thrang

tzeshan said:

thrang said:

While I understand that Wistron is responsible here, Apple does not look good with what appears to be a lack of oversight, especially of a newer operation. 

Unless Wistron was cooking numbers that Apple reviewed. But I would think the would have a large team of inspectors to independently and directly verify compliance with their contract standards.

Do you understand Apple needs to own Wistron in order to do this? 

No they don't. Why would you say this? Apple's supplier contracts can spell out whatever level of detail regarding working conditions, age, conditions, etc. as the supplier is agreeable to.

https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-Responsible-Standards.pdf

You don't think Walmart doesn't send representatives to China to check on factory conditions? (COVID not withstanding). Which are often sub-contracted factories to the "supplier" to Walmart? With 100% certainty I can tell you they do.

Apple and other large manufacturers have HUGE targets on their backs, both legal and moral/ethical/PR in substance. You don't think they and/or representative agents audit and inspect?

https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/

Progress by the numbers.

• Supplier performance is scored according to a rigorous assessment process in the areas of labor and human rights, health and safety, and environment. In 2019 assessments were conducted at 801 manufacturing facilities and logistics, repair, and contact centers, along with 50 assessments in other parts of our services supply chain. An additional 291 assessments occurred at smelter- and refiner-level sites. And year after year, we see constant improvement.

While I understand that Wistron is responsible here, Apple does not look good with what appears to be a lack of oversight, especially of a newer operation. 

Unless Wistron was cooking numbers that Apple reviewed. But I would think the would have a large team of inspectors to independently and directly verify compliance with their contract standards.

chasm said:

gatorguy said:

Gosh, surprised the CEO of Apple would be ordered to appear. I thought the judge in this case already signaled doubts about the veracity of Epic's claims early on. Maybe that was a different judge and venue? 

She has made clear that Epic doesn't have a real case to justify its contract-breaking, but she is being even-handed in allowing (within some limits) Epic to try and find some dirt that might justify their position, and that's fine. Epic has probably made a huge mistaken in asking for the highest levels of executives rather than the most relevant Apple people that would more have more relevant information. I wouldn't be surprised if Craig in particular answered most questions by saying "this is the limited amount I know about it, but you'd have to ask Mr. Neuenshwander for any specifics on that," which of course they're not going to be allowed to do. I think they are wasting their shot, so to speak, and I think the judge made it clear that if they did, she's not going to give Epic a do-over.

The bottom line on this, despite Epic's childish tantrums, is pretty cut-and-dried: Epic broke its contract and can't come up with a reason that would legally justify doing so. Unless some really damaging emails turn up, Epic's got nothing (from a legal standpoint) here.

Are you an attorney? Just curious if this is layman or legal perspective... I tend to agree with the sentiment.

tedz98 said:

While privacy and control of one’s data are concepts I support, and Facebook and Google are clearly abusing their ability to harvest and sell data, don’t go thinking Apple is being altruistic in their implementation of new features to enhance privacy. Apple is using privacy as a marketing tool to sell more Apple products which offer users more privacy controls. Since Apple doesn’t have an ad revenue stream to protect they love privacy and the idea of making money off of privacy. Nothing wrong with that. Just don’t think they are being benevolent.

How else would you give users the ability to protect themselves from unwanted tracking, other than by, well, giving them a choice? 

This is what the platform will provide. As long as Apple adheres to the same rules and requirements, there is nothing but benefit here.

Advertising wasn't ALWAYS tagged specifically to your ass, and businesses large and small did fine.

This may turn out to be one of the more public relations misfires in a long time...Facebook itself is bringing attention to the desire to remove user choice when it comes to privacy and opaque usage of user data, areas which they are a prime target.

It's a breathtakingly desperate and a rather brainless campaign at a time when a vast majority users (and governments) WANT better controls for identity and privacy, and more transparency around the access and use of data.

They are quite literally saying to its users: You should have no choice whether we track and collect data about you! 

If it so valuable to end users, they will opt in. Apple is not removing that choice.

Perhaps Facebook needs to finally rethink what its value is, and charge for a version of the app where there is no tracking. The problem is they likely monetize you and your data so many times over that you would need to pay $500 for the app....

This type of campaign reinforces the very need for the thing Apple is implementing. Thank you Mark!