[OT] Apple at it again
bobs at twft.com
Wed Feb 16 13:10:44 EST 2011
Yes, not directed at you in particular Richmond. But I should make the point that you paid Apple money for those things didn't you? And in return you got a product, right? Isn't your contract with Apple now ended? (Once the Warranty expires I mean.) Certainly, it doesn't entitle you to any direct influence on future Apple corporate policy, does it? Now if you were a stock holder, well that is an entirely different story.
I guess what I am on the soap box about is the notion so many people have these days that we are owed some say in what amounts to the private affairs of other people or corporations and even countries. If demanding that Hollywood Stars give up the privacy of their own lives when not in the "limelight" simply because of the jobs they chose, seems "not entirely fair" to anyone, certainly the proposition that a corporation answers to a general public or to specific individuals not invested in their stocks must also seem a bit "unfair"?
I am reminded of the words of a great man, who was telling a story about a landowner who had hired some day laborers, some early, some the middle of the day, some late afternoon, and some towards the evening. The deal he struck with each was that he would pay them one shekel for their labors.
Upon paying the last ones first, and then the first ones last, they began to complain about the unfairness, because the first ones had borne the heat of the day, and so they should be paid more then the last. But the landowner countered that the amount paid was what was agreed to, and also that while the money was in his hand, it was his own to do what he pleased with.
Therein lies the rub, as they say.
On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Richmond wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 07:37 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>> If vendors do not like the deal, they don't have to sign the contract. If users do not like Apple practices, they can avoid buying the product. Isn't free enterprise grand? We can vote with our wallets! What will NOT by ANY means change one daggum thing however, is bashing Apple on a list no one outside of us reads. And frankly, the assumption that a corporation owes any consideration to anyone who buys nothing from them seems rather totalitarian in it's own right. Don't you think?
>> Just my 2¢.
>> The Devil's (erm I mean Steve Jobs') Advocate
> Well; as I am the owner of 3 Macs in regular use; another 6 in my attic in Scotland, another 3 under
> the stairs in my house in Scotland, and have "blown up" another 3, I feel I have some sort of
> say as somebody who DOES buy their products! [Ooh; almost forgot, the grey trackball, greyscale laptop
> I take with me to fool around with Hypercard on long train and plane journeys].
> Now; come the summer, I will have to find the money for at least 2 more computers, and in all
> probability they will be Macs. However, probability is a fickle thing . . .
> Now, in the great scheme of things my opinion is probably not wirth all that much; but, just as Apple
> is entitled to "strut their funky stuff", so am I.
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Richmond wrote:
More information about the Use-livecode