Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    275 points belter | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.275s | source | bottom
    1. bigyabai ◴[] No.43581724[source]
    Well, this is hilarious timing. The EU certainly isn't going to retract their case, so now Apple products will be divided into "the ones with consumer regulations" and "the ones without".

    I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.

    replies(4): >>43581773 #>>43582143 #>>43582219 #>>43587589 #
    2. jjulius ◴[] No.43581773[source]
    >I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.

    With stuff like this, why should we extend them trust?

    replies(1): >>43585425 #
    3. latexr ◴[] No.43582143[source]
    > I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple.

    I hope the opposite. Faith is exploitable and leads to complacency and accepting excuses. I hope Americans do not have faith in Apple and that will either make them work harder to earn and keep that trust, or that it’ll lead to the mask coming down. Having trust in someone covertly deceiving you looks like the worst possible outcome.

    4. imglorp ◴[] No.43582219[source]
    Faith what now? Yes, it's decent product but...

    It's a $3T company. It got there by extracting the maximum possible from customers, app developers, and labor. They are well known for exploiting offshore workers [1] many times over. They force customers to upgrade off working hardware. They force customers to buy multiple devices when one could do the job. There are monopoly complaints world over. Customers who are happy with this have Stockholm Syndrome.

    https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-ap...

    replies(1): >>43583607 #
    5. gosub100 ◴[] No.43583607[source]
    Suppress developer wages and abuse the H1B program too.
    replies(1): >>43583871 #
    6. collingreen ◴[] No.43583871{3}[source]
    Don't forget the suicide nets at Foxconn instead of improving working conditions
    replies(2): >>43584488 #>>43585626 #
    7. sneak ◴[] No.43584488{4}[source]
    1) foxconn isn’t apple

    2) the suicide rate at the foxconn factory was, even before the nets, lower per capita than the province in which it is situated. using your logic, the foxconn factory simply existing prevents deaths that would have otherwise happened if it did not.

    i’m all for calling apple on their shit when warranted, but the suicide nets meme needs to die.

    replies(2): >>43585616 #>>43585632 #
    8. jachee ◴[] No.43585425[source]
    I’m 95% sure that was a tongue-in-cheek statement.
    9. ludicrousdispla ◴[] No.43585616{5}[source]
    >> the foxconn factory simply existing prevents deaths that would have otherwise happened if it did not.

    That only holds if the foxconn employees were randomly selected from the general population.

    replies(1): >>43586578 #
    10. stuaxo ◴[] No.43585626{4}[source]
    Not saying they are good, but all tall buildings in Taiwan have suicide nets like the ones mentioned at Foxconn.

    The west should copy this, nets are known to prevent a lot of suicide, in general people don't immediately go and try again.

    11. yencabulator ◴[] No.43585632{5}[source]
    This argument can also be used in case a company uses child labor, but less of it than someone else. Or for people owning fewer than average slaves.
    12. nickff ◴[] No.43586578{6}[source]
    If Foxconn workers had either average or worse-than-average mental health (in their country), this outcome appears to be positively impacted by their employer. This seems like a reasonable assumption, unless you have some countervailing information.

    Calling out unspoken assumptions can be useful, but it's not a refutation unless the assumptions are unreasonable or demonstrably wrong.

    replies(1): >>43587133 #
    13. ludicrousdispla ◴[] No.43587133{7}[source]
    A reasonable assumption would be that Foxconn has some candidate screening that filters out applicants that may potentially be suicidal.
    14. hagbard_c ◴[] No.43587589[source]
    > I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple

    Faith is a good word to use when discussing the true believers following the fruit factory. The company has been very successful in turning commercial transactions into quasi-religious ceremonies and managed to convince people that they can trust their judgement. Well, yes, you can certainly trust their judgement as long as you realise that their judgement revolves around profit maximisation. While this in itself does not need to be a problem is does become a problem when one half goes into the transaction based on faith with the other half being aware of this.

    Don't be deluded, you can trust them just as much/little as you can trust other large vendors. If you like their products you can buy them but it does not make sense to 'trust their judgement' once supervision is lifted since it is not a question if they will abuse this trust but when and the answer is they already have, many times over. Every time they claim their products do not offer freedom of choice because of ${reasons} they abuse this trust because they fail to state that ${reasons} is a constant which is initialised as follows:

       const reasons=profit_maximisation