jSnively

Some posts were moderated out of this thread. Please refer to our commenting guidelines and keep it civil.

razormaid said:

I was wondering if we will be able to add offensive material if it’s not offensive enough???   You know in case a bunch of “adult coloring book “- “safe space” individuals try to call for a boycott and all were left with is “golle gee Kenny is no longer with us!” Instead of “you bastarrds you killed Kenny!”

Do people still get outraged at South Park? I feel like even the outrage groups go "yeah, it's South Park."

SpamSandwich said:

.[..]

I know this subject has been addressed ad nauseam, but how about just have the entire editorial team stop posting AI stories with political content in them if these stories are so 'toxic' for advertisers and do nothing but generate comments that AI is unwilling to allow on the site? I think everyone at AI is aware of what constitutes "controversial" opinion pieces.

I've addressed this many times on these forums. We still have to cover the intersection between Apple and politics, because we are a site about Apple, and Apple cares deeply about issues that have become political. That information is relevant to not only shareholders, but people who are genuinely interested in Apple as a company and culture. That is, after all, the service we provide at our core. Information about Apple.

Because of the extreme positions of some forum users, we have had to start closing or moderating content that mentions the word Trump, makes reference to the environment or equality issues, etc. Honestly, we have to keep an extra watchful eye on content that features minorities. It's wholly about addressing the areas where the fires keep popping up, not any political agenda. Even-handed contrarian responses don't get automatically moderated out when they appear. Look at this thread.

An editorial piece is just that. We have no interest in muzzling our staff, and they are professional enough to not take extreme hard-line political positions in the content they write. You are welcome to disagree with that, and feedback if you feel we mishandle something is appreciated (feedback forum), but again, we are not a site about politics, even though politics may get interwoven with our coverage of Apple from time to time.

I believe we can keep the site advertiser-and-family friendly while still giving those users an outlet, in the form of political outsider, to express their viewpoints and pick their fights. Marvin is completely correct in everything he had said. You don't know the true definition of skittish until you've dealt directly with a brand. Moreover, with the way things are headed in the space, it's only a matter of time before algorithms plant a huge red flag on the site because of some of that content.

SpamSandwich said:

Michelle Obama was invited by Apple (or perhaps by one person at Apple) to speak at WWDC on issues like entrepreneurship? Why? She's not an entrepreneur. She's not known for historically speaking out in favor of capitalism. She's a lawyer. This was a 100% political calculation on the part of Apple. And if she's charging anything like her husband recently charged Wall Street to speak, she's being paid a substantial amount.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

I think next quarter I will vote in favor of any and every shareholder proposal requiring Apple to divulge these kinds of politically motivated expenditures.

I don't feel like they touched on anything she was particularly unqualified to talk about. She spent a lot of her time as first lady working on equality issues (especially for women, but also for minorities), and as first lady she had access to a lot of people and information most don't. Besides, at the end of the day her values line up really well with Apple's as a company, and those values are extremely important to Apple as a company. Jobs made sure of that a very long time ago.

huckdaisy1 said:

It surprises me that people think that $350.00 is expensive.  

$350 is only expensive if the unit sounds bad, which, by most accounts (including our own) it doesn't. I paid just about as much per-speaker for my SVS bookself setup, more for the center channel and subwoofer, and those don't do anything other than reproduce sound. I by no means have a crazy setup. Apple was never going to make a $100 speaker, that's not how they operate. They will, however, sell you this first generation HomePod for ~$200 after the second generation comes out.

It will be interesting to see where the HomePod settles once wildly available.