Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a message about taking responsibility for protecting people's privacy and their data?
I think because it’s pretty cheap (free) to make inspiring speeches to privileged American students about an esoteric ‘right to be human’.
Meanwhile Apple effectively withholds tax from a range of countries who would probably use that to provide basic social services to those in need of them, or runs (through its contractors) factories that withhold basic human rights from staff.
I mean, Tim Cook is basically coming out against companies that are following the law at least as much as Apple. People just don't like the way the laws are currently setup. Apple even benefited from these lack of legal grounds in the past to get through their own privacy issues[4].
And it's not like Apple is innocent here. They've done illegal things in the past that directly hurt users [1] and it's employees and other people in the industry [2]. They have a long history of violating user trust [3].
This isn't to say they are unique in this. Most large companies deal with these sorts of things.
But Apple isn't innocent. They just happen to find an area where they can claim to take the high ground because their business model allows it.
Apple would claim this is legal avoidance, not illegal evasion.
Tax law is the acts and statutes that bring it into existence, but it's also the case law that shapes it.
EU tax authorities tend to take a light touch approach - they'll tell you that they think you're non-compliant and how they want you to fix it. You can then tell them why they're wrong. They tend not to go to court against huge companies for anything other than blatant violations.
So, maybe the law is right, and Apple (etc etc) isn't following it correctly, but the enforcement of that law is wrong.
If Apple want to demand more responsibility from the tech industry why should it only be other companies' transgressions?
Apple just a few years ago had to tweak miserable worker conditions to reduce the suicide rate on their production lines, they don't get to dictate the narrative on where the tech industry falls short.
The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. Apple was reportedly alone in addressing the underlying issues by increasing requirements on Foxconn and other suppliers.
Far from being an example of hypocrisy, I think this is a good example of Cook's point.
> The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer.
how convenient for apple... if they truly “cared” they would use their clout to improve the conditions regardless if it was a contractor or not (same goes for any large company using contractors)
I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. Apple should... make demands on companies with which it has no relationship, and expect those companies to comply?
As I stated, Apple did insist on improved conditions at the Foxconn factories where Apple products were made. They audit the factories regularly to ensure Foxconn and other contractors are meetings the standards Apple has set for employee treatment, and report on this information annually, including dropping suppliers who fail audits.
It is not clear Apple could do more than they're doing, other than raising the standards even more. Which... maybe they should, but I don't think that's even what you're suggesting.
You keep describing these people as Foxconn employees, but way before that they were a decision by Apple to not complete iPhone assembly in a modern work environment where the staff are their own employees and have modern workplace safety and rights and benefits.
Instead they pursued a solution that would cost them a few $/person/day, for a phone with $100s profit per handset, and required Foxconn to create assembly lines within their budget. They're like proxy employees whose situation Apple first created and then slightly improved by demanding more stringent age checks and rest.
The tech industry's hazy relationship with employees vs contractors is something else they should accept more responsibility for that Cook neglected to mention - Uber, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, they probably have half a million contractors between them as one big circumvention of modern worker benefits and rights.
> that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another
This is exactly what both groups, corporate tax advocates and privacy advocates, are pointing to: the unsustainability or unethicality of the current widespread practices.
(Edit: this is getting downvoted quickly, so let me make a disclaimer — I'm not judging the soundness of the arguments of either advocates, just noting that "everybody does it" just restates their arguments.)
Some people expect one to be a saint and be totally flawless if one preaches something. They see the preachers as hypocrites otherwise. The classic "but what about ... <another unrelated issue>".
In fact, for some, even saints are not good enough. Mother Teresa gets called on her mis-deeds all the time if you point anything good about her. Gandhi gets called on for his personal relationships etc.
I think if you preach about something you first should clean your own house. For example I would have liked Cook to address the recent keyboard problems openly or discuss the TouchBar that nobody seems to like. I feel like he is opportunistic in the sense that he talks loudly about things that are of less concern to his company and make his competition look bad. That's good business but I don't think he should get much credit for doing it. I am sure he would have no qualms about selling out his users if it fit his business.
Extended warranty is bullshit if you have to waste time going to the Genius Bar and then having your keyboard break after the warranty. That was the minimum possible thing they could do to avoid lawsuits.
I think there is something to be said that you shouldn't be a hypocrite if you speak out publicly about something. For example it really bothers me when people like the U2 singer talk about climate change while flying around in private jets. Or people that glorify/use the military while not having served themselves or anybody in their family.
If you preach something you should make the same sacrifices you ask others for.
Mother Theresa's saintly work involved providing healthcare for the indigent and overlooked. Her criticisms involve withholding pain relief from those people for religious reasons.
That's not an unrelated "whataboutism?" It directly criticizes the action being praised.
You probably meant to say "every big business". I don't know many small companies that keep 285 billion away from taxes. Large companies like Apple usually pay way less taxes than smaller ones, precisely because they manage to optimize away way more taxes.
"Whataboutism" is intellectually bankrupt. If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy, it doesn't matter who it's from, or how hypocritical the speaker is. It's the message, not the messenger, otherwise it's just the reverse of argument by authority. Ideas should be evaluated for their content.
> If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy
I'd like to nail down when accusing someone of hypocrisy is legitimate. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with your larger point, more clarifying.)
If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority, sure, pointing out that they can't live up to their own standards casts doubt on that moral authority or the feasibility of those standards. And sometimes people don't realize they're arguing from innate moral authority, so challenging them on that point can identify some unspoken assumptions. (All that said, it's clearer to plainly state, "I think you're implicitly claiming moral authority, and I dispute this," than to ask "what about X.")
Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. For example, "Cook told the new Stanford graduates that digital surveillance threatened innovation and would have 'stopped Silicon Valley before it got started.'” This is an argument that the process is innately self-defeating, which doesn't rest on his personal moral authority.
In this case, since he's not fundamentally basing his argument on moral authority, saying "what about" is simply an ad hominem tu quoque.
If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority
That part of their argument can simply be ignored.
Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though.
I never said he was. I was specifically responding to the notion of "whataboutism" itself. That notion itself is philosophically bankrupt. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on who has advanced them.
simply an ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger.
> Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger
I see how it ignores the message but disagree that it's nonsensical.
I agree with you in that whataboutism calls into questions the intentions of the messenger: You are accusing them of trying to derail the discussion instead of addressing their point at face value.
However, I think your analysis is practically bankrupt and overly idealistic since it fails to address how saying 'what about this' can be an effective tool to wave attention away, or try to discredit another argument or 'message' as you call them.
This is like saying every request made in a DDOS attack should be taken at face value. We should never question the broader intentions of the request
If you trusted the company enough to give them your email address directly, I'm sure you would've done that. This is a great move. I get so much spam and I'd like to be able to not get it if I don't want it. Long after I've moved on from a service they are still sending me emails to get me back or to do some other transactions with them.
Thank you so much for this. I was learning iOS again for the fourth time. This time is different. I learned about programmatic UI from Brian LBTA guy which has been so much easier than IB. Now this update just makes my learning iOS a whole lot easier for me. I'm so thrilled. Thank you thank you thank you Apple!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, many geek forums accept cynicism, negativity, sarcasm and snark, and downvote a happy post, usually with some excuse like "doesn't contribute to the discussion".
Apple is not preventing you from buying iOS apps from anyone but Apple. Spotify and other companies are preventing people from buying directly from iOS apps by not offering the option for users to purchase their product with in app purchase API. Spotify uses Apples resources to distribute their apps but then complain about it. Anyone who is distributing an app on behalf of someone else is going to charge for the service and why shouldn't they. IMO the question isn't should they charge it's how much is appropriate? And people already have a right to install whatever software they want on their device at their own risk as it should be.
I guess Im just an outlier as I love the butterfly keyboard. It is certainly my favorite thing about the new macs. I still have my 2016 Mac and it is in prime condition. I am a light touch typer. Therefore I dislike having to mash my fingers down into the keys to register the click.
I like it too (2019 version). I hated it the first three weeks, but now it's great and I prefer it to my old 2012 MacBook Pro keyboard. Maybe I'll hate it again in six months or a year if it dies like many other people's have, but for now it's great, at least.
I have a bit of repetitive strain injury so I try to use a mechanical keyboard with light force requirement and not bottom out the keys. Reducing travel and force when typing seems to help. I also like the butterfly keyboard a lot, so it probably works great for light typers.
I would argue that most musicians should be salaried employees making 80-150k. The label would then handle everything else. The musicians only need to focus on creation and performing. I have always been interested in the problem Spotify is trying to solve for. However, I think they've only solved half the problem. The other half of the problem is solved by putting long tail musicians on a salary and then they can graduate out of that once they achieve a certain level of commercial success.
(Why is this being downvoted?) It is on topic and is not at all hostile.
The problem with this is that it requires really successful artists to work for far less than the value they create, which they won't – because they know they could make far more money independently.
And without the top performers subsidizing the salaries of everyone else, the whole thing falls apart.
Top performers are already working for far less than the value they create allegedly. Usually, there are a whole host of people working on a project.
Right now you have fake writing and producing credits simply designed to generate a stream of income for the musician. I think going to a salary would allow people who are best at writing or production or something other than singing being able to focus and it brings the cost to produce a record down.
You may or may not be able to make more money independently. You never know when the public is going to move on to some other sounds and you never know the perks that are lost as a result. The top of the top performers probably could swing the independence but for many it may not be the way to go. The bottom line is that for the vast majority of musicians a salary system could be better to work under.
I think everything should be on the table as it relates to how the music business is run and that's what the Spotify CEO said he was interested in. He's just doing from one side instead of both sides of the equation. That's why the vast majority artists and content creators are on the losing end of Streaming.
This is essentially the pre-Beatles model we saw in Tin Pan Alley and the Brill Building. Carole King's biggest hits were written for like $75/week. It declined as musicians started writing and recording their own songs and being self-contained creative acts, not to mention the, shall we say, "unfair equity strategies" the record labels used. That is, it's all well and good until the bosses take all the big money.
That's interesting. I didn't know this but I think this model should be brought back for most cases I think safe guards can be put into place to guard against "unfair equity strategies".
This legislation sounds so broad based on the article. Unless you know what youre doing legislation can be so broad that people wind up in court for years and no Cases are filed in civil court. I cant imagine it being effective in any way. With that said I havent read the details of the actual law so maybe it is solid.
Many of these 'change the world' efforts by non-profits do not scale if there is not a profit motive associated with them. The profit motive would naturally keep these programs running and people happy to make a good living while actually helping others when going to work. Instead what you have is non-profits totally relying on the government and rich people feeling pitty to keep their doors open. Generating a profit can eliminate that and can actually empower these companies to help in the ways they want to without middle men.
