gilly33 said:

paisleydisco said:

LOL name change isn't going to make people smarter. My friends and family prove me right. 

They'll still be confused about the 'apple account' -- nothing can save these types. They can't understand the Apple ID/account from their typical email. They don't understand the Appe ID has a password that is not the password for their Apple ID email name. Etc. You say Apple ID and they start typing their passwords or say they don't know their password. LOL clown show 

The only way to correct this would be everyone using an 'Apple Account' would be using an actual Apple email eg icloud.com and no other email. But that's not happening.

I have to agree with you 100%. If you don’t understand what Apple ID means a ‘simpler’ Apple Account ain’ gonna help you. Honestly, never knew this was a problem for some people.

I have to disagree.  People understand the concept of an account.  You have an account with Amazon, with your bank, with your wireless provider, so of course you have an account with Apple.  The account is not "the username;" the account is the account.  My Apple Account is not "[email protected]" my account is the relationship between me an Apple.  Usually when I use my Apple Account I don't enter my email address or anything. I just use my iPhone to authentication and I'm good to go.

Calling it an ID makes it sound like a driver's license or a number. It's much more than that.

Edit: Just noticed that W_D_Richards made exactly the same point. Great minds think alike, as my mom says.

radarthekat said:

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.

Are you suggesting that the President should have carte blanche to hold sway over the DOJ and what lawsuits they bring?  What about separation of powers?  Not your thing?  

Back to school, kat. Separation of powers is about the Executive vs. Legislature vs. Judicial. DOJ is part of the Executive branch. The Executive branch (led by the president) has to enforce the law (in principle at least), but has a great deal of discretion in how it does that. So of course a change in president would and should have an impact on something with such major policy implications. Or should a non-elected Attorney General have more discretion and authority than his elected boss?

Apple is weird about water.

Modern iPhone are advertised to be very water resistant, being able to survive drops in the bath or whatnot.

So why, when I was going to get a battery replacement on my own dime, did they ask if my phone "ever got wet"?  Whose phone never gets wet? So of course I said no and that was that.

chasm said:

JP234 said:

Misleading headline by Appleinsider:

Congress officially acknowledges Apple's unfair labor practices and union-busting tactics

The next thing you'll read is that 2 (out of 435) representatives sent a letter to the NLRB. Does that sound like an official Congressional acknowledgement to you?

Yes. Yes it does.

Things a SINGLE congressperson does in the course of their official duties are official congressional acts. All congresspeople speak on behalf of Congress.

Nonsense.  If you don't understand why the headline is (intentionally) misleading, I don't know what to say. Yes, members of congress can do things, as can committee chairs, as can committees, as can party caucuses, as can the House or Senate as a whole, etc.  Those are all different things and none of those can be characterized as "Congress _officially_ ...".  The correct/not-misleading wording would be "Member of Congress officially..." or the like. If one Supreme Court Justice says something in a minority opinion for a case (or, even better, during oral arguments), you wouldn't say "The Supreme Court officially ...".  Same thought process.  This isn't complicated.

Dooofus said:

Shareholders want a return on their investment.  Why should Apple pay workers any more than they do now? The stores are fully staffed by people working there of their own free will. That means they are already paying the right amount. Any more would be pissing away profit.

I'm as big a capitalist fanboy as anyone, but this is nonsense.

Without speaking to the Apple Store situation, of which I know nothing, just because an employer has employees doesn't mean they are paying "the right amount."  I'm sure if Google (or Apple) capped it's pay at $100K, they would still have no trouble hiring 10s of thousands of human beings. Would they be world-class engineers, etc.? Probably not. And if they were, would they be as content and productive as if they were making a salary commensurate with their skill set? I doubt it.

It is very possible for an employer to be underpaying people and still have employees. Therefore, it can be in the best interest of a company (and its shareholders) to increase employee pay even if all their positions are currently filled. If nothing else, employee turnover is very expensive (as is churn in most contexts).

Here's an extreme example. Suppose the Golden State Warriors (the NBA team closest to Cupertino) decided to not pay any players more than the league minimum. Would they be able to field a team of 15 players?  Absolutely.  There are thousands of former Division 1 hoopsters who would be happy to be professional basketball players, regardless of the salary. Would the owners profit from this move? Probably not.