Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the let-the-fanboys-cry-foul dept.

Paul Buchheit reports via Common Dreams

An emotional response to any criticism of the Apple Corporation might be anticipated from the users of the company's powerful, practical, popular, and entertaining devices. Accolades to the company and a healthy profit are certainly well-deserved. But much-despised should be the theft from taxpayers and the exploitation of workers and customers, all cloaked within the image of an organization that seems to work magic on our behalf.

1. Apple Took Years of Public Research, Integrated the Results, and Packaged it as Their Own

2. Even After Taking Our Research, Apple Does Everything in its Power to Avoid Taxes

3. Overcharging Customers
The manufacturing cost of a 16 GB iPhone 6 is about $200, and with marketing it comes to about $288. But without an expensive phone contract with Verizon, AT&T, or one of the other wireless carriers, the cost to the customer is at least $650.

4. Underpaying and Mistreating Employees

5. Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself

Apple's View:
The tax-avoiding, research-appropriating, cost-escalating, wage-minimizing, self-enriching Apple Corporation has, according to CEO Tim Cook,[1] a very strong moral compass.

[1] Link in article redirects.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:11PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:11PM (#185443) Journal

    gewg articles make it to the front page not because there's some grand editorial conspiracy to "spice it up," but because he submits articles. If people want more of different sorts of articles, they should submit them. I check the queue every morning and if there are fewer than 20 in it I make the rounds to other sites I frequent to see if there are any interesting ones to submit to SN. I wish more Soylentils did so, because honestly I get a little sick of checking my same old sources all the time and would like to learn about new, interesting sources that other Soylentils have pre-vetted.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:15PM

    by khchung (457) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:15PM (#185515)

    Articles should not be posted just because someone submitted it.

    Yeah, it sucks to have nothing new on the site for some time, and yeah, of course it would be good if more people submit quality articles. But when the only choice is between having fewer new articles, vs having more crap articles, I personally vote for having fewer.

    "More" doesn't always mean "better", and "more crap" definitely means "worse". Not having the ability to filter articles by submitter, then "more crap" just means more effort for me to skip articles from certain submitters.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:55PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:55PM (#185549) Journal

      Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.

      I personally use this template:

      Article Source [arstechnica.com]:

      The first 2-3 paragraphs or 2-3 most representative paragraphs from article

      Conversation starter sentence in the form of a statement, quip, or question.

      It takes about 5-10 minutes per submission. If you, like many people, start your day scanning headlines while having your morning coffee, it's very easy to wrap up something interesting you see and throw it into the SN submission hopper.

      It seems a better path than the false dichotomy of "Many crap articles" vs. "Few non-crap articles." And it's infinitely better than the regrettably common response of, "Somebody better do the work of submitting more articles I like, or else!!!"

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by khchung on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:21AM

        by khchung (457) on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:21AM (#185814)

        Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.

        So, rather than discuss the relative merits of the *actual choices* currently faced by the editors, you choose to, instead, basically just say "put up or shut up". Is it any wonder that some would choose to just leave? As NoMaster did?

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 22 2015, @02:57PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 22 2015, @02:57PM (#186475) Journal

          the relative merits of the *actual choices* currently faced by the editors

          Take a look at the submissions using the link at the upper-right corner of the page. Those are what the editors have to choose from. If we, the SN community, make that list long and full of "better" submissions then the editors have a lot more to work with.

          If NoMaster pans the submissions of others and does nothing himself to submit better articles, even going so far as spending 5 minutes to send one in on a regular basis, then speaking for myself, yes, it's "put up or shut up." I have spent a lifetime organizing, building communities, etc, and pandering to tantrums is quite counterproductive. First, it's demoralizing to the good people who volunteer their time to get no thanks, only barbs like NoMaster's hurled their way; they say to themselves, "Why should I bother?" and drop out. Result: the community dies. Second, it rewards free-riders. Third, it enables willful sabotage (I could drop a link to the NSA & GCHQ's leaked playbook on how that's done, but you can google it yourself). The person who criticizes an endeavor like Soylent from a positive place, and who wishes it to improve and thrive, will put skin in the game. Those who do not will behave as we have seen NoMaster do.

          In short, don't complain about the cooking unless you're prepared to do the cooking, yourself.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.