[email protected]

Good.
If it is easy to make Apple isn't aiming high enough.
Remember 2013? The problematic fingerprint sensor? 
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/12/rumor-fingerprint-sensor-production-could-limit-apple-to-4m-iphone-5s-units-this-quarter
https://9to5mac.com/2013/07/15/digitimes-claims-initial-iphone-5s-shipments-to-be-constrained-as-fingerprint-sensors-hit-low-yield-rates/
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'.

Perhaps re-read article, get some education what tax is and how it is applied and apply logic instead of asking for explaining basics. It is not higher or on pink paper that you may or may not like - it is for the fact that you are ALLOWED to do business and take revenue somewhere. There is no "option to pay... or elswhere".
This country bound policy that apparently wants to play fair for other business that take revenue and pay taxes it in New Zealand. Simple?

Maybe you should have taken some English lessons before posting? Just an idea.

Anyway,
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…

The problem is that they are not journalists.

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.

Best post of the year. 

Really? Why? "Journalist" is a very nebulous category. What the word means is personal taste. Where is the dividing line between "journalist" and "casual blogger"? And wherever you decide to put that line, is one side of it really less prone to bullshit that the other? Being a professional journalist does not make anyone immune to nonsense outside their profession. I'd trust a "casual blogger" talking about their profession over a journalist any day. I'd trust a random journalist to be right about journalism, and not much else.