Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Aug 2009 22:57 UTC
Apple Apple doesn't have a particularly healthy relationship with the press; it has sued websites for publishing information it didn't like, and has tried to keep information under wraps that a journalist tried to uncover via the Freedom of Information Act. Now, however, it has tried to prevent The Times from publishing an article about Steve Jobs.
Thread beginning with comment 379376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

So since you don't care about business practices which give you a nifty product to buy; child labor and dangerous work conditions wouldn't be an issue for you? You'd be ok with promoting such business practices by throwing more money at companies which do that sort of thing?


I do understand there is a degree of ethical consumption but at the same time I do think there are people here who go overboard where they claim because they can't load Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer that it is akin to the end of the world or some sort of fascism.

I'm not saying that this is what Apple is doing; I suggest it as an example of what "I don't care how the company does it long as I get my shinny thingy" leads.


Of course, if it is taken to the logical extreme then 'bad things' can occur - but we're not talking about that. We're talking about a situation where one man has an intense need to build a massive wall between his corporate persona and wishing it to be kept separate from his personal life - be it his family or his health.

I don't promote companies which build single OS targeted hardware unless no other option exists for that device type. I don't promote how MS does business unless they provide the only viable option for a software need. I don't promote companies known to employ unfair trade practices outside of computers either. I'd rather give my money to a company which demonstrates traits I can agree with. But, how you spend your money and what business practices you promote, of course, your own decision as a consumer.


So you'd sooner promote a product that doesn't do what the end user wants? there is a time and place to have wide eyed idealism then one has to come down to earth, realise that the world runs on Windows with Mac OS X taking a very distant second place. All the alternative operating systems either lack hardware support or lack software support from big name vendors. That is the reality - you can talk about having and ethical outlook but at the end of the day the end user wants a computer that works with their hardware supported running the software from the vendors they like - and they don't like being condescended to by self righteous people claiming that they know what is best for them and how xyz software can save their soul even though it doesn't do what the end user wants.

Edited 2009-08-19 11:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Your previous comment made it sound like the internal policies of a company where not relevant provided you got your shinny product.

"So you'd sooner promote a product that doesn't do what the end user wants? there is a time and place to have wide eyed idealism"

This also ignores the part where I say "unless XYZ is the only option". To clarify, if Microsoft's product is the only one that can meet the user's needs then fine, I use that until an equivalent or better product comes along from a company who demonstrates policies I can more closely agree with. I said nothing about forcing an option on a user with "wide eyed idealism" when it does not meet there needs.

Reply Parent Score: 2