3 ms·

The implication being that they only ‘look’ like they are not evil, but secretly they actually are?

cromka 4y ago
Not that they are completely evil, just that they know how to play the public and shareholders to come off as future-oriented, sustainable, humane, etc., which gives them some leeway to deal with their issues in China for example.
- newtritious 4y ago
  Again the innuendo. You are agreeing that they are behaving in a sustainable, future-oriented, sustainable, humane way, but presenting this as if it’s not actually true. The fact that China hasn’t improved on human rights the way everyone expected them to do over the last two decades is indeed a problem for Apple, and everyone else who does business there, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are in fact making their phones more repairable, which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance.
  - cromka 4y ago
    > the fact that they are in fact making their phones more repairable, which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance. The pure fact that they aren't advertising such obvious user-benefiting feature corroborates my hypothesis that they only virtue-signal what they find milkable. Fundamentally, they are making iPhones more repairable a result of the US and the EU being on their asses with various legislation; it's a mere compliance. Advertising it would likely affect their AppleCare+ revenue, which is why I presume they simply didn't. If they actually cared about being a better company for the sake of being a better company, they would absolutely point out that obvious benefit even at the risk of diminishing their future AppleCare+ revenue. So, in short, those repairability improvements are mostly to comply and save their own expenses when fixing AppleCare-insured phones. Which is what I meant by it being mostly for the looks. They just know how to play their cards well. > which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance. Nobody said it wasn't, that wasn't the point I was arguing.

Not that they are completely evil, just that they know how to play the public and shareholders to come off as future-oriented, sustainable, humane, etc., which gives them some leeway to deal with their issues in China for example.

newtritious 4y ago
Again the innuendo. You are agreeing that they are behaving in a sustainable, future-oriented, sustainable, humane way, but presenting this as if it’s not actually true. The fact that China hasn’t improved on human rights the way everyone expected them to do over the last two decades is indeed a problem for Apple, and everyone else who does business there, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are in fact making their phones more repairable, which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance.
- cromka 4y ago
  > the fact that they are in fact making their phones more repairable, which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance. The pure fact that they aren't advertising such obvious user-benefiting feature corroborates my hypothesis that they only virtue-signal what they find milkable. Fundamentally, they are making iPhones more repairable a result of the US and the EU being on their asses with various legislation; it's a mere compliance. Advertising it would likely affect their AppleCare+ revenue, which is why I presume they simply didn't. If they actually cared about being a better company for the sake of being a better company, they would absolutely point out that obvious benefit even at the risk of diminishing their future AppleCare+ revenue. So, in short, those repairability improvements are mostly to comply and save their own expenses when fixing AppleCare-insured phones. Which is what I meant by it being mostly for the looks. They just know how to play their cards well. > which is beneficial to the environment and consumers in reality, and not just in appearance. Nobody said it wasn't, that wasn't the point I was arguing.