4 ms·

This is why I reward, and will keep rewarding Apple with my money. In a capitalistic system, voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots

by spac 8y ago

This is why I reward, and will keep rewarding Apple with my money. In a capitalistic system, voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not.

klez 8y ago
Honest question: how do people with less money vote, then?
- omnimus 8y ago
  They don't.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- spac 8y ago
  To be clear I was not endorsing the current system, as much as observing that monetary incentives are powerful motivators for companies to change their behavior. Also, not all currencies require income: when using DuckDuckGo instead of Gooogle, one is redirecting ad money from one company to the other; or think of Keybase teams vs Slack, Gitlab vs. GitHub, etc. Every choice we make can affect whether money is sent the way of companies that share our principles or not.
- hydrox24 8y ago
  > voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not This does not mean 'real' change is only created by consumption. I think spac means that consumption may well affect what political institutions do not. So people with less money can still use their political votes to change many things. I would contest the idea that they do not vote (significantly) as consumers though. People with less money still have some money, and rich people don't buy ten iPhones, while many poorer people do still buy one as the richest people do too, so any kind of consumption with a very steep decline in marginal benefit probably hands out power to individuals in the market more equitably than you would otherwise expect.
- izacus 8y ago
  Apple is very clear that only wealthy people can have privacy. If you don't give them money for iPhones and Macs, no iMessage for you. Remember how they publicly made fun of "green bubbles", painting talking to non Apple users as something bad?
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    1. You can buy a used iPhone -2 generations for under $200, and it will run the latest iOS with all security updates, which is more than you can say for a used Android phone. 2. Apple is not the one violating privacy at the lower price points. If you’re going to blame a company for making privacy “only for the rich,” blame the company that invades your privacy on the cheap devices, not the one protecting it on the more expensive devices.
- balls187 8y ago
  WRT to consumerism in the US, money has never been a barrier to prevent people from purchasing products. Yes, Apple carries a premium price, but it's not so high that it prices itself away from all but the absolute dirt poor.
blackbear_ 8y ago
> voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not aka bribery
zerostar07 8y ago
You 're presenting a false dilemma. Apple is not competing with google on hardware (srsly, google's business is search advertising). Are you saying you'll start using apple.com for search or for social networking?

by spac 8y ago

This is why I reward, and will keep rewarding Apple with my money. In a capitalistic system, voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not.

klez 8y ago

Honest question: how do people with less money vote, then?

omnimus 8y ago
They don't.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
spac 8y ago
To be clear I was not endorsing the current system, as much as observing that monetary incentives are powerful motivators for companies to change their behavior. Also, not all currencies require income: when using DuckDuckGo instead of Gooogle, one is redirecting ad money from one company to the other; or think of Keybase teams vs Slack, Gitlab vs. GitHub, etc. Every choice we make can affect whether money is sent the way of companies that share our principles or not.
hydrox24 8y ago
> voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not This does not mean 'real' change is only created by consumption. I think spac means that consumption may well affect what political institutions do not. So people with less money can still use their political votes to change many things. I would contest the idea that they do not vote (significantly) as consumers though. People with less money still have some money, and rich people don't buy ten iPhones, while many poorer people do still buy one as the richest people do too, so any kind of consumption with a very steep decline in marginal benefit probably hands out power to individuals in the market more equitably than you would otherwise expect.
izacus 8y ago
Apple is very clear that only wealthy people can have privacy. If you don't give them money for iPhones and Macs, no iMessage for you. Remember how they publicly made fun of "green bubbles", painting talking to non Apple users as something bad?
- chatmasta 8y ago
  1. You can buy a used iPhone -2 generations for under $200, and it will run the latest iOS with all security updates, which is more than you can say for a used Android phone. 2. Apple is not the one violating privacy at the lower price points. If you’re going to blame a company for making privacy “only for the rich,” blame the company that invades your privacy on the cheap devices, not the one protecting it on the more expensive devices.
balls187 8y ago
WRT to consumerism in the US, money has never been a barrier to prevent people from purchasing products. Yes, Apple carries a premium price, but it's not so high that it prices itself away from all but the absolute dirt poor.

blackbear_ 8y ago

> voting with dollars may effect the change that voting with ballots may not aka bribery

zerostar07 8y ago

You 're presenting a false dilemma. Apple is not competing with google on hardware (srsly, google's business is search advertising). Are you saying you'll start using apple.com for search or for social networking?