4 ms·

More virtue signalling from a company with little ethics, that uses modern day slavery to increase its cash reserves. Slavery and e-waste are some of the bigges

More virtue signalling from a company with little ethics, that uses modern day slavery to increase its cash reserves. Slavery and e-waste are some of the biggest problems humanity faces and Apple is at the top of the culpability list. And here we are squabbling over an “offensive” app name. Its a distraction and it’s the height of hypocrisy.

scrollaway 6y ago
Whatever you are talking about has zero relation to the topic at hand. Apple can do two things. And the worst part is that you're correct, they have few ethics, ewaste is a problem, etc. But that has nothing to do with their app store policies which often are a problem as well.
- ostenning 6y ago
  Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? From the AppStore submission policies: "Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store ". I don't believe "Apple can do two things" is a valid argument. You cannot promote "protecting" one set of people from drugs whilst exploiting another set of people for financial gain. It is twisted logic and we shouldn't stand for it. Recently Apple lobbied against a Bill in Congress to aimed at protecting Uyghur minorities in China: https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple...
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    I don't believe Apple claims, anywhere, that they're "protecting" people from drugs.
    - fragmede 6y ago
      That is the originally supplied reasoning that Apple gave the developer. > Gustafson says Apple contacted him on December 29th and told him Amphetamine “appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills.” That sure sounds like Apple is trying to protect people from "inappropriate use of controlled substances", or more colloqually, "protecting people from drugs".
      - zepto 6y ago
        It could just be they think promoting the use of drugs looks bad to mainstream users of their store.
      - scrollaway 6y ago
        If I ask you not to smoke next to me, it's not to protect you from smoking, it's because I don't like or tolerate cigarette smoke. I'm not defending Apple; I'm glad Amphetamine is keeping its name. I'm saying they're not claiming to protect anyone.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? Because the second group is at their mercy (or, the suppliers mercy, where chinese, taiwanese, indian, etc) for feeding their families, "free market" BS aside. That's not Apple, that's capitalism in general (or any system where you're not given something like a UBI or ample social wealfare so that you can only work on production lines and such by choice). It's not just capitalism as in capitalist's either. The whole "western world" benefits from such cheap goods, even people working McJobs at home. That said, there's a balance there, because after some point working/middle class jobs also go abroad, and new ones replacing them domestically are either crappier lower-wage than before or not-created. The 10% will always benefit from cheaper goods though - and they will be those with high quality jobs that can't/won't yet be jobs outsourced. Now, pro-market people would say that at least this guys the developing countries some jobs, they wouldn't have otherwise, and low/exploitative wages and conditions of work are better than no jobs at all. (That's debatable: often the developing folk are forced to go work in the cities/factories because of policies devastating their rural communities, not because of some free choice to "ascend" themselves in the rat race). IMHO, the alternative would require either some kind of universal raise of both salaries (to total global equality) and costs of living (to same), or trade and outsourcing restrictions (so to avoid the race to the bottom).
malka 6y ago
You really expect ethics from corporation? They are not human. They do not feel empathy. If you want them to act a certain way, it has to be put in law.
- totalZero 6y ago
  That, or it has to otherwise affect their bottom line. Laws are sticks. Profits are carrots. Reduce the costs of doing the right thing, and suddenly companies will do just that. Look at the difference in Obama's treatment of corporate inversions and Trump's treatment of it with the TCJA -- as well as the associated repatriation tax holiday.
- tertius 6y ago
  A corporation is just a bunch of people. Hiding behind a legal structure yes, but just a bunch of people.
  - malka 6y ago
    And each of this people can think 'so bad, but it's.not my fault, it's corporate policy' instead of feeling guilt.
    - tertius 6y ago
      Corporate policy, written by humans.
      - malka 6y ago
        well yeah. It then requires a single sociopath to make the rules that will be followed by 'normal' human beings.
        tertius 6y ago
        Sure there are bad people everywhere. But they're people, just people.
simonh 6y ago
On e-Waste, Apple is the second highest rated tech company on environmental impact according to Greenpeace. The top rated company, the only one with a better rating than Apple, is Librem. In terms of ethics, even Librem advise in their own literature that they cannot vouch for their upstream suppliers, the vast majority of which are in China. Presumably they don't have the resources to conduct the level of supplier auditing Apple carry out, there's no shame in that few companies do, I'm not knocking Librem they're fighting the good fight. Apple have ditched suppliers when they've found compliance violations though. Those are violations most other companies would never have even known about. Can you name another company that has actually done more on this issue than Apple? The bottom line is the issue here is not Apple or Librem, or Amazon or any of the other companies doing business in China. They are all exposed to these risks. The problem is the Chinese government. Those are the people we need to be holding accountable.

scrollaway 6y ago

Whatever you are talking about has zero relation to the topic at hand. Apple can do two things. And the worst part is that you're correct, they have few ethics, ewaste is a problem, etc. But that has nothing to do with their app store policies which often are a problem as well.

ostenning 6y ago
Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? From the AppStore submission policies: "Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store ". I don't believe "Apple can do two things" is a valid argument. You cannot promote "protecting" one set of people from drugs whilst exploiting another set of people for financial gain. It is twisted logic and we shouldn't stand for it. Recently Apple lobbied against a Bill in Congress to aimed at protecting Uyghur minorities in China: https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple...
- scrollaway 6y ago
  I don't believe Apple claims, anywhere, that they're "protecting" people from drugs.
  - fragmede 6y ago
    That is the originally supplied reasoning that Apple gave the developer. > Gustafson says Apple contacted him on December 29th and told him Amphetamine “appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills.” That sure sounds like Apple is trying to protect people from "inappropriate use of controlled substances", or more colloqually, "protecting people from drugs".
    - zepto 6y ago
      It could just be they think promoting the use of drugs looks bad to mainstream users of their store.
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      If I ask you not to smoke next to me, it's not to protect you from smoking, it's because I don't like or tolerate cigarette smoke. I'm not defending Apple; I'm glad Amphetamine is keeping its name. I'm saying they're not claiming to protect anyone.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them? Because the second group is at their mercy (or, the suppliers mercy, where chinese, taiwanese, indian, etc) for feeding their families, "free market" BS aside. That's not Apple, that's capitalism in general (or any system where you're not given something like a UBI or ample social wealfare so that you can only work on production lines and such by choice). It's not just capitalism as in capitalist's either. The whole "western world" benefits from such cheap goods, even people working McJobs at home. That said, there's a balance there, because after some point working/middle class jobs also go abroad, and new ones replacing them domestically are either crappier lower-wage than before or not-created. The 10% will always benefit from cheaper goods though - and they will be those with high quality jobs that can't/won't yet be jobs outsourced. Now, pro-market people would say that at least this guys the developing countries some jobs, they wouldn't have otherwise, and low/exploitative wages and conditions of work are better than no jobs at all. (That's debatable: often the developing folk are forced to go work in the cities/factories because of policies devastating their rural communities, not because of some free choice to "ascend" themselves in the rat race). IMHO, the alternative would require either some kind of universal raise of both salaries (to total global equality) and costs of living (to same), or trade and outsourcing restrictions (so to avoid the race to the bottom).

malka 6y ago

You really expect ethics from corporation? They are not human. They do not feel empathy. If you want them to act a certain way, it has to be put in law.

totalZero 6y ago
That, or it has to otherwise affect their bottom line. Laws are sticks. Profits are carrots. Reduce the costs of doing the right thing, and suddenly companies will do just that. Look at the difference in Obama's treatment of corporate inversions and Trump's treatment of it with the TCJA -- as well as the associated repatriation tax holiday.
tertius 6y ago
A corporation is just a bunch of people. Hiding behind a legal structure yes, but just a bunch of people.
- malka 6y ago
  And each of this people can think 'so bad, but it's.not my fault, it's corporate policy' instead of feeling guilt.
  - tertius 6y ago
    Corporate policy, written by humans.
    - malka 6y ago
      well yeah. It then requires a single sociopath to make the rules that will be followed by 'normal' human beings.
      - tertius 6y ago
        Sure there are bad people everywhere. But they're people, just people.

simonh 6y ago

On e-Waste, Apple is the second highest rated tech company on environmental impact according to Greenpeace. The top rated company, the only one with a better rating than Apple, is Librem. In terms of ethics, even Librem advise in their own literature that they cannot vouch for their upstream suppliers, the vast majority of which are in China. Presumably they don't have the resources to conduct the level of supplier auditing Apple carry out, there's no shame in that few companies do, I'm not knocking Librem they're fighting the good fight. Apple have ditched suppliers when they've found compliance violations though. Those are violations most other companies would never have even known about. Can you name another company that has actually done more on this issue than Apple? The bottom line is the issue here is not Apple or Librem, or Amazon or any of the other companies doing business in China. They are all exposed to these risks. The problem is the Chinese government. Those are the people we need to be holding accountable.