4 ms·

If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign? [1] Even evidence of a TV Show

by roc 14y ago

If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign? [1] Even evidence of a TV Show paying a celebrity to juice impact of their story is hardly evidence of government involvement. The only evidence I see of government influence is in the outrage against usury being directed at the makers of aspirational products, rather than the predatory lenders. If the bank essentially is the government... you can't really bark up that tree directly. But, again, they dont' seem to have been fabricating charges against Apple. [1] That said, I understand Apple's bind; they need lower costs and lower prices for China. So they have to do something. But it certainly sounds like they took a brand-damaging anti-user approach. (And Apple didn't seem to deny any of it.)

Retric 14y ago
That may have a lot to do with sellers skimming vs. actual refurb parts in the supply chain. Granted consumers don't care, but forgery is really common over there because so many people have access to the type of factory's that produce all that stuff in the first place.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign? Most certainly. Selection bias is bias. The media is never going to cover every fact about a company, and there are different facts that will portray anyone in a different light. See: If-by-whiskey.[1] And if you're worried about affecting their image instead of the speaker's, you pick one side and silence the other. If you decide you like someone, you report only the positive facts about them and viewers like them too. If you decide you don't like them you report only the negative facts and viewers don't like them either. You can do this without telling a single lie, and it's enormously effective because no one can disprove anything you report since it's all true, it's just intentionally incomplete. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
mistercow 14y ago
>If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign Yes. "Propaganda" simply means the dissemination of information (true or not) with motivation other than simply helping people to be informed. If the information is being put out in order to hurt Apple's reputation, it's propaganda. And that's generally not much to worry about if it comes from activist groups, corporations, and other sources with transparent biases, but when it's coming from a government (or government controlled media, which equates to the same thing), it's a different situation - especially in a climate where dissenting opinions are quashed. >Even evidence of a TV Show paying a celebrity to juice impact of their story is hardly evidence of government involvement. Except that the Chinese government has tremendous control over the media in China. Add to that the censorship of thousands of whatever Weibo calls "tweets", and it seems pretty obvious that government shenanigans are at work. >The only evidence I see of government influence is in the outrage against usury being directed at the makers of aspirational products, rather than the predatory lenders. That's the only evidence you can see? I would point out all of the other pieces of evidence in the article, but I feel like I'd be just copying and pasting large chunks of it into my comment. Maybe you should just reread it?
- roc 14y ago
  The big US media outlets were all caught-out covering up for the US government, pushing propaganda and sitting on stories in the lead-up to an actual war. So if any government involvement opens the door to play every story off as government controlled, were the Dateline/gas tank story, or the Toyota/stuck accelerator story, etc all government propaganda then? > "That's the only evidence you can see?" That's the only evidence I see, yes. I see lots of other things that might be a result of government involvement, but those things have plausible mundane motives as well. So I'm hesitant to identify them as definitive proof of a government plot. e.g. I would expect a Chinese consumer protection sort of program to single out Apple's involvement in any widespread activity for the same reason every western news outlet and blog singles out Apple's involvement in the same situations. Foxconn's labor conditions have always been overwhelmingly reported as an Apple problem, despite their near universal contracts across the industry. And this despite Apple being the only major player who's ever acknowledged problems or taken steps to improve things. This is done because Apple stories get attention to a degree that brings non-trivial monetary incentives. So I wouldn't see Chinese news organizations doing the same exact thing as necessarily evidence of a coordinated government smear campaign.

by roc 14y ago

Retric 14y ago

That may have a lot to do with sellers skimming vs. actual refurb parts in the supply chain. Granted consumers don't care, but forgery is really common over there because so many people have access to the type of factory's that produce all that stuff in the first place.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign? Most certainly. Selection bias is bias. The media is never going to cover every fact about a company, and there are different facts that will portray anyone in a different light. See: If-by-whiskey.[1] And if you're worried about affecting their image instead of the speaker's, you pick one side and silence the other. If you decide you like someone, you report only the positive facts about them and viewers like them too. If you decide you don't like them you report only the negative facts and viewers don't like them either. You can do this without telling a single lie, and it's enormously effective because no one can disprove anything you report since it's all true, it's just intentionally incomplete. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

mistercow 14y ago

>If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign Yes. "Propaganda" simply means the dissemination of information (true or not) with motivation other than simply helping people to be informed. If the information is being put out in order to hurt Apple's reputation, it's propaganda. And that's generally not much to worry about if it comes from activist groups, corporations, and other sources with transparent biases, but when it's coming from a government (or government controlled media, which equates to the same thing), it's a different situation - especially in a climate where dissenting opinions are quashed. >Even evidence of a TV Show paying a celebrity to juice impact of their story is hardly evidence of government involvement. Except that the Chinese government has tremendous control over the media in China. Add to that the censorship of thousands of whatever Weibo calls "tweets", and it seems pretty obvious that government shenanigans are at work. >The only evidence I see of government influence is in the outrage against usury being directed at the makers of aspirational products, rather than the predatory lenders. That's the only evidence you can see? I would point out all of the other pieces of evidence in the article, but I feel like I'd be just copying and pasting large chunks of it into my comment. Maybe you should just reread it?

roc 14y ago
The big US media outlets were all caught-out covering up for the US government, pushing propaganda and sitting on stories in the lead-up to an actual war. So if any government involvement opens the door to play every story off as government controlled, were the Dateline/gas tank story, or the Toyota/stuck accelerator story, etc all government propaganda then? > "That's the only evidence you can see?" That's the only evidence I see, yes. I see lots of other things that might be a result of government involvement, but those things have plausible mundane motives as well. So I'm hesitant to identify them as definitive proof of a government plot. e.g. I would expect a Chinese consumer protection sort of program to single out Apple's involvement in any widespread activity for the same reason every western news outlet and blog singles out Apple's involvement in the same situations. Foxconn's labor conditions have always been overwhelmingly reported as an Apple problem, despite their near universal contracts across the industry. And this despite Apple being the only major player who's ever acknowledged problems or taken steps to improve things. This is done because Apple stories get attention to a degree that brings non-trivial monetary incentives. So I wouldn't see Chinese news organizations doing the same exact thing as necessarily evidence of a coordinated government smear campaign.