gatorguy said:

foregoneconclusion said:

SpamSandwich said: Where’s the conflict of interest if the prior association was divulged and it no longer exists?

Conflict of interest = potential for bias. He doesn't need to be currently lobbying for Google/Apple or hiding his lobbying career with Google/Apple in order to be viewed as potentially biased in an antitrust case involving those specific companies. 

It's been about 12 years since he had any connection to those two but you are correct it's about appearances more so than an ability to be non-biased.

It's been 12 years since he's worked with those companies in an official capacity.  We have no idea his connection to the people he worked with at each company.  I still have relationships with former co-workers from more than 20 years ago.  Some good, some not so much.  Nothing good can come of his participation.  The specter of bias, for or against, would always be a part of any proceeding he'd be heading.

SpamSandwich said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Delrahim's past lobbying for Google (which was specifically related to anti-trust issues) and Apple doesn't just "suggest" a conflict of interest. It is a clear conflict of interest.

A lobbyist who no longer lobbies for certain clients is no different from a salesman who stops selling Hondas and starts selling Fords. Where’s the conflict of interest if the prior association was divulged and it no longer exists?

That's reductionist and wrong.  The salesman who stops selling Hondas and starts selling Fords has -here's the crux- no influence over the sales of all cars.  Delrahim's job gives him influence over all companies.  He should recuse himself to remove the appearance of conflict of interest.  There is no win for him in this situation.  Hypothetically, should it come to pass that he rules in favor of the tech companies, interested parties could claim they had favorable status due to an established relationship.  A ruling against tech companies could elicit claims of bias against former employers.  Lose/lose.  Not knowing the extent of his relationship with the companies after employment simply invites more questions.  

Look no further that Ajit Pai for an example of how this relationship can be viewed.

jbdragon said:

Instead of spying on kids, Charge for the apps. I have no problem paying for good apps. I'd rather do that any day of the week then be spied on to make it free let alone a freemium app. You can even do a Subscription just to keep the money coming in. Not a lot, say $5.99 for the year. Maybe all they use that app for is 3 months or 6 months and moved on, but you have your money. If it's a app a kid will be using longer than a year, well you get another $5.99. This way you don't get that one time $5.99 and then forever free updates and very little money coming in that it's not worth working on the app. As it is PBS, it shouldn't cost a whole lot. Stop spying on kids. Really, should stop spying on everyone.

We need to stop with the "think about the kids" rhetoric and actually pay attention to what's being said.  Charging for apps does not mean an absence of analytics.  I'd bet there isn't a single paid app on your phone, table, or computer that doesn't use app analytics to manage the "well being" of their app.  Besides, what spying is PBS doing? 

sgordon said:

Well I’m going to side with apple here. Why is pbs collecting data without parental consent ?

Wait.  With absolutely no proof whatsoever, you're going to side with Apple -lemme make sure I got this right- because PBS is collecting data without parental consent?  Do me favor, walk me through the logic that lead you to that conclusion.  

Just from a cursory reading of the article it's pretty clear PBS thinks they'll be in violation of the prohibition against app analytics.  Paraphrasing here, but she said "we won't be able to tell if our apps or working or be able to improve them"

Absolutely nothing in the article implies PBS has done anything wrong yet you create a fiction from whole cloth just to side with Apple.  

Goldman Sachs exec says winning customer loyalty with Apple Card more important than profitability

Anyone believing that statement is either stupid, naive, stupidly naive, or naively stupid.  Many Apple fans seem to be blinded by Apple's involvement.  Apple isn't the bank.  Goldman is.   Apple isn't going to be running point on any issues that may arise.  Goldman is.  People getting this card are not entering a financial relationship with Apple.  Bears repeating.  People getting this card are not entering a financial relationship with Apple.  They will be entering a financial relationship with Goldman Sachs.  Yes, that Goldman Sachs.  

My personal hope is that the high profile visibility of the relationship with Apple will curb Goldman's tendencies toward being Goldman.  But when they come with obvious "we care" marketing... yeah, no.  They'd be much more believable saying they found a way to balance profitability with customer facing benefits like cash back savings, privacy, financial mgmt tools.  Basically they should let Apple market this and shut the hell up.  Apple is the relationship company and from a sample of the comments in this thread, some people already believe that's who they'll have the relationship with in the first place.