radarthekat

jdw said:

While there is no law that prevents a US President from influencing the DOJ, the DOJ has traditionally projected itself as being independent from the executive branch and not easily manipulatable.  Even so, it is clear the current US President has no interest in preventing the DOJ from committing this horrific legal act to an American success story like Apple.  Based on what occurred at the DOJ under the previous President's leadership, it's unclear how a switch in Presidents this November would alter the status quo.  Even so, it would be nice to see this case go vaporize because it will cost all consumers more in the end, either through taxes used to fund this case via the DOJ, or through higher prices to Apple fans in the long haul, or more likely, both.

Yes, my friends, you and I will be the people who will pay dearly for all this.  Not the DOJ.  Not Apple.  It's really quite sickening when you ponder it, especially so when I read people say crazy and uneducated things like "About time" regarding the DOJ doing this to Apple.  Total and utter insanity.

hammeroftruth said:

I think this is a good example of the other side of the sword of secrecy. No games, no killer apps, no abundance of 3rd party supporting products. Sure there’s a price Apple pays if too many people get details of unreleased products and talk about them, but there is also a price if you’re too secretive. Not enough people know and not enough apps, games, and accessories to help lift the product from potential failure. 

It was the health aspects that saved the Apple Watch, what is the application or usage that will strengthen the adoption rate of VP?

hmlongco said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism.  Benito would be proud.

Or the hallmark of one protecting its citizenry. The government demands fair treatment and wages for the company's employees. The government demands the company not utilize child labor. They demand that said company doesn't pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink.

CheeseFreeze said:

radarthekat said:

caladanian said:

What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand. 

Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker?  Past is prolog.  

Except this isn’t not a pedophile applying for a job. Your comparison is not relevant legally speaking. 

Also, even in your flawed comparison the person’s rights based on the past are relative. You cannot cancel someone for everything, for ever.  

twolf2919 said:

Small correction: 'There are clear frontrunners for the biggest job in tech" - isn't that the Microsoft CEO position?  Apple's market cap is $2.6T and Microsoft's is $2.9T.  Apple lost the crown a few weeks back.