tommikele

Tons of righteous indignation and pontificating. The lecturing from some posters is laughable. To those posters going with the cancel culture routine one can only surmise you endorse providing a platform for racism, hate and white supremacy. The use of Twitter and Facebook to support your claim is revolting as is your failure to make the distinction between a platform expressly dedicated to allowing this content versus one where it’s leaks through a moderation system. Disheartening to see such a lack of conviction from so many.

80s_Apple_Guy said:

There seems to be increasing dissonance between Apple’s publicly claimed objectives and standards and what it actually does internally. Whether it’s this, or is concern for human rights except where that interferes with profits. It’s “concern for the environment” by not shipping chargers, but making devices that cannot be fixed. It all looks really bad at many levels. They should get back to making great products and services and jump off the preachy public attitudes. They set themselves up to be jumped on for every little nuance that doesn’t fit their party line. Like this. 

In the instances you refer to, your claims are not true.

"This" is an untrue claim. Apple shares no data externally and uses no third party tracking. The privacy features soon to be enacted have nothing to do with a developer sharing user data within their own apps. You need to not confuse them with Facebook who shares user data with almost anyone they think will help them make money.

Your are a little confused on the repair /charger issue too. All Apple devices are repairable. Warranty claims can only be repaired by Apple and that policy is standard in almost any industry. You can't really be serious about suggesting Apple should allow warranty repairs to be done by third parties. Almost a year and a half ago Apple announced a program to make a OEM parts available to authorized repair facilities and and third party in the repair business.  

While there is no doubt their primary motive with the chargers was to increase profits, the decision does have environmental benefits. Less paper and shipping materials, smaller packages, more items in a shipment means less shipments means less fuel and pollutants  and a smaller carbon foot print across every industry connected to a product from materials sourcing straight through to getting it on your doorstep. Why shouldn't they publicize that part of the decision?

"They should get back to making great products and services and jump off the preachy public attitudes." They never stopped doing great products and services. "Preachy public attitudes" is your personal opinion. Can you name a tech company that does less damage with their products and services? Closer to 100% sustainable energy than any other tech company.

When a problem or a supplier not behaving in a manner consistent with Apple's goals and statement is uncovered it is addressed very quickly in most cases. Apple is far from being perfect and living up to their goals 100% of the time, But show big tech who is doing it better.

I respect your right to your opinion, but like most, a big successful company presents a huge target to be criticized for anything and everything they do. Oops, you missed a spec of dirt so your entire company is to be considered dirty and unclean

22july2013 said:

In response, Apple called the claims in the complaint "patently false and will be seen for what they are, a poor attempt by those who track users to distract from their own actions and mislead regulators and policymakers." 

I look forward to hearing more from Apple about that.

Apple does not share data with third party tracker and ad sellers. That is consistent with their new privacy features. Facebook on the other hand shares data internally as Apple does, but with half of the rest of the world too..

The statement you quote is 100% correct.

What Apple is up to remains to be seen. They have not said one word. Nothing, but speculation from tech media and some very cocky Apple fans. Until Apple says something all the stuff coming from these sources is the same as BS.

lkrupp said:

Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.

What is a "reasonable" porn filter versus an unreasonable one? I would like automatic default filters on Fox News, Donald Trump, Trump's children, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. I find them incredibly more offensive and damaging than pictures of naked people engaging in sexual activity and certainly they are vastly more damaging to our country and youth's development as mature, emotionally healthy adults than those naked people I mention and what they might be doing on camera or in pictures.

It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic? The means to restrict minors access is there and publicized by Apple. The idea there should be automatic filters applied to non-minors is close to being offensive. Don't like it, don't look.
Automatic is just another extension of the the government and religious conservatives into other's lives. "God" forbid someone should unintentionally see someone's genitalia or naked breasts. I am sure they would be scarred for life.