5 ms·

> "The product was not ours. It was only that it had our brand on it" That's whitewashing. If they license the brand, they should control every aspect of manuf

> "The product was not ours. It was only that it had our brand on it" That's whitewashing. If they license the brand, they should control every aspect of manufacturing. Otherwise they are irresponsible. If I was their client, I wouldn't trust them any longer and return all pagers. I am curious about the technical details - where were the explosives packed, how were they connected and triggered? Did any pager survive and didn't blow up?

llmfan 2y ago
You can judge them to be not a generally super-trustworthy brand. But I would grant them that their responsibility for the deaths of these people is limited.
- kijin 2y ago
  Few civilian brands would survive the scrutiny if every product they put their stickers on were required to be Mossad-proof.
  - prepend 2y ago
    I feel like it’s reasonable to expect a brand to be aware if some organization, even Mossad, placed explosives in 5000 of their items. It means this company is incompetent and should not be trusted. It’s one thing to have malware injected into software (pretty bad) and another to have physical explosives put into your product.
    - flakeoil 2y ago
      So if someone steals a box of iphones, adds a few grams of explosives inside each phone, and then resells them or gives them away, then Apple is at fault?
      - lucianbr 2y ago
        If you buy the boxes from an Apple store, or from an approved distributor, Apple is at fault. What's the meaning of "approved"? If you buy them from the back of a truck, then no, Apple has no fault of course. But there's a declaration saying "we had nothing to do with the pagers even though they have our brand". That's different from saying "they were booby-trapped after they left our hands". Not even the company itself is claiming the defense you're using.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        The problem is that the company which did the rigging seems to have had an official license. If apple gave away licenses to build things branded apple and they contained explosives, I would blame apple, too.
    - kijin 2y ago
      Aware, of course, they're aware of it now. But the best that they can realistically do, once they've found out about the shenanigans, is to cancel the licensing deal with the Hungarian manufacturer. Which they probably will. Maybe sue them in a Hungarian court, if there's anybody left to sue.
    - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
      Every brand in the world is now expected to have the ability to detect and thwart intelligence operations run by Mossad? Like, a yoghurt company needs to have a counter intelligence division?
      - prepend 2y ago
        I think they should have some control over their manufacturing. It’s not so much that the yogurt company has a counter intelligence division, it’s that the yogurt company didn’t detect someone putting poison into a few hundred truckloads. I expect brands to have quality control procedures in place.
- XorNot 2y ago
  Selling your own parts to be restamped as another brand is common though. Selling your brand to be stamped on someone else's parts is basically only useful to do this exact thing though.
  - FridayoLeary 2y ago
    Why would you say that? Many everyday products are produced under license or franchise with the brand having minimal involvement in the entire process. Even if apollo had done qc in the factory it would be easy to trick them.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
      Manufacturers for certain categories of products are homogenized, often regionally, whereas the brands maybe many. Plus, clandestine supply chain attacks fall into 2 categories: - A. With manufacturer/reseller complicity. (Not many manufacturers choose this because it would harm their business.) - B. Without manufacturer/reseller complicity, but with logistics interception for sw/hw implants or complete substitution. (This is the method NSA TAO used to load implants into Cisco gear.)
lucianbr 2y ago
These declarations sound so stupid to me. What's the point of having your brand on a product, if you're going to claim you have nothing to do with it? What is the point of the concept of a brand even?
- goldfeld 2y ago
  Possibly the pagers had to have a popular brand to "work as designed", and this brand was up for sale, but declares it won't admit this to the real customers.
  - lucioperca 2y ago
    I guess with QR-Code Menus, Smartphones replacing their tech almost everywhere, Starlink etc. they where happy to take any revenue.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  Brands died as anything reliable from the consumer perspective when the Chinese bought all the dying brands in the 2000s. The only cheap goods with maintained brands are things like McDonald's which have recurring relationship with consumers.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    Even if brands have died, companies admitting it is somewhat novel.
- PepperdineG 2y ago
  To make money, like with all the merchandising that happens with a popular movie. Any number of things are licensed with the owner of the IP having very limited involvement in it, like turning down certain types of licenses as bad for the brand but not getting into the weeds of manufacturing. It's not like if there was some branded Disney cell phone that Disney is going to inspect all the board-level components. I can't speak about this pager company other than to think they're glad for any business they could get, so would license the brand.
shmatt 2y ago
Unfortunately I’ve been trying to tell this to friends and family for almost a decade in regards to clothing and home goods. People are stuck in the 80s and 90s that a logo defines how something was made, which isn’t true at all these days. Calvin Klein is a great example where most of their income comes from licensing, not selling their own clothes. They might review designs but have no say on if the resulting garment can be sold with their logo. As long as they get get the licensing fee. Unfortunately I know people who will spend more on their items than the same garment made by the same manufacturer but with a different license on jt Same for Toshiba TVs and many others
- underlipton 2y ago
  Working at an electronics retailer a few years ago, this was well-known (though news to me, when I started). They hid the fact that the company no longer manufactured their products, and/or that multiple companies were selling similar or even the same product (produced in the same factory, even). It is trouble, though, since the entire point of a "brand" is to signal provenance in manufacturing, quality, etc. It's supposed to be a way to know something about the product (if nothing else, who to hold accountable when something goes wrong). If it doesn't, what's the point?

llmfan 2y ago

You can judge them to be not a generally super-trustworthy brand. But I would grant them that their responsibility for the deaths of these people is limited.

kijin 2y ago
Few civilian brands would survive the scrutiny if every product they put their stickers on were required to be Mossad-proof.
- prepend 2y ago
  I feel like it’s reasonable to expect a brand to be aware if some organization, even Mossad, placed explosives in 5000 of their items. It means this company is incompetent and should not be trusted. It’s one thing to have malware injected into software (pretty bad) and another to have physical explosives put into your product.
  - flakeoil 2y ago
    So if someone steals a box of iphones, adds a few grams of explosives inside each phone, and then resells them or gives them away, then Apple is at fault?
    - lucianbr 2y ago
      If you buy the boxes from an Apple store, or from an approved distributor, Apple is at fault. What's the meaning of "approved"? If you buy them from the back of a truck, then no, Apple has no fault of course. But there's a declaration saying "we had nothing to do with the pagers even though they have our brand". That's different from saying "they were booby-trapped after they left our hands". Not even the company itself is claiming the defense you're using.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      The problem is that the company which did the rigging seems to have had an official license. If apple gave away licenses to build things branded apple and they contained explosives, I would blame apple, too.
  - kijin 2y ago
    Aware, of course, they're aware of it now. But the best that they can realistically do, once they've found out about the shenanigans, is to cancel the licensing deal with the Hungarian manufacturer. Which they probably will. Maybe sue them in a Hungarian court, if there's anybody left to sue.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    Every brand in the world is now expected to have the ability to detect and thwart intelligence operations run by Mossad? Like, a yoghurt company needs to have a counter intelligence division?
    - prepend 2y ago
      I think they should have some control over their manufacturing. It’s not so much that the yogurt company has a counter intelligence division, it’s that the yogurt company didn’t detect someone putting poison into a few hundred truckloads. I expect brands to have quality control procedures in place.
XorNot 2y ago
Selling your own parts to be restamped as another brand is common though. Selling your brand to be stamped on someone else's parts is basically only useful to do this exact thing though.
- FridayoLeary 2y ago
  Why would you say that? Many everyday products are produced under license or franchise with the brand having minimal involvement in the entire process. Even if apollo had done qc in the factory it would be easy to trick them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Manufacturers for certain categories of products are homogenized, often regionally, whereas the brands maybe many. Plus, clandestine supply chain attacks fall into 2 categories: - A. With manufacturer/reseller complicity. (Not many manufacturers choose this because it would harm their business.) - B. Without manufacturer/reseller complicity, but with logistics interception for sw/hw implants or complete substitution. (This is the method NSA TAO used to load implants into Cisco gear.)

lucianbr 2y ago

These declarations sound so stupid to me. What's the point of having your brand on a product, if you're going to claim you have nothing to do with it? What is the point of the concept of a brand even?

goldfeld 2y ago
Possibly the pagers had to have a popular brand to "work as designed", and this brand was up for sale, but declares it won't admit this to the real customers.
- lucioperca 2y ago
  I guess with QR-Code Menus, Smartphones replacing their tech almost everywhere, Starlink etc. they where happy to take any revenue.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Brands died as anything reliable from the consumer perspective when the Chinese bought all the dying brands in the 2000s. The only cheap goods with maintained brands are things like McDonald's which have recurring relationship with consumers.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Even if brands have died, companies admitting it is somewhat novel.
PepperdineG 2y ago
To make money, like with all the merchandising that happens with a popular movie. Any number of things are licensed with the owner of the IP having very limited involvement in it, like turning down certain types of licenses as bad for the brand but not getting into the weeds of manufacturing. It's not like if there was some branded Disney cell phone that Disney is going to inspect all the board-level components. I can't speak about this pager company other than to think they're glad for any business they could get, so would license the brand.

shmatt 2y ago

Unfortunately I’ve been trying to tell this to friends and family for almost a decade in regards to clothing and home goods. People are stuck in the 80s and 90s that a logo defines how something was made, which isn’t true at all these days. Calvin Klein is a great example where most of their income comes from licensing, not selling their own clothes. They might review designs but have no say on if the resulting garment can be sold with their logo. As long as they get get the licensing fee. Unfortunately I know people who will spend more on their items than the same garment made by the same manufacturer but with a different license on jt Same for Toshiba TVs and many others

underlipton 2y ago
Working at an electronics retailer a few years ago, this was well-known (though news to me, when I started). They hid the fact that the company no longer manufactured their products, and/or that multiple companies were selling similar or even the same product (produced in the same factory, even). It is trouble, though, since the entire point of a "brand" is to signal provenance in manufacturing, quality, etc. It's supposed to be a way to know something about the product (if nothing else, who to hold accountable when something goes wrong). If it doesn't, what's the point?