tommikele

Link648099 said:

dewme said:

DAalseth said:

Just change a couple of words in the description. That’s trivial. Stop whining and just do it.

I have to agree with you. I understand the app maker wants to extol their own personal virtues as "challengers of governments" and "deliverers of freedom" but now is not the time and Apple's App Store is not forum to play these kinds of games. This app is a tool that people need, and need now. Now is the time for pragmatism and stopping the pain. They can get back to their grandstanding and self aggrandizing signaling after the crisis is over.  

"Her skirt was too short. She had it coming."

CloudTalkin said:

dewme said:

DAalseth said:

Just change a couple of words in the description. That’s trivial. Stop whining and just do it.

I have to agree with you. I understand the app maker wants to extol their own personal virtues as "challengers of governments" and "deliverers of freedom" but now is not the time and Apple's App Store is not forum to play these kinds of games. This app is a tool that people need, and need now. Now is the time for pragmatism and stopping the pain. They can get back to their grandstanding and self aggrandizing signaling after the crisis is over.  

I don't understand your sentiment here.  The underlying premise, ensuring the tool is available to the people, is sound.  The rhetoric though... not so much.  Why wouldn't Apple's App Store be the place to advocate for social issues?  Apple uses it to highlight social issues and often shines the spotlight on devs/apps that do as well.  What would be considered more grandstanding and sef-aggrandizing? 
1.  Bringing attention to your stance on social issues during a period of social unrest; potentially risking revenue. 
2.  Bringing attention to your stance on social issues when nothing is going on and there's no perceived risk to business and profit.  ←It's this one.  It's more grandstand-y.
     The cynic in me would say "why not both", but the human in me says it's 2.  

Again, the right idea is to remove the offending language and get back to the business of helping the people.  There we agree 100%.  Your delivery though, like DAalseth's, is a bit tone deaf.  It's as if you both are assuming Proton's motives are completely self serving.

Link648099 said:

Apple is a corporation. They need to make money. Governments can stop that or help that. It's clear Apple only cares truly about profits. Anytime they can appear woke in safe countries, like America, to help their bottom line, they will do that. But in countries where they cannot be woke, like in Saudi Arabia or majority Muslim countries, their wokism won't be popular so they won't place it above their profits. This is why they are nothing but virtue signaling when they release a rainbow wrist band or some other nonsense.

Apple is selling out to the highest bidder. And right now that appears to be Myanmar's current government. Remember that next time you think they really care a bout social justice. Nope. Its just a marketing tactic to people who care about it. The company doesn't, and the moment it isn't profitable it'll be dropped.

lkrupp said:

fred1 said:

This is nuts. Companies don’t have the right to include or not any accessories with their products? Or to decide what their warranty covers? What’s next, the state determining prices?

Be careful what you talk about. Price controls are the first step to a centrally managed economy and I’m positive they are being discussed and promoted by people like AOC. Remember the Soviet Union's ‘Five Year Plans’ that always failed?