Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 389 posts

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#251

Post by atoav »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #248

I really, really, really hope this guy gets treated like very else under similar circumstances. Top execs are totally used to be able to buy their way out of problems with company money without any personal repercussions other than maybe a big severance package.

The argument for the high wages was always the "big responsibilty" the manegerial class has to bear. IMO to hold them personally liable is the absolite bare minimum, they already for the money for it. In reality CEO processes are often among the line: "You earned 10 Millions in boni for illegal behavior? Here is a 100K fine!"

A simple tradesperson is also personally responsible when they fuck up their job despite better knowledge. So if those can go to jail for the consequences of their dealings why shouldn't a CEO where the consequences are potentially of a scale several magnitudes higher? Wasn't personal responsibility in everybodies mouths, or is that only important when we talk about poor people?

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#252

Post by floxy »

vkou wrote: post #198
torben-friis wrote: post #7

>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…

> Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. Objectively and ethically, it's reprehensible, but subjectively, we're now living in a blatantly pay-to-play world and everyone else is doing it , and there are clear, easily quantifiable gains of billions to be made from that bribe. (The best part of all this was learning that inauguration bribes have been h…

>The best part of all this was learning that inauguration bribes have been happening for decades, generally to little fanfare.

Where can I read more about this?

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#253

Post by pests »

throwanem wrote: post #221
babypuncher wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price isn't as much of a problem for developer adoption, it's a problem for user adoption. Users aren't buying the Apple Vision Pro because it's $3500. Developers aren't writing apps for the Apple Vision Pro because it has no users.

I said precisely as much in the comment to which you replied. Can you offer advice on my prose style therein?

You didn't really talk about users at all. The only part of your comment about users is "But why do that if there's no users?". There can be many reasons why there are no users, price being just one of them.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#254

Post by rideontime »

wtallis wrote: post #186
Osiris wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The breach being that they offered a payment method outside of Apple Pay. That's exactly what he said.

It's not exactly what he said. The fact the they agreed to a contract prohibiting them from using an outside payment method and then willfully violated that contract is a detail that courts may not be so willing to overlook.

Even though the court found that particular provision to be illegal?

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#255

Post by jmward01 »

Osiris wrote: post #166
torben-friis wrote: post #7

>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…

We have a lot of messed up rulings in the past that allow corporations to act like people but skate by when they do things as if they weren't people. I say if a corporation can have free speech like a person then they can get thrown in jail like a person too. When illegal stuff happens it should have real, meaningful, consequences like the board being fired and massive fines or outright closing the company. I am not a fan of the industry right now. Apple is a symptom of a broader problem and we need bigger changes to start correcting the direction corporate america has been heading for the last 50 years.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#256

Post by pjmlp »

fortran77 wrote: post #190
pjmlp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple always has been like that, see The Cult of Mac book. However, it appears being at the edge of bankruptcy, and having turned the ship around has made them paranoid of losing a single cent. When Apple Store came out it was great. I was a Nokia employee at the time, and 30% was a dream compared with what you would have to pay to phone operators, app listenings in magazines with SMS download codes, for Blackberry,…

> Apple always has been like that They were better in the pre-Mac days. I was a big Apple fan until the Mac came out.

So basically Apple II days?

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#257

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

I am not sure but it does seem that apple's stock price has taken a hit.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/

Maybe somebody could enlighten me but the off hours part shows -2.3%, is that a correction because people are losing faith in apple or what exactly? and would these off hours loses get converted to on hour losses or what exactly? (Sorry I could ask AI but I might as well ask here as well)

So I had done some calculations and please correct me if you think I am wrong but at 4:00 pm USA time (EDT?) the stock was selling at 213.5 open (I am not sure what the differences b/w open,close etc. are , I am not a finance guy) but it went from 213.5 open to 207.8 right now

Taking the % lose from its peak just at 4 PM EDT & multiplying it by its market cap? 3.19Trillion(1- 207.5/213.5 ) is 89_648_711_944 , ie. 89 Billion $.

So from my understanding Apple lost 89B $ in like a span of 2 hours (4PM EDT to 5:10-ish PM EDT which is the approx current time while writing this post)

That sounds REALLY BIG. Like I used to think damn Trillion $ are a lot but if such a case can cause apple to lose 89B$ in span of 2 hours then either I am doing some calculation wrong or this case has a truly big gravity that its worth not to just skim over it I guess and truly read it at detail I suppose.

Just my two cents..

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#258

Post by throwanem »

pests wrote: post #253
throwanem wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said precisely as much in the comment to which you replied. Can you offer advice on my prose style therein?

You didn't really talk about users at all. The only part of your comment about users is "But why do that if there's no users?". There can be many reasons why there are no users, price being just one of them.

That's fair. The implication was all in the comparison with week-1 campsites for iPhones versus day-1 yawns for Vision Pro, but it's smeared across two paragraphs and should have been hoisted and made explicit. Thanks for the review!

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#259

Post by vessenes »

rideontime wrote: post #89
vessenes wrote: post #79

In the words of a trial lawyer friend of mine, “Nobody in the history of the world has said, ‘You know what? The judge was right; I was an asshole.’ Definitely some of those vibes there. I’ve generally been on team apple for this case, and as Gruber notes, they largely won the case. Dunking on their power to set other contractual fees seems to have come back to bite them. That said, as a user, I strongly prefer to us…

I'm unable to find where Gruber says that Apple "largely won" (not that I would be surprised to see Gruber making such a claim). His latest headline literally begins with "Apple lost." Where are you seeing that?

They won on almost all counts; you can tell this by trying to download a Tim Sweeney backed App Store on your iPhone in the US.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#260

Post by vessenes »

jampekka wrote: post #158
vessenes wrote: post #79

In the words of a trial lawyer friend of mine, “Nobody in the history of the world has said, ‘You know what? The judge was right; I was an asshole.’ Definitely some of those vibes there. I’ve generally been on team apple for this case, and as Gruber notes, they largely won the case. Dunking on their power to set other contractual fees seems to have come back to bite them. That said, as a user, I strongly prefer to us…

> That said, as a user, I strongly prefer to use Apple’s in-app payments I'm sure both the app developer and Apple are happy to let you pay 30% extra for the convenience of Apple Pay vs PayPal.

Well in blizzards case, I pay the same - they pay the fee.
Post reply on HN