4 ms·

> deep a history of twisting facts to make Apple look bad. Can you provide examples?

oflannabhra 7y ago
1. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple was filing suit against him, and was seeking to shut down his YouTube channel. In actuality, one of his videos had shown a schematic, that Rossman illegally obtained, and Apple requested that the schematic be removed from the video. [0] 2. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple had a 4 Gigabyte memory chip buffer on their webcams. He speculates that this is due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part. In actuality, it is a 4 Gigabit (512 MB) chip that acts as a buffer. [1] 3. In 2018, Rossman claimed that Apple had contacted Customs and Border Protection to have his import shipment of Apple batteries seized. He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries, maybe scavenged from old devices. [2] In actuality, the devices really were counterfeit. Rossman had contracted an OEM manufacturer to build batteries to Apple's original spec, which bore Apple's logo, most likely without Apple's knowledge. [3] [0] - https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/12677-free-speech-under-attack-youtuber-repair-specialist-louis-rossmann-alludes-to-apple-lawsuit https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/12677-free-speech-un... [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3-j_RaX74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3-j_RaX74 [2] - https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw [3] - https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossmann_admits_to_using_parts_from_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...
- Someone1234 7y ago
  No.1 you essentially admit, and cite, that what he claimed was accurate (that Apple threatened to sue/get his channel shut down) but you feel it was his fault. No.2 dude messed up. No disagreement there. But you are spinning his confusion into: "due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part." That wasn't the tone of the video at all. No.3 you say, and cite, that what he claimed was true (that a shipment of Apple compatible batteries he had imported was seized). In the original video he said quite clearly they weren't OEM because Apple no longer supplies these "vintage" batteries to even authorized repair centers. Here's the YT transcript (as is): > the Apple store and I say I would like to buy this battery can i buy this battery please they say no if I become an Apple authorized service provider and I wish to obtain parts to a machine that has been considered vintage Apple will say no if I talk to somebody in China who says hey these are not those knockoff batteries where we take you know where we just like put apple logos on a bunch of crappy cells and send it to you these are the good batteries these are the batteries that are responsible for us being 4.9 out of five But you said: "He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries" the transcript above from the video you linked paints a very different picture. Your original claim was: > deep a history of twisting facts to make Apple look bad. But you haven't made that case here. Your position on the guy feels a little "cart before the horse." You dislike what the guy believes/stands for/his criticism, and then went out looking for reasons to justify that belief. Your post essentially implies he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries (which, I'll fully admit, shouldn't have had the Apple logo on them: not cool).
  - bubblethink 7y ago
    >he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries Sounds a lot like Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
    - wetpaws 7y ago
      Life imitates art
  - oflannabhra 7y ago
    I don't really know if you read anything that I linked. I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements. 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP. 3. Rossman claims that Apple contacted CBP to have his shipment of batteries seized in retaliation for a story he did with the CBC. Rossman states they are "good" batteries, that they could be refurbished or scavenged from old machines. He claims that they are not counterfeit. Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo. That is literally a counterfeit. I'm not trying to cast Rossmann in a bad light, I was asked to provide examples of how Rossmann twists facts to make Apple seem more nefarious than they are. That list is why I take everything Rossmann says with a large grain of salt. It is not the case that one side is right, and the other is wrong. I am not attempting to make the case that Apple should be uncriticized.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      > I don't really know if you read anything that I linked. I read what you linked. Your links don't support your claims. > I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements. You haven't given an example of that. In examples you did give you mischaracterized his original statements several times. You can still watch the original videos as you linked as evidence of that (and or read the transcripts, like the excerpt I provided above). > 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Apple made a threat (i.e. lawsuit, take-down on his channel) and then "settled" for him just removing certain content they found objectionable. It is great that Apple's legal threats didn't come to full fruition, but they existed. This just isn't a strong example of what you're claiming, there was nothing mislead about saying an actual legal threat with actual legal consequences was received relating to his work with "right to repair." > Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo. He said that in the original video about the incident you yourself linked. I provided the transcript above.

1. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple was filing suit against him, and was seeking to shut down his YouTube channel. In actuality, one of his videos had shown a schematic, that Rossman illegally obtained, and Apple requested that the schematic be removed from the video. [0] 2. In 2016, Rossman claimed that Apple had a 4 Gigabyte memory chip buffer on their webcams. He speculates that this is due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part. In actuality, it is a 4 Gigabit (512 MB) chip that acts as a buffer. [1] 3. In 2018, Rossman claimed that Apple had contacted Customs and Border Protection to have his import shipment of Apple batteries seized. He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries, maybe scavenged from old devices. [2] In actuality, the devices really were counterfeit. Rossman had contracted an OEM manufacturer to build batteries to Apple's original spec, which bore Apple's logo, most likely without Apple's knowledge. [3] [0] - https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/12677-free-speech-under-attack-youtuber-repair-specialist-louis-rossmann-alludes-to-apple-lawsuit https://www.gamerevolution.com/features/12677-free-speech-un... [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3-j_RaX74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3-j_RaX74 [2] - https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw https://youtu.be/AVL65qwBGnw [3] - https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossmann_admits_to_using_parts_from_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...

Someone1234 7y ago
No.1 you essentially admit, and cite, that what he claimed was accurate (that Apple threatened to sue/get his channel shut down) but you feel it was his fault. No.2 dude messed up. No disagreement there. But you are spinning his confusion into: "due to a nefarious intent on Apple's part." That wasn't the tone of the video at all. No.3 you say, and cite, that what he claimed was true (that a shipment of Apple compatible batteries he had imported was seized). In the original video he said quite clearly they weren't OEM because Apple no longer supplies these "vintage" batteries to even authorized repair centers. Here's the YT transcript (as is): > the Apple store and I say I would like to buy this battery can i buy this battery please they say no if I become an Apple authorized service provider and I wish to obtain parts to a machine that has been considered vintage Apple will say no if I talk to somebody in China who says hey these are not those knockoff batteries where we take you know where we just like put apple logos on a bunch of crappy cells and send it to you these are the good batteries these are the batteries that are responsible for us being 4.9 out of five But you said: "He claimed that they were genuine OEM batteries" the transcript above from the video you linked paints a very different picture. Your original claim was: > deep a history of twisting facts to make Apple look bad. But you haven't made that case here. Your position on the guy feels a little "cart before the horse." You dislike what the guy believes/stands for/his criticism, and then went out looking for reasons to justify that belief. Your post essentially implies he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries (which, I'll fully admit, shouldn't have had the Apple logo on them: not cool).
- bubblethink 7y ago
  >he's a criminal for using "stolen" schematics to repair customer's own equipment and making compatible batteries Sounds a lot like Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
  - wetpaws 7y ago
    Life imitates art
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  I don't really know if you read anything that I linked. I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements. 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP. 3. Rossman claims that Apple contacted CBP to have his shipment of batteries seized in retaliation for a story he did with the CBC. Rossman states they are "good" batteries, that they could be refurbished or scavenged from old machines. He claims that they are not counterfeit. Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo. That is literally a counterfeit. I'm not trying to cast Rossmann in a bad light, I was asked to provide examples of how Rossmann twists facts to make Apple seem more nefarious than they are. That list is why I take everything Rossmann says with a large grain of salt. It is not the case that one side is right, and the other is wrong. I am not attempting to make the case that Apple should be uncriticized.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    > I don't really know if you read anything that I linked. I read what you linked. Your links don't support your claims. > I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements. You haven't given an example of that. In examples you did give you mischaracterized his original statements several times. You can still watch the original videos as you linked as evidence of that (and or read the transcripts, like the excerpt I provided above). > 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Apple made a threat (i.e. lawsuit, take-down on his channel) and then "settled" for him just removing certain content they found objectionable. It is great that Apple's legal threats didn't come to full fruition, but they existed. This just isn't a strong example of what you're claiming, there was nothing mislead about saying an actual legal threat with actual legal consequences was received relating to his work with "right to repair." > Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo. He said that in the original video about the incident you yourself linked. I provided the transcript above.