- [email protected]
- Last Active
- unconfirmed, member
avon b7 said:gregg thurman said:avon b7 said:This is a damage control statement. The article by the BBC is a damning revelation that leaves Apple in a bad moral light.
The questionnaire leak alone paints a picture which will make everyone in PR at Apple squirm.
This is going to be like quicksand in the sense that any move to defend itself will probably make things worse. Just like this statement has done. I can see it being torn apart line by line for deliberately trying to distract from the reality that the leaks have put onto the table.
If it is easy to make Apple isn't aiming high enough.
Remember 2013? The problematic fingerprint sensor?
Same old same old.
maciekskontakt said:boredumb said:I'm sort of hoping Professor Russel will explain how paying taxes per the law, and thereby at a higher rate, is 'immoral'.
This country bound policy that apparently wants to play fair for other business that take revenue and pay taxes it in New Zealand. Simple?
if you are unhappy with how much taxes a company pays and it's illegal you sue them and/or seize their assets, if it's legal you get the tax code changed.
Whining about big bad companies not paying more that the tax code says they should is idiotic.
Rayz2016 said:abster2core said:macdutchuser said:I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is…
As the article states, "Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen. The problem is that few modern tech writers are actually journalists. Many are casual bloggers from vendor advocacy sites with a grudge against Apple. Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen."
And perhaps, if we keep identifying them as such, and quoting their rhetoric, we only perpetuate their existence.