I don't believe Google actually has to release the Honeycomb source right away if it doesn't want to, since it owns the whole project? Some nuance to the copyright attribution on the code. I'm not sure exactly.
Either way, changes to contributed code from other people absolutely must be released, or what's the point of the licence?
Google wouldn't be taking the stance it has done so on such a hot button issue unless it was pretty sure about the legal implications and without a plan for what it was going to do.
I am sure Google has its ducks in a row on that one and that it will release the source when it is ready to (or if someone can legally force them to if they're in the wrong and refuse to comply).
That's one way of spinning it, I guess, if you're looking for the maximum possible negative view of Apple's actions.
You can't simply put it all down to "interoperability is necessary" and all the released code down to "minimal possible contribution".
This is what probably frustrates Apple no end - the OSS community benefits enormously from large commercial support, in just the same way that large commercial entities benefit from OSS - they just bring different benefits to the table that they can both share, yet Apple is *constantly* maligned for their interactions in the OSS space - from being accused of simply "ripping off" KHTML and "profiting from OSS work without giving anything back" to the same sorts of criticism levelled at "standing on the backs of BSD developers to sell a closed OS" (wait, isn't that the point of the BSD licence - the code is out there for people to *use*).
They give back an enormous amount because they know it benefits them to go that route - staying with LLVM, that was an enormous part of the improvements to OS X (and still is). They could have done it all in house, but they identified a project that worked for them and in the process created benefits for anyone who wants to use LLVM (and they're still ongoing).
Same with KHTML - they knew they badly needed a browser of their own, since Mozilla alone wasn't going to cut it (good to have on the platform, but they needed something to ship by default that they had control over development cycles) so they chose KHTML for very specific reasons - the speed and the elegance of the codebase compared to Gecko. They could have gone in house, but why replicate all the effort when there's an open project right there that they can work on that will also benefit hugely from the time and effort Apple would put in - the proof is in the pudding, since Webkit has been a raging success story and anyone can use it.
People love to point out that Apple is "forced" to release changes to Webkit because of the GPL and that it only grudgingly helps the OSS community because it is legally required to, but that ignores the fact that they *chose* to use KHTML as the core of their new browser, knowing full well what that would mean down the line. If they were so anti-non-apple-developer then they'd have simply gone elsewhere for their engine.
They're certainly not perfect, and they're obviously not as open-focused as someone like Canonical or Red Hat but they *do* put a lot into the OSS community, despite all the shouting down then get from the cheap seats because they understand what a powerful resource it is, and that by putting their own weight behind it, it can only become ever more powerful.
It wasn't just a few more laps though - it had 50 miles worth of charge left in it (albeit not at track speeds). They could have made the point without resorting to outright deception at the end of what I also believe was a pretty positive review up to that point. They just wanted to set the record straight, and instead the production team called Tesla's trustworthiness into question in the wake of the lawsuit, which is sort of like Justin Bieber telling you that you make crappy overly-commercial music given they way they set out to shoot that video.
I'm almost done. Seemed like a handy thing to do to pass the time, I mean the level of debate is hardly mentally taxing with that level of maturity. Have to level the playing field somehow.
I believe that's the blurb from the Apple open source licence, not the LGPL one on the bulk of Webkit.
Either way, Apple will release the source - they simply have to, and they are well aware of it. They've always done so in the past and there's no reason not to now, so I am sure this is just a storm in a teacup.
There are ways to report things that add certain implications that aren't necessarily there in the source - ie, spin. The page says "coming soon" which by definition does mean that it has not been released, but the summary does not say that Apple have said it is coming soon (ie, implying that they are working on it and that they are behind for whatever reason), just that "there have been no updates since March" since the updates "suddenly stopped". The implication is that Apple has decided not to release any more updates, which is just baseless speculation and FUD, given that they have actually said "coming soon".
Now, if it says coming soon in another month then there is something going on, but this is just a non-story looking for some sensationalism.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
If you remember the first release of their changes way back in the early days of Webkit was received very poorly because it was not well documented and didn't mesh well with the existing project (something they have since changed, and now things are smoother).
Who knows why there's a delay here?
In terms of "releasing only what they have to", I'm not sure I fully buy that - Apple is a pretty good open source citizen in terms of project contributions and has even opened up some of its own projects and put them out there when they really had no need. Their work on things like LLVM while clearly very important for their own success, is benefiting the community at large. Projects like the quicktime streaming server, address and calendar servers, Webkit and Nitro, just to name a few.
I don't buy that they're suddenly turning turtle, especially on something as powerful for them as Webkit. Sure they're not the "do no wrong" golden child and they do plenty that is questionable, but I don't thin they're going to shoot the goose that lays their platinum encrusted eggs - they have been *extremely* successful with a combination of open and closed software with OS X (and by extension, iOS). They have carved out a little niche between the two opposing models (Windows on one side, Linux/BSD on the other) that mixes the benefits of both approaches. I see no reason they'd risk that.
No one has actually got any confirmed information that they are *not* releasing anything, and given the track record with Webkit to date (excellent with a bumpy start) they're not just going to ignore something as obvious as the LGPL code restrictions - they'll definitely release those code changes, since they are legally required to do so.
Yes, and the point was to demonstrate what the car was like and the film very strongly implied that the car's batteries went flat after just a short time out on the track and that it needed to be pushed back into the garage when in fact it had plenty of juice left in it.
Now, Top Gear is famed for its acerbic presenters and humourous takes on things (I am a fan of the show), but the treatment of the Tesla was not handled in the same way as the jokey downsides to owning a fuel guzzler (like Clarkson's GT40 on one of the challenges), or the SLR. They set out to deceive the viewer over exactly what happened, and while they have argued that it was just a more visual demonstration of "electric cars have a charging problem", the fact remains that after a video shoot out on the track they *didn't* fully discharge it - maybe they should have stayed out there longer until it really did run out of juice, but I'm sure the film crew had places to go, like home, because it was the end of the day.
I am not downplaying the issues with electric vehicles right now, one of which is that it takes longer to recharge one than it does to refuel a petrol or diesel car, just that the Top Gear team went beyond the usual light hearted stuff and stuck a big old dishonest fork into the Tesla.
That is, Clarkson could have driven the car 50 miles in any direction from the track on the charge it had left when they pushed it back into the garage because it "had run out". To this day, the Top Gear producers are questioning Tesla's accounts of the truth in the lawsuits they launched, which I find amusing for a crew that were caught red handed faking the car's total loss of battery charge because they got to the end of the day's filming and it hadn't run out, yet still had that part of the script to film.
I at a university working alongside people who work in this field all the time - batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen storage techniques, improved motor efficiency, increased energy densities etc.
I guess I could just be totally guessing in the dark though. In fact, I'll bet you're right!
I also follow several chemistry journals, although my interest area is transition metals rather than the sort of physical chem going on with batteries and so on, but it is amusing that your only course for "refuting" my argument is to allude to me being a small child, and not even from the pseudo-anonymous position of someone with a user account.
Anonymous Coward: the refuge of those who don't have a strong enough argument to actually put any weight behind it. It could also be that you're too scared to actually appear stupid on your user account. Shame, we'll never know eh?
Just like you can roll out an extension cable if you're in a track setup and have the pit/workshop buildings nearby, or bring out a high-capacity charge unit - essentially a big battery on wheels with an inverter on it to juice the car enough to be able to drive it to a filling station.
Oh I don't know, but it's hardly a negative - how many laps can a petrol engined vehicle that does 10 mpg before you have to refill it?
At full tilt, a Merc SLR can drain its tank in about 20 minutes, as shown by Top Gear during one of their challenges, and funnily enough they then *didn't* show the production team pushing it towards a garage by hand with a "oh dear, just look what happened" voice over, unlike their "unbiased" footage of them pushing the Tesla Roadster back into the garage by hand after testing it on the track, even though the computer logs in the car showed that it never went below 10-15% charge and would have been able to easily drive under its own power back to a charge point.
Sure, it will still take longer to recharge an electric vehicle right now compared to refilling a tank of combustible hydrocarbons, but a high-capacity power feed and improving charge systems will narrow that down all the time.
It sounds like a trojan of some kind. By default (and Safari had the default options changed a few versions back - I can't remember if it was to be off by default or by on, mine is set to "off"), and while it will treat a zip file as ok to decompress and a disk image similarly (it will mount them with that checkbox on), the.mpkg is an installer package, rather than the trojan itself and as you saw you need to step through it manually (and provide admin password if it goes outside home) to get it to install - a social engineering problem.
Now, I definitely think it is a bad idea for Safari to decompress zip archives and mount disc images by default - with the setting for "safe" files off, while it might download it would not go beyond that.
I do not agree with Apple that.zip should be considered a "safe" file.
No, Safari won't execute a an.mpkg as standard - that's an installer file and would require other user interaction (clicking next etc) to step through, and your admin password if it was going to go outside your home folder at all. So if you don't fall for the social engineering you can stop it at that point.
It looks like it must be a trojan of some kind, but no different to any standard trojan: you have to have the user install it.
What happened? I am assuming it downloaded an actual executable Mac application - by default Safari *will not* open these without your express permission, and then the system will also ask you for certain filetypes downloaded from the internet whether you really want to run them - the metadata logs the originating site.
What *exactly* executed, and what was the result?
I would be interested to know what malware got past, and what her settings in Safari were.
Oh wait, all those things are applicable to OS X too!
Also, several of them are answered by using the retail disc version which is not going away. The App Store version is just an additional method of distribution.
If it had 3 logic boards it should have been swapped for a new machine.
I know Apple aren't going to universally have good service, or that all the individual stores will be the same etc, but they generally score extremely highly in customer satisfaction surveys, so they do try.
We had a logic board issue with one of the early Powermac G5's (issues with the ethernet port dropping to 100 speed on our gig switch, but working fine in direct connection to another PM G5 (which worked just fine on that switch). Rather than have take it in for a logic board swap, since it was one of our edit machines then sent out a PCI gigE ethernet card at no expense for us to install so we could make do until it was convenient to have the machine taken in for a logic board replacement.
Speaking out of interest, what computer manufacturer offers a direct swap out on the standard warranty on the first fault? From my experience Apple Care (the default 1 year unextended one) is pretty good in comparison to other places - it's at least as good as other manufacturers. Of course it's not going to be awesome every time, and you're going to have occasional lemons (a logic board swap usually cures the issue right away, or a bad stick of ram being replaced, or a hard drive etc), so it's not cost effective to just swap out whole machines - it will just drive the prices up - when simple repairs will cure the majority of issues. It is unfortunate you had a system with an ongoing fault, but it is not the norm.
I'm not trying to "give them a pass" or anything - if you are treated badly you should let them know so they can address it, or look for options if you are feeling your "time is being trivially abused" - sort of like our repair situation. I mentioned the issues with losing a production machine at a heavy time and they came up with a solution that kept us happy, and then they fixed the machine. It cost them whatever a GigE card cost at that time, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to customer satisfaction.
If you had a bad experience, you should tell them about it. It's the only way to address shortcomings (short of random monitoring etc). Nothing like bringing it to their attention.
If it fails again it will be a replacement, per Applecare - they'll just swap you out for a new machine. A certain number of identical part replacements simply activates the "lemon" button and the whole machine is marked "suspect". You 'suspect' it was just to get you out of the store so you'd buy a new computer, I 'suspect' it was a tech support person just trying to do their job by fixing your computer. I guess it depends how cynical you are.
That's the trolling equivalent of repeating everything a bully is saying for emphasis while standing behind him and wearing a balaclava with a voice disguiser.
You claim he's a loudmouth in the chorus, I'd say it was more like centre stage compared to your truly anonymous shouting from the cheap seats.
From your posts in this thread, your clear grinding axe and your belligerent "Apple can do no right" dogma, I suspect that the reason "every Apple product" gives you trouble is down to the common factor in all of those interactions: you.
Given today's flurry of posts in this thread your neckbeard must be seriously chafed.
No, the point of the article is lost somewhere in the true reason for this "policy". Despite having a lower suicide rate than the national average, it seems that killing yourself is financially rewarding for the family, and taken by some as a drastic step.
By omitting key details like that, and that it's not "Apple's" factory, and that Apple themselves instruct that the workers there making Apple stuff get higher wages and better hours than workers making other products is just shoddy, sensationalist journalism - ie, exactly what you expect from the Daily Mail, the UK's most insidious and venomous newspaper.
If I were to run a story talking about how GeoHot cracked the PS3 Master Key because it was an awesome way to play pirated games and that's the main reason Sony removed Linux ability, because clearly what else is it good for? I am sure someone would correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, I can just see someone at Best Buy in a few years:
"Yes, I'l like to buy a hard drive please, 0.2 mol dm^3 or more...
There's a movement to do just that:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Official-Petition-to-Establish-Hella-as-the-SI-Prefix-for-1027/277479937276
heh.
Personally I'd have gone for "gigantor-"
I don't believe Google actually has to release the Honeycomb source right away if it doesn't want to, since it owns the whole project? Some nuance to the copyright attribution on the code. I'm not sure exactly.
Either way, changes to contributed code from other people absolutely must be released, or what's the point of the licence?
Google wouldn't be taking the stance it has done so on such a hot button issue unless it was pretty sure about the legal implications and without a plan for what it was going to do.
I am sure Google has its ducks in a row on that one and that it will release the source when it is ready to (or if someone can legally force them to if they're in the wrong and refuse to comply).
That's one way of spinning it, I guess, if you're looking for the maximum possible negative view of Apple's actions.
You can't simply put it all down to "interoperability is necessary" and all the released code down to "minimal possible contribution".
This is what probably frustrates Apple no end - the OSS community benefits enormously from large commercial support, in just the same way that large commercial entities benefit from OSS - they just bring different benefits to the table that they can both share, yet Apple is *constantly* maligned for their interactions in the OSS space - from being accused of simply "ripping off" KHTML and "profiting from OSS work without giving anything back" to the same sorts of criticism levelled at "standing on the backs of BSD developers to sell a closed OS" (wait, isn't that the point of the BSD licence - the code is out there for people to *use*).
They give back an enormous amount because they know it benefits them to go that route - staying with LLVM, that was an enormous part of the improvements to OS X (and still is). They could have done it all in house, but they identified a project that worked for them and in the process created benefits for anyone who wants to use LLVM (and they're still ongoing).
Same with KHTML - they knew they badly needed a browser of their own, since Mozilla alone wasn't going to cut it (good to have on the platform, but they needed something to ship by default that they had control over development cycles) so they chose KHTML for very specific reasons - the speed and the elegance of the codebase compared to Gecko. They could have gone in house, but why replicate all the effort when there's an open project right there that they can work on that will also benefit hugely from the time and effort Apple would put in - the proof is in the pudding, since Webkit has been a raging success story and anyone can use it.
People love to point out that Apple is "forced" to release changes to Webkit because of the GPL and that it only grudgingly helps the OSS community because it is legally required to, but that ignores the fact that they *chose* to use KHTML as the core of their new browser, knowing full well what that would mean down the line. If they were so anti-non-apple-developer then they'd have simply gone elsewhere for their engine.
They're certainly not perfect, and they're obviously not as open-focused as someone like Canonical or Red Hat but they *do* put a lot into the OSS community, despite all the shouting down then get from the cheap seats because they understand what a powerful resource it is, and that by putting their own weight behind it, it can only become ever more powerful.
It wasn't just a few more laps though - it had 50 miles worth of charge left in it (albeit not at track speeds). They could have made the point without resorting to outright deception at the end of what I also believe was a pretty positive review up to that point. They just wanted to set the record straight, and instead the production team called Tesla's trustworthiness into question in the wake of the lawsuit, which is sort of like Justin Bieber telling you that you make crappy overly-commercial music given they way they set out to shoot that video.
I'm almost done. Seemed like a handy thing to do to pass the time, I mean the level of debate is hardly mentally taxing with that level of maturity. Have to level the playing field somehow.
Stay classy, kid.
I believe that's the blurb from the Apple open source licence, not the LGPL one on the bulk of Webkit.
Either way, Apple will release the source - they simply have to, and they are well aware of it. They've always done so in the past and there's no reason not to now, so I am sure this is just a storm in a teacup.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
There are ways to report things that add certain implications that aren't necessarily there in the source - ie, spin. The page says "coming soon" which by definition does mean that it has not been released, but the summary does not say that Apple have said it is coming soon (ie, implying that they are working on it and that they are behind for whatever reason), just that "there have been no updates since March" since the updates "suddenly stopped". The implication is that Apple has decided not to release any more updates, which is just baseless speculation and FUD, given that they have actually said "coming soon".
Now, if it says coming soon in another month then there is something going on, but this is just a non-story looking for some sensationalism.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
If you remember the first release of their changes way back in the early days of Webkit was received very poorly because it was not well documented and didn't mesh well with the existing project (something they have since changed, and now things are smoother).
Who knows why there's a delay here?
In terms of "releasing only what they have to", I'm not sure I fully buy that - Apple is a pretty good open source citizen in terms of project contributions and has even opened up some of its own projects and put them out there when they really had no need. Their work on things like LLVM while clearly very important for their own success, is benefiting the community at large. Projects like the quicktime streaming server, address and calendar servers, Webkit and Nitro, just to name a few.
I don't buy that they're suddenly turning turtle, especially on something as powerful for them as Webkit. Sure they're not the "do no wrong" golden child and they do plenty that is questionable, but I don't thin they're going to shoot the goose that lays their platinum encrusted eggs - they have been *extremely* successful with a combination of open and closed software with OS X (and by extension, iOS). They have carved out a little niche between the two opposing models (Windows on one side, Linux/BSD on the other) that mixes the benefits of both approaches. I see no reason they'd risk that.
No one has actually got any confirmed information that they are *not* releasing anything, and given the track record with Webkit to date (excellent with a bumpy start) they're not just going to ignore something as obvious as the LGPL code restrictions - they'll definitely release those code changes, since they are legally required to do so.
Yes, and the point was to demonstrate what the car was like and the film very strongly implied that the car's batteries went flat after just a short time out on the track and that it needed to be pushed back into the garage when in fact it had plenty of juice left in it.
Now, Top Gear is famed for its acerbic presenters and humourous takes on things (I am a fan of the show), but the treatment of the Tesla was not handled in the same way as the jokey downsides to owning a fuel guzzler (like Clarkson's GT40 on one of the challenges), or the SLR. They set out to deceive the viewer over exactly what happened, and while they have argued that it was just a more visual demonstration of "electric cars have a charging problem", the fact remains that after a video shoot out on the track they *didn't* fully discharge it - maybe they should have stayed out there longer until it really did run out of juice, but I'm sure the film crew had places to go, like home, because it was the end of the day.
I am not downplaying the issues with electric vehicles right now, one of which is that it takes longer to recharge one than it does to refuel a petrol or diesel car, just that the Top Gear team went beyond the usual light hearted stuff and stuck a big old dishonest fork into the Tesla.
That is, Clarkson could have driven the car 50 miles in any direction from the track on the charge it had left when they pushed it back into the garage because it "had run out". To this day, the Top Gear producers are questioning Tesla's accounts of the truth in the lawsuits they launched, which I find amusing for a crew that were caught red handed faking the car's total loss of battery charge because they got to the end of the day's filming and it hadn't run out, yet still had that part of the script to film.
I at a university working alongside people who work in this field all the time - batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen storage techniques, improved motor efficiency, increased energy densities etc.
I guess I could just be totally guessing in the dark though. In fact, I'll bet you're right!
I also follow several chemistry journals, although my interest area is transition metals rather than the sort of physical chem going on with batteries and so on, but it is amusing that your only course for "refuting" my argument is to allude to me being a small child, and not even from the pseudo-anonymous position of someone with a user account.
Anonymous Coward: the refuge of those who don't have a strong enough argument to actually put any weight behind it. It could also be that you're too scared to actually appear stupid on your user account. Shame, we'll never know eh?
They have a right to drive traffic to their site for ad hits too, err, I mean to do whatever it is they were doing.
Just like you can roll out an extension cable if you're in a track setup and have the pit/workshop buildings nearby, or bring out a high-capacity charge unit - essentially a big battery on wheels with an inverter on it to juice the car enough to be able to drive it to a filling station.
Oh I don't know, but it's hardly a negative - how many laps can a petrol engined vehicle that does 10 mpg before you have to refill it?
At full tilt, a Merc SLR can drain its tank in about 20 minutes, as shown by Top Gear during one of their challenges, and funnily enough they then *didn't* show the production team pushing it towards a garage by hand with a "oh dear, just look what happened" voice over, unlike their "unbiased" footage of them pushing the Tesla Roadster back into the garage by hand after testing it on the track, even though the computer logs in the car showed that it never went below 10-15% charge and would have been able to easily drive under its own power back to a charge point.
Sure, it will still take longer to recharge an electric vehicle right now compared to refilling a tank of combustible hydrocarbons, but a high-capacity power feed and improving charge systems will narrow that down all the time.
Or, in Thomas Edison's case, a lot of people to copy from and then claim it was your own idea.
It sounds like a trojan of some kind. By default (and Safari had the default options changed a few versions back - I can't remember if it was to be off by default or by on, mine is set to "off"), and while it will treat a zip file as ok to decompress and a disk image similarly (it will mount them with that checkbox on), the .mpkg is an installer package, rather than the trojan itself and as you saw you need to step through it manually (and provide admin password if it goes outside home) to get it to install - a social engineering problem.
Now, I definitely think it is a bad idea for Safari to decompress zip archives and mount disc images by default - with the setting for "safe" files off, while it might download it would not go beyond that.
I do not agree with Apple that .zip should be considered a "safe" file.
No, Safari won't execute a an .mpkg as standard - that's an installer file and would require other user interaction (clicking next etc) to step through, and your admin password if it was going to go outside your home folder at all. So if you don't fall for the social engineering you can stop it at that point.
It looks like it must be a trojan of some kind, but no different to any standard trojan: you have to have the user install it.
What was the link? What was the malware?
I want to test this.
What happened? I am assuming it downloaded an actual executable Mac application - by default Safari *will not* open these without your express permission, and then the system will also ask you for certain filetypes downloaded from the internet whether you really want to run them - the metadata logs the originating site.
What *exactly* executed, and what was the result?
I would be interested to know what malware got past, and what her settings in Safari were.
We're talking about OS X here, not Linux.
Oh wait, all those things are applicable to OS X too!
Also, several of them are answered by using the retail disc version which is not going away. The App Store version is just an additional method of distribution.
If it had 3 logic boards it should have been swapped for a new machine.
I know Apple aren't going to universally have good service, or that all the individual stores will be the same etc, but they generally score extremely highly in customer satisfaction surveys, so they do try.
We had a logic board issue with one of the early Powermac G5's (issues with the ethernet port dropping to 100 speed on our gig switch, but working fine in direct connection to another PM G5 (which worked just fine on that switch). Rather than have take it in for a logic board swap, since it was one of our edit machines then sent out a PCI gigE ethernet card at no expense for us to install so we could make do until it was convenient to have the machine taken in for a logic board replacement.
Speaking out of interest, what computer manufacturer offers a direct swap out on the standard warranty on the first fault? From my experience Apple Care (the default 1 year unextended one) is pretty good in comparison to other places - it's at least as good as other manufacturers. Of course it's not going to be awesome every time, and you're going to have occasional lemons (a logic board swap usually cures the issue right away, or a bad stick of ram being replaced, or a hard drive etc), so it's not cost effective to just swap out whole machines - it will just drive the prices up - when simple repairs will cure the majority of issues. It is unfortunate you had a system with an ongoing fault, but it is not the norm.
I'm not trying to "give them a pass" or anything - if you are treated badly you should let them know so they can address it, or look for options if you are feeling your "time is being trivially abused" - sort of like our repair situation. I mentioned the issues with losing a production machine at a heavy time and they came up with a solution that kept us happy, and then they fixed the machine. It cost them whatever a GigE card cost at that time, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to customer satisfaction.
If you had a bad experience, you should tell them about it. It's the only way to address shortcomings (short of random monitoring etc). Nothing like bringing it to their attention.
If it fails again it will be a replacement, per Applecare - they'll just swap you out for a new machine. A certain number of identical part replacements simply activates the "lemon" button and the whole machine is marked "suspect". You 'suspect' it was just to get you out of the store so you'd buy a new computer, I 'suspect' it was a tech support person just trying to do their job by fixing your computer. I guess it depends how cynical you are.
How can he talk to you in person, you're an AC.
That's the trolling equivalent of repeating everything a bully is saying for emphasis while standing behind him and wearing a balaclava with a voice disguiser.
You claim he's a loudmouth in the chorus, I'd say it was more like centre stage compared to your truly anonymous shouting from the cheap seats.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
From your posts in this thread, your clear grinding axe and your belligerent "Apple can do no right" dogma, I suspect that the reason "every Apple product" gives you trouble is down to the common factor in all of those interactions: you.
Given today's flurry of posts in this thread your neckbeard must be seriously chafed.
No, the point of the article is lost somewhere in the true reason for this "policy". Despite having a lower suicide rate than the national average, it seems that killing yourself is financially rewarding for the family, and taken by some as a drastic step.
By omitting key details like that, and that it's not "Apple's" factory, and that Apple themselves instruct that the workers there making Apple stuff get higher wages and better hours than workers making other products is just shoddy, sensationalist journalism - ie, exactly what you expect from the Daily Mail, the UK's most insidious and venomous newspaper.
If I were to run a story talking about how GeoHot cracked the PS3 Master Key because it was an awesome way to play pirated games and that's the main reason Sony removed Linux ability, because clearly what else is it good for? I am sure someone would correct me.
Ok, I'll from here on out refer to Linux as "that OS that's used to enable you to play copied PS3 games"
Oh, wait...