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

341–350 of 389 posts

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

#341

Post by nolist_policy »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #173
chmod775 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What killed the Vision Pro is the complete lack of support for the two main things people use VR for. Productivity is a distant third behind the likes of VR Chat and pornography. If Apple managed to capture only 1% of VR Chat's monthly userbase, they would've tripled their pathetic sales numbers. Apple tried to focus on productivity and some light entertainment and didn't even throw the other two a bone by supporting…

Trust me, porn on the Vision Pro is plentiful and industry-leading. VRChat, I agree, should absolutely be there and unrestricted. It wont be though. It isn't uncensored on Oculus either.

> VRChat, I agree, should absolutely be there and unrestricted. It wont be though. It isn't uncensored on Oculus either.

Can you elaborate?

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

#342

Post by Dildonics4All »

mrandish wrote: post #282
chrisjj wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance Why not both?

Execs will continue to default to obfuscating and misleading in testimony as well as minimally complying with court orders until a high-profile exec spends time in jail for criminal contempt. I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need. While I'm sure he lied and obfuscated, I doubt a VP Finance was really the top decision-maker on "Despite the clear court order, we're going to kee…

I don’t agree with your broad characterization. Apple is a special case: their wealth tends to bend the rules. Every other company operates in risk mitigation mindset.

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

#343

Post by dns_snek »

sparky_z wrote: post #278
dns_snek wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is Cook protective of privacy and civil rights? Apple collaborates with the government to the full extent that is required to have access to their market, irrespective of privacy and civil rights implications. China, for example.

In the sense that they don't go much much further than just the bare minimum required by government regulations from the various jusrisdictions they operate in, and they don't treat this overreach as their primary profit center, thereby incentivising themselves to push it as far as they think they can get away with, the way all the other major tech companies do?

The "bare minimum" includes full support of oppressive government's surveillance and censorship requirements that target any sort of dissent, as well as handing over full unsupervised access and ownership of those citizens' data to their government.

So please spare us the PR, arguing that Apple "cares" about privacy or civil rights is dishonest. If they cared about those values they wouldn't be operating in China.

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

#344

Post by scotty79 »

jibcage wrote: post #322
scotty79 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore got this right with everything up to capital punishment for white collar crimes.

I agree with disincentivizing white collar crime with more severe punitive measures, but if you throw capital punishment into the mix you’re just trading one ethical dilemma for another.

I'm against capital punishment however I think life of forced manual labor would be appropriate punishment for some white collar crimes.

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

#345

Post by atoav »

Y_Y wrote: post #320
atoav wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bet…

Aren't the wages high because the people who decide the wages are the execs themselves? (Alternatively a genius scheme involving a "remuneration consultant".) The market amd the law allow it, and so it is the case. Moral justifications are just post-hoc fluff.

That is the real reason, yeah. But I will hold them accountable to their moral fluff, because that is their public justification wheneverthat topic is being discussed publicly.

These liers should eat their words.

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

#346

Post by pjmlp »

jasode wrote: post #327
pjmlp wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In US maybe, we had plenty touch screen smartphones in Europe, between Nokia, Siemens-Ericson and PocketPC/Windows CE.

>, we had plenty touch screen smartphones in Europe, between Nokia, Siemens-Ericson and PocketPC/Windows CE. Those were older TFT resistive touchscreens and not the newer capacitive touchscreens that could detect multi-finger gestures like swipes and pinch-to-zoom. TFT touchscreens requiring finger pressure instead of finger swipes is not as intuitive a UI. That's why the audience at Macworld 2007 gasped in astonishm…

I was a Nokia employee at the time....

I even happened to be in Espoo, the tragic week of the burning platforms memo.

I could write a lengthy comment, however it appears it would be a waste of my time.

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

#347

Post by atoav »

jibcage wrote: post #322
scotty79 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore got this right with everything up to capital punishment for white collar crimes.

I agree with disincentivizing white collar crime with more severe punitive measures, but if you throw capital punishment into the mix you’re just trading one ethical dilemma for another.

I am against capital punishment.

However most justice systems have a severe anti-poor bias. People that rob a store out of pure devastation for 100 bucks serve longer and harsher punishments than a CEO who embezels a million leading to safety violations that cost the life of 20 workers purely for greed.

Sure, the former is much more straigthforward in terms of the crime (= less wiggle room for excuses), but the latter is an entirely different magnitude of value and impact on human life.

We need to hold these people accountable to the same standards. If stealing 1000 bucks lands you in jail for years, stealing milions should actually result in a longer conviction.

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

#348

Post by jasode »

pjmlp wrote: post #346
jasode wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, we had plenty touch screen smartphones in Europe, between Nokia, Siemens-Ericson and PocketPC/Windows CE. Those were older TFT resistive touchscreens and not the newer capacitive touchscreens that could detect multi-finger gestures like swipes and pinch-to-zoom. TFT touchscreens requiring finger pressure instead of finger swipes is not as intuitive a UI. That's why the audience at Macworld 2007 gasped in astonishm…

I was a Nokia employee at the time.... I even happened to be in Espoo, the tragic week of the burning platforms memo. I could write a lengthy comment, however it appears it would be a waste of my time.

>I could write a lengthy comment, however it appears it would be a waste of my time.

It won't be a waste of time if you correct something I wrote that was factually incorrect. I won't debate it.

>I even happened to be in Espoo, the tragic week of the burning platforms memo.

Was Stephen Elop's assessment of Nokia's fading market share by both consumers and developers in 2011 incorrect? What Nokia phone in 2007/2008 was compelling that people were not buying and the developers not adopting compared to Apple iPhone? What do you believe happened?

excerpt of Elop's memo from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/feb/09/noki... :

>In 2008, Apple's market share in the $300+ price range was 25 percent; by 2010 it escalated to 61 percent. They are enjoying a tremendous growth trajectory with a 78 percent earnings growth year over year in Q4 2010. Apple demonstrated that if designed well, consumers would buy a high-priced phone with a great experience and developers would build applications. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.

And then, there is Android. In about two years, Android created a platform that attracts application developers, service providers and hardware manufacturers. Android came in at the high-end, they are now winning the mid-range, and quickly they are going downstream to phones under €100. Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry's innovation to its core.

[...] While competitors poured flames on our market share, what happened at Nokia? We fell behind, we missed big trends, and we lost time. At that time, we thought we were making the right decisions; but, with the benefit of hindsight, we now find ourselves years behind.

The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.

[...] At the midrange, we have Symbian. It has proven to be non-competitive in leading markets like North America. Additionally, Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements, leading to slowness in product development and also creating a disadvantage when we seek to take advantage of new hardware platforms. As a result, if we continue like before, we will get further and further behind, while our competitors advance further and further ahead.

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

#349

Post by toyg »

sgerenser wrote: post #265
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By bloomberg, you mean bloomberg terminal or what exactly? Thanks for this information. I was genuinely confused after I had written this comment because well this information of epic games was already available 8 hours earlier so that had already been factored in the market 2 hours ago so I was confused as to why this change in 2 hours. Also, I would genuinely appreciate it if we could have a seperate HN thread just…

Apple's earnings call is going on right now: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-tops-q2-earnings-estima... The headline sounds positive, but apparently its not positive enough to keep the stock from dropping.

There is always a certain amount of rollercoasting going on around Apple earning calls, with stock going up during build-up and then dropping after the call.

My reasoning is that a lot of traders are simply afraid of losing a potential "wow" moment, so they stockpile just in case and then unload once they are sure that it's nothing special - simply to avoid their bosses going "why did you miss the boat on Apple?!?!" if the price skyrockets.

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

#350

Post by JustExAWS »

okanat wrote: post #340
scarface_74 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a smart business decision. Don’t blame Apple for operating within the environment that the US voters voted for. The US knew exactly what it was getting - said as American citizen.

Oh yeah. Don't blame all the German companies that used slave labor in concentration camps either. Unhinged capitalism is a mind disease that only ends up in fascism.

Right, because showing up for a photo opp and kissing up to the person in charge is the same as genocide.

See Godwin’s law.

This is the country that the people wanted and the demographics who voted for it are going to be hurt the most. It’s like if the Jews voted for Hitler if you want to use that analogy.

Post reply on HN