crofford

JP234 said:

I couldn't care less what self-congratulating award ceremonies do to restrict eligibility. I'm going to watch what interests me.

What chaps my hide is when "patriot" factions attempt to restrict my right to vote. Or my eligibility to vote by mail ballot.

davgreg said:

Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.

Mondain said:

$3T is quite an obscene amount of money. This is equivalent to the GDP of all Latin American countries.

Eventually, we must draw a line between what one has and how much it is deserved. 

slow n easy said:

Yeah, this is a totally ridiculous charge. It's not Google's fault that consumers are refusing to change search engines. No one seems to care that in most communities, there is only one choice for Cable TV. Sure, they can switch to Satellite TV or Online Streaming, but if they have their heart set on Cable, there is only one option available. That Versus anyone can switch to any number of search engines they want. I don't get it.  

macxpress said:

ilarynx said:

Oh FFS. Who the heck is running Apple's retail business? The ghost of Jack Welch? This is an idiotic, myopic, 19th century management approach that has guaranteed long term negative return. 

Almost nobody goes to an Apple Store not already knowing what they are going to buy. iPhones aren't an impulse buy as is gum at the grocery store checkout line. Deirdre and every other manager between retail and VP takes similar percentage cuts to raises.

https://www.apple.com/leadership/deirdre-obrien/

At what point did Deirdre sell her soul for a 1.2% return on her stock options? She should already be out on her can for her moronic, ham-fisted approach to store unions. When Microsoft does a better job with its employees, you know something is screwed up. 

Sorry but most companies give out raises based on sales. Does it suck, yes, but it's what most companies do. Where I works thats how it's done too. If the company has a good year you get a better raise and bonus. If not then well its flat. 

cia said:

So what's the over/under on how long she lasts?  I figure maybe 6 months.  Elon will either drive her away quickly with his micro-management or she's go full red pill and drive the company into the ground just as fast as if he was running it alone.

Maybe she should shadow Gwynne Shotwell over at SpaceX for a few months first to learn how to deal with Elon.  Shotwell is an amazing leader over there, she does an amazing job running SpaceX and keeping Elon in check.