4 ms·

Let's say a chemical is found to cause cancer (outside of the state of California), then Walmart pulls all offending products from the shelves. Would you say Wa

Let's say a chemical is found to cause cancer (outside of the state of California), then Walmart pulls all offending products from the shelves. Would you say Walmart is "crushing" these manufacturing businesses, or would you say Walmart is keeping their customers safe?

asdajksah2123 4y ago
For that analogy to be accurate Walmart would have replaced the offending product with their own in house brand of the same product. Which is exactly the justification Apple uses. What I don't understand is why people paying upwards of $600 to buy those shelves from Walmart and use in their own homes are ok with Walmart insisting that those shelves actually still belong to them and putting up their own products in the shelves you bought from them and installed in your home.
smoldesu 4y ago
In this analogy, Wal-Mart isn't happily selling other harmful chemicals for a 30% cut, so I don't think your metaphor matches up with reality. I don't trust Wal-Mart to make my decisions for me in the first place, this scenario would be entirely circumvented if the government just had a list of all the chemicals you're not allowed to sell. Why do we need to let private corporations be the authority on which chemicals are harmful to sell and which are not? But of course, Apple will fight to the death avoiding regulation. US authorities don't seem to care, but the EU is getting pretty pissed off.
greendude29 4y ago
I can't for the life of me why Apple people will go to all lengths to justify their standard corporate predatory behavior. Apple, like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. is a business that operates ruthlessly for money. What an insanely illogical but also misplaced metaphor. Apple didn't "save" anyone - they found a new revenue stream and tightened control over data their platform produces to monetize it further, just like Google. What is the "saving" nonsense you all believe?

asdajksah2123 4y ago

For that analogy to be accurate Walmart would have replaced the offending product with their own in house brand of the same product. Which is exactly the justification Apple uses. What I don't understand is why people paying upwards of $600 to buy those shelves from Walmart and use in their own homes are ok with Walmart insisting that those shelves actually still belong to them and putting up their own products in the shelves you bought from them and installed in your home.

smoldesu 4y ago

In this analogy, Wal-Mart isn't happily selling other harmful chemicals for a 30% cut, so I don't think your metaphor matches up with reality. I don't trust Wal-Mart to make my decisions for me in the first place, this scenario would be entirely circumvented if the government just had a list of all the chemicals you're not allowed to sell. Why do we need to let private corporations be the authority on which chemicals are harmful to sell and which are not? But of course, Apple will fight to the death avoiding regulation. US authorities don't seem to care, but the EU is getting pretty pissed off.

greendude29 4y ago

I can't for the life of me why Apple people will go to all lengths to justify their standard corporate predatory behavior. Apple, like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. is a business that operates ruthlessly for money. What an insanely illogical but also misplaced metaphor. Apple didn't "save" anyone - they found a new revenue stream and tightened control over data their platform produces to monetize it further, just like Google. What is the "saving" nonsense you all believe?