241–250 of 389 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think cowards is the wrong word - more like opportunists. Like you said, almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus.
> almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus. Almost no-one gets that choice. The choose a risk of going to jail for a more likely bonus.
>Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. Judging by tech, apple is right now in deep water due to the failure of deli…
Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that 1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying 2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order. In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. I really hope that criminal charg…
Wait, isn't the board personally liable for their decisions? I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Family group chats that require a blue-bubble-capable phone This is a social walled garden they've built over years and has been solidified by users choosing it over and over again. Are they exploiting our brain's capacities regarding social pressure to extract profit? Sure, but so does every fast food company, social media company, marketing company, etc. I think it's interesting that you phrase it as "require" re…
Practically every other chat ecosystem I've used has worked fine from android or ios, or for the most part my desktop computer. Signal, XMPP, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Twitter DMs, Google Chat, all of these work _fine_ from every general computing device I own (iPhone, android, linux). Somehow it's only iMessage which doesn't have an android or desktop or web app, despite Apple having more money than every other…
And this is well known by everyone, and your family still chose Apple (in fact, I'm fairly certain this is why most people choose Apple - they want everything to "just work"). Apple has no obligation to provide any "ecosystem".
At the end of the day there isn't some mass hypnosis at work here. People choose Apple en masse because it works for them. Nothing stops Apple users from making an SMS (now RCS) group chat, either, nor from you and your family hosting a group chat on any other app on the App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that 1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying 2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order. In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. I really hope that criminal charg…
> In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. Wait, isn't the board personally liable for their decisions? I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
The top brass at Apple just think they are above everyone else. Remember when Tim Cook lied about Apple not giving anyone special terms in the app store and that everyone gets the same deal. And then it came out Netflix was one that got special terms? The sheer arrogance of Apple leaders is astounding. They think they are outright owed rent on anything that runs on an iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple thinks developers are no…
>Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. Judging by tech, apple is right now in deep water due to the failure of deli…
If corporations are not bound by laws they don’t like, then why should they be protected by laws they do like? Should the US turn a blind eye to IP infringement against Apple?
No Server Name Indication (SNI): https://web.archive.org/web/20250501083454if_/https://www.th...
Try running snidump for a day while reading HN, including
(With SNI)
firefox https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied
(Without SNI, i.e., "No SNI")
{
printf 'GET /web/20250501083454if_/https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied HTTP/1.0\r\n'
printf 'Host: web.archive.org\r\n\r\n'
} |openssl s_client -connect archive.org:443 -ign_eof -noservername > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htmEarlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that 1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying 2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order. In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. I really hope that criminal charg…
> In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. Wait, isn't the board personally liable for their decisions? I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
Perdue pharma is a high profile recent example of this , but there dozens of such events from big tobacco to baby formula