You’d expect that, yet they’re able to go to someone like your cell phone carrier and request historical data for your calls and locations without a warrant. The carrier may or may not give it without the warrant, but it can if it wants to.
Straight line acceleration is only a very small consideration for performance. Could a Tesla S beat a Ferrari around a track?
The fact that you're even having to pose the rhetorical question in the first place is a bit telling, don't you think? I mean, here we are, comparing a family sedan's performance to that of a supercar without a hint of irony or jest. By all rights, the performance of the two shouldn't even be considered in the same sentence and yet we're talking about how the two trade blows.
That alone should tell you how the world of cars has shifted.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Tesla and Ferrari each make their first electric supercars. That's when the real fun starts.
While there's a lot more nuance to it, broadly speaking, copyrights protect expressions of things, rather than the things being expressed.
For instance, suppose you took a picture of your kids playing outside. Your picture is protected as an artistic expression by copyright. Whether it's on film, in RAW data on the camera, or in a JPEG you posted on your website, it's still your picture that's copyrighted to you. And while we can represent your picture as a number, that number isn't actually your picture. After all, the number can change if we convert it from RAW to JPEG or whatnot. Again, the picture is your expression, and that's what's protected by copyright, not any number that we may be able to use to represent it.
But if a painter takes the binary digits corresponding to the JPEG of your picture and expresses them in watercolor, it may ostensibly represent the same underlying number that was used for your picture, but the copyright would belong to that artist since the expression of that number is uniquely theirs. Likewise, if a musician expresses those same 0s and 1s as a sequence of beats, it may still ostensibly represent the same underlying number, but it'd be their copyright because the expression is uniquely theirs.
The key point here is that at no point does anyone actually have a copyright on that number. Each person has a copyright on their unique and different expression of that number. By that same reasoning, if we sit two reporters down to write articles about the exact same set of facts, they'll churn out two different articles. Same facts being reported, two different expressions of them, and two different copyrights, each to their respective author.
Likewise with programming. The way an algorithm works is factual, but its implementation is an expression of those facts. I used to tell my intro Computer Science students that in the same way they could tell the difference between two essays about the same topic, I could tell the difference between two programs that solve the same problem. Again, there's room for expression, and copyright protects those different and unique expressions. An implementation of an algorithm can be copyrighted, but the algorithm itself cannot be.
As for CSS and the like, the underlying facts can't be copyrighted because they aren't an artistic expression. They could get a copyright on the number laid out in a particular font with a particular kerning and line-spacing on a particularly-colored background, sure, but they can't get a copyright on the number itself.
All of which is to say, anyone can pass numbers around without fear of copyright infringement. Sadly, however, some people have managed to patent certain primes, but that's a separate topic.
That's hardly an Americanism. When was the last time you read a British article that unnecessarily referred to the location as "Cambridge, England" or referred to the university using its full and proper name, rather than informally referring to it as "Cambridge"?
There will always be ambiguities, if not with local city names, then with words that are defined differently elsewhere, idioms that aren't well understood outside a region, or references to local culture that will fly over the heads of outsiders. Thankfully, writers the world over provide context clues to allow their audiences to sort out ambiguities of those sorts. Broadly speaking, if I'm reading The Guardian or watching the BBC, I can safely assume that references to "Cambridge" are referring to the English university or the city where it resides unless I have reason to think otherwise. Likewise, if I'm reading an article about MIT or Harvard, I can safely assume we're talking about the city in Massachusetts unless I see information to the contrary.
Occasionally those assumptions break down and I discover that they're actually referring to one of the many other Cambridges throughout the world, but that's hardly the end of the world, since a quick Internet search can eliminate that minor confusion...assuming the information is even material to the story in the first place. Most of the time, I can pick up enough context clues from what else is being said to understand the salient points being made without ever resolving those ambiguities.
I'd hope that anyone here on Slashdot would be capable of doing the same.
I've never lived in or even visited the Bay Area, yet I've been aware of the Mission District for as long as I can recall, as well as some of what sets it apart within the city. It's a well-known neighborhood even outside of that local sphere...perhaps not as well-known as I had thought, given the confusion in the comments, but I had no problem reading the headline (despite mostly having lived in South Florida and Texas), and I wouldn't have expected most others to either.
The Mission is a district in San Francisco, somewhat akin to the way New York City is broken up into boroughs like the Bronxand Manhattan. From what I've gathered (having never visited the Bay Area), the Mission is well-known for its art scene, LGBTQ community, and food, though hopefully a local can chime in with better information.
And no, Google and Twitter don't allow use of a FIDO U2F key or a TOTP client without also having a mobile phone number set up.
You sure about that? I know that used to be the case, but I'm not sure that it still is. I don't have a phone number set up on my Google account, yet I'm using TOTP. I suppose it's possible that I deleted it from my profile after I set up 2FA, but I don't recall doing so.
I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers.
I was going to jokingly suggest, "Don't give them any ideas!", but then I realized that they're more or less already laying the groundwork for an intelligence network that would cover that "threat" as well. See: Amazon Echo; Google Home; indoor security cameras with "smart" functionality; etc..
The Messages app's default behavior has it load a preview of the linked-to content, hence why the linked-to content can—and in this case did—cause problems.
Anyway, previews can be toggled on or off in settings, it's possible to delete the offending messages via settings if Messages becomes inaccessible, and messages from unknown senders are by default shunted into a separate section in Messages from those sent by contacts, so the issue was always going to be minimal in scope and impact. Even so, it's nice to see that they were able to accomplish some initial mitigation prior to the full fix coming next week.
Not everyone wants to give Google more personal info -- working phone #, alternate email, etc and so forth.
I certainly understand (and share) this concern, but that's a problem with having a Google account at all, rather than a problem with enabling 2FA on an existing account, since they don't require any of those details when setting up 2FA. With my current Google account, I gave them the bare minimum during account creation. They don't have any of my phone numbers, they don't have my real name, and the only reason they have an alternate e-mail address for me is because I registered my account using that address so as to avoid tying my Google account to a Gmail address. And even that e-mail address is useless to them, since it was a one-off I set up in Fastmail that's unique to Google (e.g. google@spam.example.com).
In terms of setting up 2FA, I simply enabled it on my account, used my iPhone's camera to scan a QR code into my third-party password manager, and I was done. No need for divulging personal info. My password manager simply parsed the standards-based shared key from the QR code and is now able to generate and auto-fill the necessary OTPs on an as-needed basis whenever I'm logging in via the web on any of my devices.
Also, this doesn't work well with standards-compatible email clients like Thunderbird or K-9.
Yes, it does. For apps that support standards-compatible OTP entry, you'd simply enter the OTP when prompted, same as you would on the web or anywhere else that supports these standards. For apps that don't support these standards, you'd instead go to your Google settings and generate a unique, revokable "app password" for each app that you want to grant access, same as with every other decent 2FA solution I'm aware of.
Look, I like bashing Google as much as the next guy (check my extensive comment history if you don't believe me), but pretty much all of what you've said is baseless when it comes to Google's implementation of 2FA.
That an analogy breaks down when stretched in ways it was never intended to apply doesn't negate the fact that it still applies to your original line of logic. Nor does it negate the fact that it highlights the glaring flaws in your original logic.
As for your new line of reasoning, you seem to be suggesting that whether or not the cheating can be countered by your opponents has an impact on whether or not it was cheating in the first place. It doesn't. It's wholly irrelevant. That something is possible does not mean it is permissible. Sadly, that distinction seems to be flying right over your head, suggesting you're either trolling or that you somehow missed out on key childhood lessons.
Cut the unhelpful "slave labor" hyperbole. There is actual, real slave labor still going on today, but so far as we know Apple is not involved with it in any way.
While situations certainly aren't ideal in the countries where much of Apple's manufacturing takes place, those problems pre-date Apple's existence as a company and go far beyond Apple's influence in the global community, so you can't expect them or any other individual organization to fix the issues instantly. Apple, among many others, seems to have a self-interest in keeping their reputation as clean as possible, which is evidenced by the steady stream of reforms and improvements in the supply chain, both on the manufacturing and mining side of things. It's still not anywhere close to perfect, but it's far, far, far better than it was a decade or two ago, with changes occurring on a regular basis.
And cut the false moral dilemma. If Apple's tax avoidance is legal (which—based on your disregard for the question of legality*—you seem to have ceded for the sake of argument), then you're suggesting that they must overpay their taxes unnecessarily lest they cease being a "good company". That's bull. Choosing to pay only what is required is not evil.
The fact is, while Apple's accounting tools are far more sophisticated than ours and their motivations are almost certainly not altruistic, that money is (until the laws change) still theirs to keep, and they aren't any more "not good" for keeping it than you are "not good" for itemizing your deductions. Hell, we can even imagine scenarios where it'd be downright immoral for them to pay excess taxes, such as if they believed that the government would squander the funds or that they were more capable of using those funds to better society. On the flip side, many of us (myself included) will argue that Apple should be paying those taxes, but we'll also acknowledge that they are under no legal obligation to do so, so the proper way to fix that problem is through legislation, not a guilt-trip. So long as the legal avenue remains open, I don't fault Apple or any other company for taking advantage of it, any more than I would fault an individual for realizing capital losses to gain a tax advantage.
All of which is to say, if you want to suggest Apple isn't doing enough to fix the supply chain, fine. If you want to suggest that Apple should be paying more taxes, fine. Those are good discussions we should be having. But claiming "they are using slave labor" doesn't help the discussion at all, and your unhelpful attempt to paint the moral situation with a black-and-white brush disregards the numerous and complex moral considerations at play.
*I'm also setting aside the topic of legality, so my comments are strictly with regards to their use of legal tax avoidance practices, and not to any illegal tax evasion they may be engaging in, such as what may be the case with the illegal state aid they allegedly received from Ireland. I have no qualms in categorically condemning any illegal activities they may be engaging in.
metric system is so much better than imperial system.
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, that’s irrelevant. I made a point of making my hypothetical system “as good as metric”. Both Metric and Imperial loyalists will claim that their system is better (side note: the US doesn’t actually use Imperial and hasn’t in over a century, if memory serves), so clearly I wasn’t talking about Imperial being the other system.
Ya know, it makes me wonder what an alternate world would look like where a system of measurements that was just as good as metric, but wasn't metric, was the dominant one for trade and commerce between nations. Would the French still be insisting on using metric, despite the rest of the world standardizing on the other system? With them being as proud of the French language as they are, I can't help but think that they would.
And that's your prerogative! Even though the evidence we have from recent history doesn't seem to bear out your opinion and your reason for holding that opinion bypasses any consideration of further evidence, it's still your opinion to hold.
As I said, however, there's quite a bit more to this story than the summary and headline suggest, much of which was addressed in the significantly less slanted article. It would've been nice if the summary had simply reflected the more neutral tone of the article, rather than carrying such a heavy slant, or if it had simply mentioned some of the other salient details so that people could come to an informed opinion of their own.
Are we asking Tim to kinda randomly send scouts to these factories?
Actually, Apple actually already does that. They did over 700 comprehensive site audits (i.e. random inspections, interviews, the whole shebang) of their suppliers last year alone, and if you read the article they apparently conducted 150 interviews with employees at this particular factory as soon as they got wind of the impending report. What the summary leaves out that the article mentions is that Apple already addressed these issues publicly by saying that they found no evidence that the site was failing to meet their standards.
So, either their standards are too low, they're lying, they couldn't uncover the issue, or the issue doesn't exist in the first place. Take your pick.
For my part, I've seen Apple cut ties with or otherwise call out suppliers who weren't meeting their standards, oftentimes before the violations were otherwise known to the public (e.g. last year when they announced out of the blue that their audits had uncovered a supplier who was forcing interns to work illegal overtime). As such, a coverup seems out of character for them. I seriously doubt that Apple would try to sweep something this minor under the rug if they thought it was an actual issue, given that it's a trivial issue to correct. So either they didn't find evidence of the issue or the issue never existed in the first place.
Almost all of what you've brought up is relevant to personal vehicles in general, rather than being specific to EVs. With the exception of the charging issue, the parking problems you described apply equally as well to ICE vehicles as EVs.
As for the charging, none of what you've said is a difficult problem to solve. Many urban areas are already requiring that apartments install chargers in a growing number of parking spots, and metering them individually is a simple matter, given that they're likely already doingso for everything else in the building. From there, it's just a matter of linking each instance of usage back to the correct tenant, which can be trivially accomplished in a variety of ways (e.g. RFID tags in parking stickers, use reserved spots, swipe a door badge/credit card/driver's license before the charger is usable, enter a PIN code, etc.).
You are right that many urbanites are trending away from car ownership and towards vehicles as a service, but again, that's true of all vehicles, not just EVs, so it seems a bit disingenuous to paint it as a problem specific to EVs. Uber and Lyft are eating into all car sales, not just EV sales.
Exactly. A lack of products to sell and make a profit means a diminishing market share.
Not only did you misunderstand the OP's comment (he was saying that a lack of CES presence doesn't necessarily correlate to how well a company fares in the market, which is true for a number of companies, not just Apple), but the reasons you chose to bash Apple with aren't even factual. There are plenty of perfectly valid and legitimate complaints to levy at Apple (e.g. lack of upgradeability, lack of repairability, costs outweigh benefits for many users, etc.), but you managed to pick ones that aren't even true.
For instance, contrary to your suggestion that they have a lack of products to sell (which seems to be a prevailing sentiment in the nerd crowd since some of their recent updates were underwhelming to us), the fact is that all of their major products save one (the Mac mini) received an update/refresh or price cut within the last year and the iPhone line received its biggest update since its launch a decade ago. While many of those changes don't appeal to us, they do appeal to everyday consumers (i.e. their target audience).
And contrary to your inference that this has led to a lack of profits, their profits appear likely to have been higher in 2017 than in any previous year in their history as a company. Likewise with their revenue.
And contrary to your suggestion that this has resulted in diminishing market share, Mac unit sales grew during a global downturn in the PC market, resulting in Mac marketshare growing from 5th to 4th globally for the year, putting them behind HP, Lenovo, and Dell. And for its part, iOS market share seems to have basically reached a point of equilibrium with Android, though it saw some unexpected growth in the US and most other marketsprior the launch of their latest phones (I wouldn't put much stock in blips like that, though it is somewhat interesting).
All of which is to say, Apple hasn't had a physical presence at CES for as long as I can remember, and while they enjoyed an outsized influence at it over the last decade or so due to a combination of factors (e.g. prior to Apple leaving it, MacWorld Expo's news sometimes overshadowed CES; the gold rush years of the App Store led to knock-on influence at CES; etc.), it's unsurprising that their influence would return to normal levels once those effects faded, now that these markets are mature. Of course, that may also point towards a future where Apple no longer commands the outsized profits and revenues that they command now, so your suggestions may very well prove true in the not-too-distant future.
Yeah, I priced out ordinary panels, and they easily pay for themselves after a couple of years here (Texas, USA) at this point. Convincing my wife and my neighborhood HOA to let me put them up, however, is the problem with those.
I have no problem with PV technology in general, just with the pricing for Tesla's implementation of them. I haven't found anyone yet who is estimated to come out ahead financially after the first 30 years with Tesla's roof and associated parts, let alone earlier than that. From what I can tell, you're basically paying for something that looks good, is structurally sound, has the Tesla brand name, and gives you the feel-goods for saving energy, even though it makes no financial sense at all. I wish it was more cost-effective, since I'd really love to use it, but it simply isn't in the cards for me.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of my UPS beeping at me as I enjoy my convenient, wired connection at a local wireless hotspot. Were you saying something that clearly missed the point of what I was saying? Because I think you were.
Except that you’re covering your whole roof in their tiles, regardless. Some will be solar, others will merely look the same from the street without having any power generating abilities, but either way, you’re eventually covering the whole roof with tiles that not only carry a price premium: they carry a HIGH premium. I knew that would be the case, but I didn’t expect that it wouldn’t be to the tune of $80,000. When I priced it out, it NEVER paid for itself, not even after 30 years (assuming we kept the house that long), and not even after subtracting the amount it would have cost us to replace the roof with conventional, high-end tiles (which don’t fit in around here anyway, since everyone here (aside from the multi-million dollar homes in the country club across the street) uses asphalt shingles).
And my energy consumption is already quite low for the region where I live (multi-paned windows with blinds and curtains that we keep closed when the sun is out, well insulated attic, an extremely wide range of acceptable temps on the thermostat, CFLs and LEDs throughout, natural gas for the house and all relevant appliances, no power-gulping electronics, no kids squandering power (yet), etc.), so our power consumption wasn’t the problem. I don’t recall the specifics, but I think your estimate for the amount we’d need wasn’t too far off, yet it was still going to cost us what I said. Perhaps our roof sloped in bad directions. Perhaps the tech is simply too new. But either way, with prices like that I’d only consider it in new construction, and even then I don’t see how it could ever make financial sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You’d expect that, yet they’re able to go to someone like your cell phone carrier and request historical data for your calls and locations without a warrant. The carrier may or may not give it without the warrant, but it can if it wants to.
Kudos to you, sir. I actually laughed out loud.
If someone steals your bag of bagels, how do you establish ownership?
If someone makes an analogy that in no way applies to the situation at hand, how do you respond?
Straight line acceleration is only a very small consideration for performance. Could a Tesla S beat a Ferrari around a track?
The fact that you're even having to pose the rhetorical question in the first place is a bit telling, don't you think? I mean, here we are, comparing a family sedan's performance to that of a supercar without a hint of irony or jest. By all rights, the performance of the two shouldn't even be considered in the same sentence and yet we're talking about how the two trade blows.
That alone should tell you how the world of cars has shifted.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once Tesla and Ferrari each make their first electric supercars. That's when the real fun starts.
To be fair, at least some people may have been confused by the similarly-named ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec), which does have "Apple" in the name.
But yeah, my first thought when hearing this was, "How is this any more "Apple's format" than HEVC or the other things put out by MPEG?"
While there's a lot more nuance to it, broadly speaking, copyrights protect expressions of things, rather than the things being expressed.
For instance, suppose you took a picture of your kids playing outside. Your picture is protected as an artistic expression by copyright. Whether it's on film, in RAW data on the camera, or in a JPEG you posted on your website, it's still your picture that's copyrighted to you. And while we can represent your picture as a number, that number isn't actually your picture. After all, the number can change if we convert it from RAW to JPEG or whatnot. Again, the picture is your expression, and that's what's protected by copyright, not any number that we may be able to use to represent it.
But if a painter takes the binary digits corresponding to the JPEG of your picture and expresses them in watercolor, it may ostensibly represent the same underlying number that was used for your picture, but the copyright would belong to that artist since the expression of that number is uniquely theirs. Likewise, if a musician expresses those same 0s and 1s as a sequence of beats, it may still ostensibly represent the same underlying number, but it'd be their copyright because the expression is uniquely theirs.
The key point here is that at no point does anyone actually have a copyright on that number. Each person has a copyright on their unique and different expression of that number. By that same reasoning, if we sit two reporters down to write articles about the exact same set of facts, they'll churn out two different articles. Same facts being reported, two different expressions of them, and two different copyrights, each to their respective author.
Likewise with programming. The way an algorithm works is factual, but its implementation is an expression of those facts. I used to tell my intro Computer Science students that in the same way they could tell the difference between two essays about the same topic, I could tell the difference between two programs that solve the same problem. Again, there's room for expression, and copyright protects those different and unique expressions. An implementation of an algorithm can be copyrighted, but the algorithm itself cannot be.
As for CSS and the like, the underlying facts can't be copyrighted because they aren't an artistic expression. They could get a copyright on the number laid out in a particular font with a particular kerning and line-spacing on a particularly-colored background, sure, but they can't get a copyright on the number itself.
All of which is to say, anyone can pass numbers around without fear of copyright infringement. Sadly, however, some people have managed to patent certain primes, but that's a separate topic.
That's hardly an Americanism. When was the last time you read a British article that unnecessarily referred to the location as "Cambridge, England" or referred to the university using its full and proper name, rather than informally referring to it as "Cambridge"?
There will always be ambiguities, if not with local city names, then with words that are defined differently elsewhere, idioms that aren't well understood outside a region, or references to local culture that will fly over the heads of outsiders. Thankfully, writers the world over provide context clues to allow their audiences to sort out ambiguities of those sorts. Broadly speaking, if I'm reading The Guardian or watching the BBC, I can safely assume that references to "Cambridge" are referring to the English university or the city where it resides unless I have reason to think otherwise. Likewise, if I'm reading an article about MIT or Harvard, I can safely assume we're talking about the city in Massachusetts unless I see information to the contrary.
Occasionally those assumptions break down and I discover that they're actually referring to one of the many other Cambridges throughout the world, but that's hardly the end of the world, since a quick Internet search can eliminate that minor confusion...assuming the information is even material to the story in the first place. Most of the time, I can pick up enough context clues from what else is being said to understand the salient points being made without ever resolving those ambiguities.
I'd hope that anyone here on Slashdot would be capable of doing the same.
I've never lived in or even visited the Bay Area, yet I've been aware of the Mission District for as long as I can recall, as well as some of what sets it apart within the city. It's a well-known neighborhood even outside of that local sphere...perhaps not as well-known as I had thought, given the confusion in the comments, but I had no problem reading the headline (despite mostly having lived in South Florida and Texas), and I wouldn't have expected most others to either.
The Mission is a district in San Francisco, somewhat akin to the way New York City is broken up into boroughs like the Bronxand Manhattan. From what I've gathered (having never visited the Bay Area), the Mission is well-known for its art scene, LGBTQ community, and food, though hopefully a local can chime in with better information.
And no, Google and Twitter don't allow use of a FIDO U2F key or a TOTP client without also having a mobile phone number set up.
You sure about that? I know that used to be the case, but I'm not sure that it still is. I don't have a phone number set up on my Google account, yet I'm using TOTP. I suppose it's possible that I deleted it from my profile after I set up 2FA, but I don't recall doing so.
I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers.
I was going to jokingly suggest, "Don't give them any ideas!", but then I realized that they're more or less already laying the groundwork for an intelligence network that would cover that "threat" as well. See: Amazon Echo; Google Home; indoor security cameras with "smart" functionality; etc..
The Messages app's default behavior has it load a preview of the linked-to content, hence why the linked-to content can—and in this case did—cause problems.
Anyway, previews can be toggled on or off in settings, it's possible to delete the offending messages via settings if Messages becomes inaccessible, and messages from unknown senders are by default shunted into a separate section in Messages from those sent by contacts, so the issue was always going to be minimal in scope and impact. Even so, it's nice to see that they were able to accomplish some initial mitigation prior to the full fix coming next week.
Not everyone wants to give Google more personal info -- working phone #, alternate email, etc and so forth.
I certainly understand (and share) this concern, but that's a problem with having a Google account at all, rather than a problem with enabling 2FA on an existing account, since they don't require any of those details when setting up 2FA. With my current Google account, I gave them the bare minimum during account creation. They don't have any of my phone numbers, they don't have my real name, and the only reason they have an alternate e-mail address for me is because I registered my account using that address so as to avoid tying my Google account to a Gmail address. And even that e-mail address is useless to them, since it was a one-off I set up in Fastmail that's unique to Google (e.g. google@spam.example.com).
In terms of setting up 2FA, I simply enabled it on my account, used my iPhone's camera to scan a QR code into my third-party password manager, and I was done. No need for divulging personal info. My password manager simply parsed the standards-based shared key from the QR code and is now able to generate and auto-fill the necessary OTPs on an as-needed basis whenever I'm logging in via the web on any of my devices.
Also, this doesn't work well with standards-compatible email clients like Thunderbird or K-9.
Yes, it does. For apps that support standards-compatible OTP entry, you'd simply enter the OTP when prompted, same as you would on the web or anywhere else that supports these standards. For apps that don't support these standards, you'd instead go to your Google settings and generate a unique, revokable "app password" for each app that you want to grant access, same as with every other decent 2FA solution I'm aware of.
Look, I like bashing Google as much as the next guy (check my extensive comment history if you don't believe me), but pretty much all of what you've said is baseless when it comes to Google's implementation of 2FA.
That an analogy breaks down when stretched in ways it was never intended to apply doesn't negate the fact that it still applies to your original line of logic. Nor does it negate the fact that it highlights the glaring flaws in your original logic.
As for your new line of reasoning, you seem to be suggesting that whether or not the cheating can be countered by your opponents has an impact on whether or not it was cheating in the first place. It doesn't. It's wholly irrelevant. That something is possible does not mean it is permissible. Sadly, that distinction seems to be flying right over your head, suggesting you're either trolling or that you somehow missed out on key childhood lessons.
Cut the unhelpful "slave labor" hyperbole. There is actual, real slave labor still going on today, but so far as we know Apple is not involved with it in any way.
While situations certainly aren't ideal in the countries where much of Apple's manufacturing takes place, those problems pre-date Apple's existence as a company and go far beyond Apple's influence in the global community, so you can't expect them or any other individual organization to fix the issues instantly. Apple, among many others, seems to have a self-interest in keeping their reputation as clean as possible, which is evidenced by the steady stream of reforms and improvements in the supply chain, both on the manufacturing and mining side of things. It's still not anywhere close to perfect, but it's far, far, far better than it was a decade or two ago, with changes occurring on a regular basis.
And cut the false moral dilemma. If Apple's tax avoidance is legal (which—based on your disregard for the question of legality*—you seem to have ceded for the sake of argument), then you're suggesting that they must over pay their taxes unnecessarily lest they cease being a "good company". That's bull. Choosing to pay only what is required is not evil.
The fact is, while Apple's accounting tools are far more sophisticated than ours and their motivations are almost certainly not altruistic, that money is (until the laws change) still theirs to keep, and they aren't any more "not good" for keeping it than you are "not good" for itemizing your deductions. Hell, we can even imagine scenarios where it'd be downright immoral for them to pay excess taxes, such as if they believed that the government would squander the funds or that they were more capable of using those funds to better society. On the flip side, many of us (myself included) will argue that Apple should be paying those taxes, but we'll also acknowledge that they are under no legal obligation to do so, so the proper way to fix that problem is through legislation, not a guilt-trip. So long as the legal avenue remains open, I don't fault Apple or any other company for taking advantage of it, any more than I would fault an individual for realizing capital losses to gain a tax advantage.
All of which is to say, if you want to suggest Apple isn't doing enough to fix the supply chain, fine. If you want to suggest that Apple should be paying more taxes, fine. Those are good discussions we should be having. But claiming "they are using slave labor" doesn't help the discussion at all, and your unhelpful attempt to paint the moral situation with a black-and-white brush disregards the numerous and complex moral considerations at play.
*I'm also setting aside the topic of legality, so my comments are strictly with regards to their use of legal tax avoidance practices, and not to any illegal tax evasion they may be engaging in, such as what may be the case with the illegal state aid they allegedly received from Ireland. I have no qualms in categorically condemning any illegal activities they may be engaging in.
I agree, but that’s irrelevant to the hypothetical situation I posed.
metric system is so much better than imperial system.
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, that’s irrelevant. I made a point of making my hypothetical system “as good as metric”. Both Metric and Imperial loyalists will claim that their system is better (side note: the US doesn’t actually use Imperial and hasn’t in over a century, if memory serves), so clearly I wasn’t talking about Imperial being the other system.
Ya know, it makes me wonder what an alternate world would look like where a system of measurements that was just as good as metric, but wasn't metric, was the dominant one for trade and commerce between nations. Would the French still be insisting on using metric, despite the rest of the world standardizing on the other system? With them being as proud of the French language as they are, I can't help but think that they would.
And that's your prerogative! Even though the evidence we have from recent history doesn't seem to bear out your opinion and your reason for holding that opinion bypasses any consideration of further evidence, it's still your opinion to hold.
As I said, however, there's quite a bit more to this story than the summary and headline suggest, much of which was addressed in the significantly less slanted article. It would've been nice if the summary had simply reflected the more neutral tone of the article, rather than carrying such a heavy slant, or if it had simply mentioned some of the other salient details so that people could come to an informed opinion of their own.
Are we asking Tim to kinda randomly send scouts to these factories?
Actually, Apple actually already does that. They did over 700 comprehensive site audits (i.e. random inspections, interviews, the whole shebang) of their suppliers last year alone, and if you read the article they apparently conducted 150 interviews with employees at this particular factory as soon as they got wind of the impending report. What the summary leaves out that the article mentions is that Apple already addressed these issues publicly by saying that they found no evidence that the site was failing to meet their standards.
So, either their standards are too low, they're lying, they couldn't uncover the issue, or the issue doesn't exist in the first place. Take your pick.
For my part, I've seen Apple cut ties with or otherwise call out suppliers who weren't meeting their standards, oftentimes before the violations were otherwise known to the public (e.g. last year when they announced out of the blue that their audits had uncovered a supplier who was forcing interns to work illegal overtime). As such, a coverup seems out of character for them. I seriously doubt that Apple would try to sweep something this minor under the rug if they thought it was an actual issue, given that it's a trivial issue to correct. So either they didn't find evidence of the issue or the issue never existed in the first place.
Almost all of what you've brought up is relevant to personal vehicles in general, rather than being specific to EVs. With the exception of the charging issue, the parking problems you described apply equally as well to ICE vehicles as EVs.
As for the charging, none of what you've said is a difficult problem to solve. Many urban areas are already requiring that apartments install chargers in a growing number of parking spots, and metering them individually is a simple matter, given that they're likely already doingso for everything else in the building. From there, it's just a matter of linking each instance of usage back to the correct tenant, which can be trivially accomplished in a variety of ways (e.g. RFID tags in parking stickers, use reserved spots, swipe a door badge/credit card/driver's license before the charger is usable, enter a PIN code, etc.).
You are right that many urbanites are trending away from car ownership and towards vehicles as a service, but again, that's true of all vehicles, not just EVs, so it seems a bit disingenuous to paint it as a problem specific to EVs. Uber and Lyft are eating into all car sales, not just EV sales.
Exactly. A lack of products to sell and make a profit means a diminishing market share.
Not only did you misunderstand the OP's comment (he was saying that a lack of CES presence doesn't necessarily correlate to how well a company fares in the market, which is true for a number of companies, not just Apple), but the reasons you chose to bash Apple with aren't even factual. There are plenty of perfectly valid and legitimate complaints to levy at Apple (e.g. lack of upgradeability, lack of repairability, costs outweigh benefits for many users, etc.), but you managed to pick ones that aren't even true.
For instance, contrary to your suggestion that they have a lack of products to sell (which seems to be a prevailing sentiment in the nerd crowd since some of their recent updates were underwhelming to us), the fact is that all of their major products save one (the Mac mini) received an update/refresh or price cut within the last year and the iPhone line received its biggest update since its launch a decade ago. While many of those changes don't appeal to us, they do appeal to everyday consumers (i.e. their target audience).
And contrary to your inference that this has led to a lack of profits, their profits appear likely to have been higher in 2017 than in any previous year in their history as a company. Likewise with their revenue.
And contrary to your suggestion that this has resulted in diminishing market share, Mac unit sales grew during a global downturn in the PC market, resulting in Mac marketshare growing from 5th to 4th globally for the year, putting them behind HP, Lenovo, and Dell. And for its part, iOS market share seems to have basically reached a point of equilibrium with Android, though it saw some unexpected growth in the US and most other markets prior the launch of their latest phones (I wouldn't put much stock in blips like that, though it is somewhat interesting).
All of which is to say, Apple hasn't had a physical presence at CES for as long as I can remember, and while they enjoyed an outsized influence at it over the last decade or so due to a combination of factors (e.g. prior to Apple leaving it, MacWorld Expo's news sometimes overshadowed CES; the gold rush years of the App Store led to knock-on influence at CES; etc.), it's unsurprising that their influence would return to normal levels once those effects faded, now that these markets are mature. Of course, that may also point towards a future where Apple no longer commands the outsized profits and revenues that they command now, so your suggestions may very well prove true in the not-too-distant future.
Yeah, I priced out ordinary panels, and they easily pay for themselves after a couple of years here (Texas, USA) at this point. Convincing my wife and my neighborhood HOA to let me put them up, however, is the problem with those.
I have no problem with PV technology in general, just with the pricing for Tesla's implementation of them. I haven't found anyone yet who is estimated to come out ahead financially after the first 30 years with Tesla's roof and associated parts, let alone earlier than that. From what I can tell, you're basically paying for something that looks good, is structurally sound, has the Tesla brand name, and gives you the feel-goods for saving energy, even though it makes no financial sense at all. I wish it was more cost-effective, since I'd really love to use it, but it simply isn't in the cards for me.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of my UPS beeping at me as I enjoy my convenient, wired connection at a local wireless hotspot. Were you saying something that clearly missed the point of what I was saying? Because I think you were.
Except that you’re covering your whole roof in their tiles, regardless. Some will be solar, others will merely look the same from the street without having any power generating abilities, but either way, you’re eventually covering the whole roof with tiles that not only carry a price premium: they carry a HIGH premium. I knew that would be the case, but I didn’t expect that it wouldn’t be to the tune of $80,000. When I priced it out, it NEVER paid for itself, not even after 30 years (assuming we kept the house that long), and not even after subtracting the amount it would have cost us to replace the roof with conventional, high-end tiles (which don’t fit in around here anyway, since everyone here (aside from the multi-million dollar homes in the country club across the street) uses asphalt shingles).
And my energy consumption is already quite low for the region where I live (multi-paned windows with blinds and curtains that we keep closed when the sun is out, well insulated attic, an extremely wide range of acceptable temps on the thermostat, CFLs and LEDs throughout, natural gas for the house and all relevant appliances, no power-gulping electronics, no kids squandering power (yet), etc.), so our power consumption wasn’t the problem. I don’t recall the specifics, but I think your estimate for the amount we’d need wasn’t too far off, yet it was still going to cost us what I said. Perhaps our roof sloped in bad directions. Perhaps the tech is simply too new. But either way, with prices like that I’d only consider it in new construction, and even then I don’t see how it could ever make financial sense.