1149
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
1149 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wow, USB-C and DDG in the same year? Look at Apple trying to stay relevant 😉
They didn’t switch to USB-C out of the goodness of their hearts. They switched because the EU passed a new law that requires that new smartphones have USB-C ports.
Apple will never do anything for any other reasons besides: regulation and profit. They try and foster this image of humanitarianism and ethics, but meanwhile they build everything in sweatshops and make their own "standards" so that their loyal customers can only use the functions they need by purchasing additional dongles.
I'm happy that they were forced into an actual standard, but I've already heard at least two apple users IRL claiming that USB-C is inferior for [insert random reasoning here]. Apple has cultivated the idea that they are above standards for a long time and it will take a long time to break.
You mean, just like every company that exists?
Apple is a corporation with a market cap that rivals the GDP of France and a net income that rivals the GDP of Qatar. That much capital consolidated within a singular private entity doesn't just make them any other company. Their profit seeking is wildly, wildly different than a vast majority of any other company today.
Get your head out of your ass. ALL companies will never do anything for any other reason besides profit. The size of said company doesn’t matter. A small company will fuck over its customers just as quickly if you let them.
This is just the "both sides of the same" argument with different dressing.
It's as false here as it is there. So you're going to tell me a company like fairphone is as unethical as Apple or Samsung?
Yes of course they work with two completely different yields but that's really the point The only way you can get to that yield is to be unethical so choose smaller brands choose ones that make decisions you agree with and help them grow.
There is no completely ethical capitalism but there definitely are choices that get us somewhere better.
Absolutely. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and even fair phone is profit driven. Even NPOs are profit driven. No one works for a loss in western society. No one. So literally every company will do everything it does for the sake of profitability. Even fairphone.
You have to realize that fairphone’s whole model is a marketing gimmick. Does it happen to align with some good values? Sure, but it’s still a gimmick to separate you from your money at the end of the day.
This is just false. Fairphone had audits that prove it's an improvement in both sustainability and worker conditions.
Of course consumerism always negatively impacts the environment but to make it all equivalent is to forsake all nuance. It's not at all to the same magnitude.
I don't believe capitalism is the answer to the world's problems but to not celebrate a positive initiative is throwing the baby out with bath water.
key word there is 'improvement'. it's still a for profit company and they will ultimately make whatever decisions are in the best interest of the company to make a profit.
they are undoubtedly better, but their baseline is still the same, to make money.
there is no nuance, at all, to the fact that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. it's pretty black and white. there are ways to be less unethical (e.g., fairphone), but not to be ethical.
That's just it though. One does more damage than the other unless you alone are single-handedly going to overthrow capitalism within the next week (which you know more power to you) this is still harm reduction and I'm happy for it.
Otherwise you just bitching about best case scenarios and living in a world that exists only in your head
You’re discussing nuance for a company you like when what I being discussed I the baseline problematic nature of commerce.
Is fair phone a better alternative? Yes, and I’ve said as much.
Is it ultimately different from apple in its goal to be profitable? No.
Both things exist and that’s ok.
I don't know if your purposely misunderstanding me or if I'm not explaining myself well but give it one last time and then just agreed to disagree.
Fairphone a company I don't even particularly like uses less rare metals, in factories that ensure better standards of living for the people who work there.
Is it everything I want? No. Does it make a measurable impact? Yes.
Therefore it is not the same. they may be a capitalist company and they could change their motto tomorrow of course any company can choose to do terrible things and may throughout the course of their company's lifetime.
As of right now with the options we have they physically do less harm.
We’re saying the same thing. I’m just emphasizing that they’re still capitalists who will make decisions based on profitability before social impact. It’s inherent because without profitability they can’t exist. Their stated mission (from a quick google) is to be profitable while making a positive impact.
They won’t abandon profitability for impact.
The size, profits, and overall global reach of a company heavily impacts how that company further impacts the world. Do you honestly think that, I don't know, American Girl dolls have had the same negative impact on the world as the East India Company?
Apple fanboys are the most frustrating people to talk to.
They find any illogical reason to justify what apple does.
The only reason they pass on an image of ethical environmentaly friendly company is because its good for business. People like that shit the products are good people buy. Its that simple. Companies give no shit about people or the planet.
I know. That's my point. A great example of this is when they used to brag about how eco-friendly their product were. I remember them bragging about their displays being mercury-free, BFR free, etc and their laptops having totally recyclable aluminum and glass enclosures - only to later deliberately make their laptops nearly impossible to repair and upgrade.
I’m cracking a joke
Ah.
And they actively fought against it for as long as they could, tooth and nail.
Ah yes, the second largest company in the world “trying to stay relevant”
Im not really brand loyal to a gizmo company but the way android users are so insecure makes me never want to get them.
What is your argument for calling 70% of all phone users insecure?
Like this response is a good example of the insecurity im talking about thanks
This is hilarious because there’s a comment just above yours that’s exactly the same, just turned on its head.
I said it to the android guy and I’m gonna say it to you: pot, meet kettle.
You have truly defended your gizmo company sir, a true white knight of fair google. Not cringe at all
Lmao, I’m an apple user, all in on the ecosystem from phone to smarthome.
Good try though.
How is that a good example of insecurity of any kind?
I see the exact opposite, and you being triggered when no one even mentioned anything you're so offended about, proves the point.
It's totally not your insecurity talking, at all… but do go on…
Lol what made you conclude that OP uses Android?
I never mentioned OP
Then why gratuitously bash android for some weird user-related reason?
Im not bashing android i have to use one of their devices for work; it’s ok. The users on social media with the vitriol for apple and their need to defend android is really cringe.
I hear ya. To be honest, I don't really engage in such types of discussions - in terms of phones, gaming, browsers, hell, even movies!
Those kind of vitriolic discussions are led by a minority group who has nothing else to do in life but post stupid comments on the internet.
I could say the same about apple users. But then I go to the real world and notice that the vast majority of people couldn't care less about such dick- (or pussy-) measuring shenanigans.
To be honest the only company I see apple users bitch about is apple.
Which makes me ask the same question I asked in another comment: if you're going to bitch about Apple, then why keep buying Apple?
Maybe those Android users were former Apple users, then. (I say this half-jokingly, but I'm still curious about the question.)
Because people like to complain. Plenty to complain about android as well neither are perfect.
Absolutely, so going back to the original discussion, if "people are going to complain anyway," then people bashing Apple shouldn't be a reason not to consider Android.
Its not valid complaining, its vitriol towards other human beings for being “fan boys” or whatever, and how stupid they are for not picking their gizmo company.
Which we already established, it's a very stupid, very loud minority. Just like Apple users. If you haven't seen any Apple users bashing Android, then you're one lucky user.
Someone who barges in a discussion getting triggered when someone said something bad about his beloved company, says he's not. lmao
* In terms of profit, after the Saudi Arabian Oil Group. Huh, I had no idea.
Of all of the things that I vastly prefer since moving to Lemmy from reddit, anything related to Apple is not one of them. I'm actually surprised because talking about anything Apple on reddit was always a circlejerk pitchfork parade, but Lemmy still seems to outdo. The "trying to stay relevant comment" is honestly hilarious. Sure, the richest company with more than 50% of the smartphone market, that basically feeds design to the rest of the industry is trying to stay relevant.
And another thing worth addressing, It's probably 50/50 whether the EU is forcing them to USB-C, or just providing cover for them to move to USB-C. Modern Apple (after 1997) rarely has used proprietary standards for cables/connectors, and when they have it's pretty obviously because there isn't a better option, or more likely, there isn't an option that is suited to their purpose*. Apple is/was largely the reason we're even talking about USB, being one of the first to really adopt it. Then the dock connector for iPods, which is probably the most major example of them using a proprietary connector. If you read that link (just wiki) you'll see that the dock connector did things that no other standard connector did at the time, and it did it in a form factor that would work with iPods. Fast forward 10 years and Apple eats shit in the press for changing to Lightning, which pre-dated USB-C and has obvious advantages over one of the worst computer connectors in modern history - micro-USB**. Apple contributed significantly to the USB-C spec, which includes many of the advantages that Lightning had first, built off of the work they did with Intel in creating another standard, Thunderbolt.
And then on to today, where Apple is "forced" to use USB-C. Again, in 2016, Apple moved all of their high end laptops to exclusively USB-C, for which they would again be pilloried. People are still pissed those laptops dropped USB-A and MagSafe in favor of trying to drive adoption of USB-C and a one-connector-rules-them-all world. They also moved their Pro iPads over to C in 2018. Basically, Apple started moving its high-end, less price conscious customers to C long before legislation was a gleam in anyone's eye. Their cheaper products (base model iPads) and mass-consumer products (iPhones) they moved much slower on, and even then there were a slate of "Apple keeps changing connectors all of the time!" (twice in 20 years) outrage-bait articles.
Yes, Apple was "forced" to use the connector they created the first design references for (Lightning/Thunderbolt, and to a lesser extend Mini-DisplayPort) and then helped design, then moved to before most, in a bid to stay "relevant" in a field they already dominate.
* Also worth noting that Apple was a main driver of adoption of USB-A, and took heat when they converted iMacs to it over PS/2, far before most PC vendors did.
** This alone, the amount of negative press they garnered, meant that there was likely no way Apple was going to move iPhones off of Lightning for 10 years.
I really really don’t think Apple needs to do much to stay relevant.
Strangely, it kinda was. They helped invent the original specification. Just not so sure they wanted to put it on iphone yet (or ever)