waveparticle

MacPro said:

eriamjh said:

$4T in/by FY 2025 is crazy, but not unattainable.    

Vision Pro may help.   It may not.   M hoping it does.   2024 could be crazy.   

I agree.  I suspect the Vision Pro is just the start of a new multi-$B leg to the stool that is Apple.  Those VisionPro headsets will be being auctioned off in unopened boxes in 25 years for millions, as examples of how it all began.

coolfactor said:

Jobs is my hero, but I don't agree with his statement that milk is "bad for you". Reminds me of an anti-vaxxer mentality.  If there is anything bad about store-bought milk, it would be the production process, not the milk itself.

sbdude said:

mikethemartian said:

anonymouse said:

Anilu_777 said:

JP234 said:

Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.

Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 

Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.

Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer. 

Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?

In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.

This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.