I may not even comment under some of those articles, but the knowledge that one can speak a few words under them is refreshing.
Lastly, I admit that I can be a bit provocative in my writing, but that is deliberate on my part. I've been "online" since my 300 baud modem days in the early 80's, and I've found that it's risky to be bold, but it almost always triggers much needed thought. Thanks for thinking about this forum and the benefits of freer speech. Keep up the great work!
Overall, this is why regulations exist: the likelihood of an event happening, the potential damage and the cost of mitigation should all be factored into the decisions made by the relevant government authority. It would be prohibitively expensive for each individual business to conduct such research; delegating the task to a central authority is the sensible approach. Complying with the regulations is the extent of the legal obligations for any company.
When the regulations are proven to not have been followed, repercussions ensue. Should the regulations prove insufficient to deal with (quite possibly changing) circumstances, the regulations must be changed - unfortunately, placing blame and ensuring appropriate punishment becomes a very difficult task because changing regulations and enforcing the changes is a time-intensive process and any incidents that occur during the implementation phase inevitably lead to claims that the process was mis-managed, the risks were mis-judged, etc, etc.
No guarantee that the indexing spiders will comply, but in my experience the reputable ones do and the disreputable ones rarely send their data to the reputable ones for free. Small downside, in my opinion.