tmay

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

SpamSandwich said:

cat52 said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

razorpit said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

SpamSandwich said:

There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.

Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset. 

Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.

I’ll wager I have seen a lot more of the world than you have and yes the consensus of people is that human rights are very real. 

Yeah, human rights is a big misnomer...

Should clean water be a human right?  I think all of us here would say 'yes', and yet there are plenty of places in Africa which still don't have clean water.

So @razorpit is correct I'm afraid, the world just doesn't give two f*cks.

The only “rights” which really matter are those which are legally defensible from predation by government AND from mobs. This is why I like the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

LOL... It's the government that codifies, enforces and supports those rights.   They are there BECAUSE of government, not in spite of government.   Yeh, sometimes the people have to nudge things along a little -- thus we saw suffrage movement in the early 20th century, the race riots in the 60's and now again in the 2020's.   But eventually, the government catches up and codifies, enforces and supports those rights.

...or not, in the case of governments such as the People's Republic of China, that are backtracking on already poor human rights records.

Back to right wing China propaganda again?   Yawn....

By the way, U.S. record on human rights is far worse than China's.   They don't shoot black people in the back there. 

Certainly not; China would shoot them cleanly and efficiently in a hospital, and then harvest their organs.

https://www.healtheuropa.eu/im-going-to-china-theyre-shooting-my-donor/97063/

"What do you know about the current situation regarding forced organ harvesting in China?

My understanding is that China is still performing a large number of transplants – far more than any official figures would indicate – and that vast [quantities of] organs are sourced from prisoners of conscience.

A lot of those prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners, who are still incarcerated in large numbers; but based on evidence that some women gave who have been incarcerated in the Uyghur prisons fairly recently, almost certainly people from the Uyghur community are being harvested as well.

What first drew your attention to the forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China?

I was watching the film Hard to Believe [a 2016 documentary investigating forced organ harvesting in China], which was produced by Kay Rubacek and directed by Ken Stone. It presents itself as a mystery: all these transplants are happening in China, where could all the organs be coming from? It’s a very compelling documentary, and I saw it and I thought: goodness. I hadn’t really been aware of the nature of the allegations of what was happening in China."

Your cognitive dissonance with be palpable should President Trump not re-elected, and the next administration continues a hardline on China, which is likely.

I didn't even bother to read your China obsessed nonsense.

This thread is not about China.   Try not to hijack it

LOL.

Human Rights, or lack thereof, is most certainly an issue with China, but nice attempt at deflection.

Sorry, no deflection.  The article never mentioned China or anything about China.   It is you who introduced it and me who called you on it.  You seem obsessed.

First sentence in the original post;

"Following concerns from its shareholders about Apple allegedly aiding China censorship, the company has published a formal document stating its commitment to upholding human rights."

The article absolutely and specifically "mentioned" China...

Gaslighting again...

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

SpamSandwich said:

cat52 said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

razorpit said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

SpamSandwich said:

There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.

Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset. 

Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.

I’ll wager I have seen a lot more of the world than you have and yes the consensus of people is that human rights are very real. 

Yeah, human rights is a big misnomer...

Should clean water be a human right?  I think all of us here would say 'yes', and yet there are plenty of places in Africa which still don't have clean water.

So @razorpit is correct I'm afraid, the world just doesn't give two f*cks.

The only “rights” which really matter are those which are legally defensible from predation by government AND from mobs. This is why I like the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

LOL... It's the government that codifies, enforces and supports those rights.   They are there BECAUSE of government, not in spite of government.   Yeh, sometimes the people have to nudge things along a little -- thus we saw suffrage movement in the early 20th century, the race riots in the 60's and now again in the 2020's.   But eventually, the government catches up and codifies, enforces and supports those rights.

...or not, in the case of governments such as the People's Republic of China, that are backtracking on already poor human rights records.

Back to right wing China propaganda again?   Yawn....

By the way, U.S. record on human rights is far worse than China's.   They don't shoot black people in the back there. 

Certainly not; China would shoot them cleanly and efficiently in a hospital, and then harvest their organs.

https://www.healtheuropa.eu/im-going-to-china-theyre-shooting-my-donor/97063/

"What do you know about the current situation regarding forced organ harvesting in China?

My understanding is that China is still performing a large number of transplants – far more than any official figures would indicate – and that vast [quantities of] organs are sourced from prisoners of conscience.

A lot of those prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners, who are still incarcerated in large numbers; but based on evidence that some women gave who have been incarcerated in the Uyghur prisons fairly recently, almost certainly people from the Uyghur community are being harvested as well.

What first drew your attention to the forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China?

I was watching the film Hard to Believe [a 2016 documentary investigating forced organ harvesting in China], which was produced by Kay Rubacek and directed by Ken Stone. It presents itself as a mystery: all these transplants are happening in China, where could all the organs be coming from? It’s a very compelling documentary, and I saw it and I thought: goodness. I hadn’t really been aware of the nature of the allegations of what was happening in China."

Your cognitive dissonance with be palpable should President Trump not re-elected, and the next administration continues a hardline on China, which is likely.

I didn't even bother to read your China obsessed nonsense.

This thread is not about China.   Try not to hijack it

LOL.

Human Rights, or lack thereof, is most certainly an issue with China, but nice attempt at deflection.

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

SpamSandwich said:

cat52 said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

razorpit said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

SpamSandwich said:

There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.

Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset. 

Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.

I’ll wager I have seen a lot more of the world than you have and yes the consensus of people is that human rights are very real. 

Yeah, human rights is a big misnomer...

Should clean water be a human right?  I think all of us here would say 'yes', and yet there are plenty of places in Africa which still don't have clean water.

So @razorpit is correct I'm afraid, the world just doesn't give two f*cks.

The only “rights” which really matter are those which are legally defensible from predation by government AND from mobs. This is why I like the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

LOL... It's the government that codifies, enforces and supports those rights.   They are there BECAUSE of government, not in spite of government.   Yeh, sometimes the people have to nudge things along a little -- thus we saw suffrage movement in the early 20th century, the race riots in the 60's and now again in the 2020's.   But eventually, the government catches up and codifies, enforces and supports those rights.

...or not, in the case of governments such as the People's Republic of China, that are backtracking on already poor human rights records.

Back to right wing China propaganda again?   Yawn....

By the way, U.S. record on human rights is far worse than China's.   They don't shoot black people in the back there. 

Certainly not; China would shoot them cleanly and efficiently in a hospital, and then harvest their organs.

https://www.healtheuropa.eu/im-going-to-china-theyre-shooting-my-donor/97063/

"What do you know about the current situation regarding forced organ harvesting in China?

My understanding is that China is still performing a large number of transplants – far more than any official figures would indicate – and that vast [quantities of] organs are sourced from prisoners of conscience.

A lot of those prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners, who are still incarcerated in large numbers; but based on evidence that some women gave who have been incarcerated in the Uyghur prisons fairly recently, almost certainly people from the Uyghur community are being harvested as well.

What first drew your attention to the forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China?

I was watching the film Hard to Believe [a 2016 documentary investigating forced organ harvesting in China], which was produced by Kay Rubacek and directed by Ken Stone. It presents itself as a mystery: all these transplants are happening in China, where could all the organs be coming from? It’s a very compelling documentary, and I saw it and I thought: goodness. I hadn’t really been aware of the nature of the allegations of what was happening in China."

Your cognitive dissonance with be palpable should President Trump not re-elected, and the next administration continues a hardline on China, which is likely.

imat said:

The screenshots seem very "un-Apple". Too many options to activate and deactivate, way too confusing. I honestly hope this isn't the direction Apple chooses for the future. Many of these "options" shouldn't be options at all. 120 Hz? OK, but make it across the board as standard. Why give options buried in the settings menu?

The same applies for the camera options. Way too many options. Make them "smart" and "standard" and that's about it.

If someone has a "pro Camera" app of some sorts, that they purchased separately, give them the ability to toggle settings, but not everyone.

The setup process of a new iPhone will otherwise become EVEN LONGER and cumbersome. With the result people will have to spend 20' checking and unchecking stuff, privacy, alerts, locations, camera settings and the like before even starting to use the iPhone. 

This isn't even an issue at this point in time, but you will almost certainly be able to leave switches in default positions and still be able to use the iPhone with minimal setup.

Myself, there is so much new capability that I expect from the iPhone 12 Pro, over my current iPhone 7 Plus, that I will almost certainly follow various online video's that will be available when the iPhone is released. Probably the best time I will ever spend with my iPhone will be that setup.

Some people's tools are more complex than smartphones, yet they seem to be able to manage that workload; and I post below a link to an extreme example of that;

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

Beats said:

avon b7 said:

jumpingcoco said:

App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple. 

That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not? 

More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase? 

You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking. 

Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.

Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions. 

Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word. 

Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.

That isn't being a middleman.

You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.

You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another. 

Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions. 

You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that. 

A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.

Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.

Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.

You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore. 

You are barking up the wrong tree. 

Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper. 

But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here. 

The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.

There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own. 

The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.

That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble. 

Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.

If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?

Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?

Do users even need to be explicitly notified?

Really?

That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.

I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.

When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed. 

The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.

No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.


On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store. 

Seriously.

iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of  different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?

You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.

I couldn't resist posting this;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/08/15/huawei-apple-iphone-google-android-update-release-beat-china-ban/#81b66427cc00

"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”

Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.

Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."

Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...