721–730 of 743 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but invalidated by burner and jailbroken phones which are widespread in China. They can definitely catch somebody with a concerted effort but I'd be surprised if the average Chinese teenager couldnt figure out how to make a burner email
Devil's advocate: If you already don't worry about exposing this info then why not just use Telegram or Signal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple is literally the group implementing the change, it's accurate to say "Apple is cracking down". I think it would be more accurate to say that the CCP is cracking down, and Apple is one target of that push. I don't think it's completely accurate to say that Apple can "choose" these things. There's no "choosing" with the CCP, and there's no "choosing" to manufacture outside of China, at this point [1]. This isn'…
Apple could move out, but at great cost to themselves. Being a socialist, I think the cost of such a decision should come from the government who should mandate it for all companies so there is a single national standard on ethics. However some people think that Apple should bear the cost in its own, since it’s the not an existential choice. It’s simply the choice between taking a loss this year then recovering later…
I think I agree with this. What could you see that mandate looking like, and what would the "standard" be? Would it be something stronger than the sanctions we have now? As my previous links show, complete isolation is impossible, in the short term, so I imagine this would have to be a slow process.
> It’s simply the choice between taking a loss this year then recovering later, or continuing to make the maximal amount of money this year.
I would suggest reading the references I provided. This definitely isn't a "loss this year" thing. It's losses for decades. It not only requires rebuilding direct vendors, but vendors that supply to them, and to them, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we possibly believe that any software switches actually fully disable anything? If there isn't a hardware killswitch, there is no reasonable expectation that the cellular radio is actually disabled... There are trustworthy sources claiming that the NSA still tracks devices that are completely "powered off". No reason to believe that the CCP doesn't have that ability as well.
I do recall reading something about the cellular/radio chip is separate from the rest phones hardware. It can still communicate with towers even when phone is off. The phone can’t control that behavior.
It cannot and does not. Please do not perpetuate this ridiculous fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's got no problem with settings, but it's preferable if it remembers for you to turn it back off. What Apple does for a lot of things (see Focus, or DND) is "until I leave this place" (or event if in a calendared event) and "until tomorrow", those make more sense to me than a particular time frame.
So in this case where someone has for some special event to enable this feature they can get a few options. I was asking because Apple and GNOME fanboys claim that the average user is incapable to choose for themselves. But honestly in this case they needed to release it globally, then designers would be happy they removed a feature, Apple could continue selling the idea that they respect human rights and privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has willingly made a huge investment This is the part you're wrong about: Apple, like any public corporation with effectively-zero internal controlling-share ownership, is constitutionally incapable of doing things that would make its share price drop; and is constitutionally compelled to do things that make its share price rise. Any CEO who attempts to do anything "against" the share price is fired by the board (w…
This is the most wrong, reductionist take on Ford v. Dodge. Companies make decisions all the time that aren’t exactly what shareholders focused on quarterly results want. The quintessential examples are Costco and Amazon. The former pays associates above market wages and benefits, the latter had losses or broke even for years by investing for the long term.
Consider:
1. The market has an ability to "lose faith in" an equity, and do a mass sell-off of that equity, destroying/bankrupting the company — see e.g. what almost happened with British bonds a few months ago. Essentially, an uncoordinated boycott, as a result of a suddenly different output to a Keynesian beauty-contest (i.e. everyone thinks that a sufficient number of other people will sell based on the news to trigger a collapse of the price; so they have to sell first.)
2. In companies owned by majority-external shareholders — especially when those shareholders are market-makers (as is true in Apple's case: https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...) — the board is very well aware of #1, and so hires/fires the CEO based in part on whether they will avoid actions that will result in the market "losing faith" in the company. (How do they know? Because those market-makers are the ones who would, in aggregate, do most such selling-off!)
That's what I mean by "Apple is constitutionally incapable of doing X" — not that they'd face some sort of corporate malfeasance suit if they did (who even cares?) but that any CEO hired by a public corporation is operating under a dagger of Damocles that they know will fall the moment they do anything to lose the public's faith in their company's stock.
Costco paying above-market, and Amazon not putting out any dividends, are not actions that result in mass sell-offs — especially because they're things the companies have done from the start (so if anyone got in on these companies in the first place, they got in knowing that these are things these companies do.)
Apple exiting China is the opposite: a stark, sudden shift in strategy, in a direction the self-interested parts of the global(!) market wouldn't care for. (Emphasis because mutual funds et al have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and those shareholders aren't just American, but all over the world — including China!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd somewhat hesitate to give out credit like that. It's more of that China kicked out Google, thus freeing Google to "stand up" to the CCP. I would love to see more of an example where a company had a lot on the line and still oppose the CCP
Google was kicked out for not censoring certain things lol. That's literally standing up to China...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't instinctual when iOS introduced the swipe up to close apps in 2018? It's also a clear indication that you can swipe up to go home. If the indicator is invisible, you cannot swipe up. You need to interact with the app to make the indicator appear (eg. tap the screen). I appreciate the visual indicator and that it can be disabled when there is full screen content
False. Swiping up in the YouTube app with the bar hidden goes home just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally it would be several months of work, but if it was a top level company directive (e.g. from the CEO) it would probably take 3-4 weeks at minimum. Note that protests have been going on sporadically for this entire year. See this article about a protest from Peking university from May 2022: https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-shanghai-china-cbcac... and Shanghai in April 2022: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w…
> it would probably take 3-4 weeks at minimum Maybe even less than that. I can't imagine the prototype would take longer than a day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but invalidated by burner and jailbroken phones which are widespread in China. They can definitely catch somebody with a concerted effort but I'd be surprised if the average Chinese teenager couldnt figure out how to make a burner email
Devil's advocate: If you already don't worry about exposing this info then why not just use Telegram or Signal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple quite literally had a scandal where it was exposed in court that they deliberately slow older devices down to prematurely make them appear obsolete so that users will discard them sooner. I'm sure there are Android devices that do this too, but Apple really shouldn't be applauded for the longevity of their devices.
> that they deliberately slow older devices down to prematurely make them appear obsolete so that users will discard them sooner Not an Apple apologist but I think you're leaving out a detail. Apples reasoning was due to older batteries[0]. You can see from the linked tweet the phones speed went back up when the battery was replaced. It may very well still be nefarious on their part. [0] https://www.techradar.com/new…