3 ms·
> Those paying the tax have generally no control over how Apple spends the corresponding revenue. Sure you do. The consumer has a voice. If AirPods Pro 2 suck
by judge2020 4y ago
> Those paying the tax have generally no control over how Apple spends the corresponding revenue.
Sure you do. The consumer has a voice. If AirPods Pro 2 sucked, you vote by not purchasing them, and if enough other people do the same they'll can Airpods Pro 2 and create a third version in hopes it's good enough to "win back" your vote/money. This is the basis of free market capitalism and allows Apple to make a "product" (the Apple ecosystem) that people don't have to buy into, but they do because of the R&D Apple has invested into their product for over a decade.
- jachee 4y agoThis is why there’s no longer a HomePod, but there are HomePod minis.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y agoIf Apple is collecting a "30% tax" and, without any input from the "taxpayer", they choose to spend the tax revenue on producing rechargeable Bluetooth earbuds, how was the taxpayer given a vote on the decision to spend the tax revenue on producing rechargeable Bluetooth earbuds (versus something else). By the time they go to market with the overpriced earbuds, the money has already been spent. More "planned obsolescence" electronics waste in the landfills. Going back to the original comment to which I responded, where the commenter compared Apple's "30% tax" to government-levied taxes for public services, this is like giving residents a vote on a new public services project after only it has been completed. At that point, the money has been spent. It's too late to for voters stop the government from spending their money on the project.