jdw

Everybody should recuse themselves, and nobody should take over.  The US Gov. is yet again throwing tax payer dollars away, in the name of defending those very taxpayers. Utter insanity. 

Leave American business success stories like Apple alone.  Consumers must decide if they are around 100 years hence, not Uncle Sam.

Although some would disagree with the rainbow flag waving of Apple, which is highly political, it can be argued that is different than war.  War, of course, being much more "life & death" in a daily basis for a long period of time.  People supporting either side of a given conflict can get more riled than people would over sexual preferences.  So I disagree with Godofbiscuitssf that this is "rank hypocrisy."  It's not.  Apple sees sexual preferences as somewhat culturally acceptable in 2024 USA, while opinions about war are not.

Was Apple right in firing this employee in light of the fact the employee had been given permission in the recent past?  In order to determine that, we need more facts.  For example, if the employee had been told by managers at the store they could wear certain things, but later upper management in Cupertino decided otherwise regarding a policy for all stores, then it would boil down to how Apple spoke to this employee.  Personally, I would have treated it very delicately, apologizing to the employee for conflicting information, but letting them know that rules handed down by Cupertino are the final word.  If the employee heard and understood that but continued to wear the symbols anyway, they should be given a formal warning, but no further action.  If the employee continued to disobey, they should be given a second warning and asked to go home for one work day.  If they returned to work and continued to ignore the rules, then and only then should they be fired.  That is how I personally would have handled it.

But I am surprised anyone gets fired anymore with the crazy USA being as litigious as it is.  But I guess Apple employee's have to sign a lot of legal documents to become an employee that prevents many lawsuits against Apple in the event that employee is ultimately fired.

paisleydisco said:

LOLOLOLOLOL 

the rich guy looking for a handout 

Sorry but Canstorm's reply to you was spot on.  No doubt you have refused to purchase any AAPL stock too.  I first bought AAPL in 1999 when Steve Jobs was back, the stock was rising a little, because I believed in the company since 1984, and because I said to myself, "why the heck not?"  I've never sold a single share.  I was not wealthy, nor did I come from a wealthy family.  Ever dollar in my possession at the time mattered to me.  Yet I chose to invest a little anyway.  Glad I did.

It never ceases to shock and amaze me how people who deliberately refuse to become financially savvy are the first to chastise anyone and everyone they deem rich, who in reality is anyone a tiny bit wealthier than themselves.

Here's some great advice...

Stop criticizing everyone, even truly bad people.  Take charge of your own life.  Follow the lead of those who have become a success even if you don't know them personally.  Don't let failure stop you because you will fail.  Keep going.  One day, you will be pleasantly surprised with your nest egg, and your kindness in not criticizing others will be a shining beacon to all around you.

"The Apple of 1976 is unrecognizable compared to today's gigantic corporation."

I take issue with that word "unrecognizable" in the above quite because it makes the reader think that applies ONLY to the Apple of 2024.  But since you are comparing with "1976 Apple," then arguably, even Apple in the late 1980's would have been a vastly different and vastly bigger corporation in comparison to their 1976 founding.  

In other words, Apple has technically been "quite different" (I dislike "unrecognizable") in terms of their size and product line and buildings and wealth AS COMPARED TO their founding in 1976.  But through it all, Apple has indeed been RECOGNIZABLE as Apple.  I would say the  human body goes through far more changes.  Can you take a baby photo and match it to an adult?  No you cannot.  But one look at Woz and Jobs, and you recognize the duo as not only having founded Apple in 1976, but having built it up through the years.  Yes, even when Steve was exiled and working at NeXT, his work there ultimately led to the macOS we have today in that Apple bought NeXT Step and it became Mac OS X.  And even though Woz hasn't actively worked at Apple in decades, one look at his face tells you he's one of the Apple founders, without whom Apple would not exist.

Apple is recognizable despite size and new products.  It's the founders and the logo and the core philosophy of the company that helps us to recognize it quite easily.

It is Merrick Garland and his chronies who want the public to believe the benevolent and ever-caring US government is watching out for The People in trying to legally harm one of America's greatest corporate success stories.  In light of that, I am not sorry to take issue with the AppleInsider article author about his use of the term "unrecognizable."  Garland is lapping that word up and expanding on it.  Garland wants everyone to believe Apple is no longer recognizable compare to its roots and is therefore, in his opinion, worthy of being taken to court as a Monopoly that needs to be punished.  Apple is still the Apple we older folks have loved since the earliest days.  Change doesn't make all things unrecognizable.  Indeed, age makes some things, like a fine wine, even better.  Apple is no exception.

Well, Vision Pro certainly would become more comfortable if it shipped standard with Bob Ross hair as a band.