Another distressing characteristic of apple's tactics is that it increases social inequality. (Let's set aside those irrational SJWs that have arisen lately - there can be a rational approach to social justice). There are some pretty clear demographic divides in apple users vs everyone else. Apple could have donated to non-profits that especially serve under-privileged people, especially financially disadvantaged chi…
By that logic Apple's users could have purchased cheaper non-Apple products and donated the remaining money to non-profits. This entire line of moral reasonsing just doesn't work. Charitable causes do not trump the entirety of the rest of human endeavour and for-profit entities are not intrinsically amoral.
These are trivial near-tautologies addressing irrelevant and extreme positions. For example, some "charitable" causes are outright corrupt.
> By that logic Apple's users could have purchased cheaper non-Apple products and donated the remaining money to non-profits.
Most of us buy expensive hardware because we want expensive hardware, not because we want to pretend to be doing good in the world. Anyone foolish enough to think that they are making the world a better place by buying apple products would be appropriately subject to the same criticism: it would be far better if they bought cheaper hardware and used the difference in some intelligent way to make the world a better place.
> This entire line of moral reasonsing just doesn't work.
That's what happens when you apply slippery slope style reasoning unnecessarily. There is nothing illogical about looking at both (a) what one actually does and (b) what one could do - especially if there are entities praising your questionable actions as socially benign.
You are correct that one 'could always do better', but that is not a 'get out criticism free' card. Further, it needn't by itself change anyone's choice of where they draw the line for "more helpful than harmful". I believe that apple's actions here are more harmful than helpful, and the fact that their actions increase the divide between haves and have-nots is part of that evaluation.