[OT] Apple at it again
martyknapp at comcast.net
Wed Feb 16 13:34:17 EST 2011
Whatever Apple decides to do is one thing (and certainly open to
debate), but what REALLY frustrates a lot of people is the constant
changing of the rules. If a developer goes to all the work of getting an
app compliant, entering into an agreement, then Apple says, "Oh, now
we're going to do this instead." And then they may change their mind
next week. And then again the week after that . . . is it wrong to be
bothered by that?
So Bob, if at your place of employment they kept changing the rules on
you, and maybe lowering your wages on a whim, would that upset you, or
would you defend the right of an employer to do that?
Sure we can take our business somewhere else, but to expect people to
say "Oh well" when they have something at stake isn't fair.
And in the parable that you've referenced, everyone got what they
expected or more, not less - the landowner didn't say, "Well I told you
I'd pay you this, but now I'm giving you half."
> 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.
More information about the use-livecode