Lying would be if Apple said that Bromwich demanded daily two-hour meetings with Tim Cook when he in fact had not. Saying that Bromwich is "interfering" is merely characterization. One man's "interfering" is another man's "getting an executive to spend time on an issue he doesn't want to deal with, but which he is obligated to do so." You shouldn't take a characterization at face value, not when it's made by an interested party.
It really is a multiple of things, from Qualcomm, Politics, App Store policy. One might argue Tim Cook doesn't known about any of these as Steve would have, since Tim doesn't micro manage. But it is not the first time we caught Tim Cook flat out lying.
No they didn't, and that's the problem. It's not a "straw argument".
Cook, in an interview, said something that included both a pro-remote statement and a pro-office statement. The AppleInsider article included both of these statements. Bloomberg, OTOH, only included the pro-remote statement in their article.
"Everything the guy did just screams amateur. The first issue is posting information about a deal before a contract has been signed. "
Agree. Default state in business normally "not ok to talk about this" unless specifically mentioned or there is some reason to believe that it is ok by other factors. Sometimes of course it's explicitly pointed out. Maybe someone simply forgot in the chain of command. Doesn't a meeting with Steve scream "better not talk about this"?
In the end it doesn't matter whether Apple is right or wrong anyway. It's the golden rule. He who has the gold rules. In this case assuming you want to be in business with Apple you need to go to extreme lengths to play the game the way they want it played.
By posing false dichotomies:
"do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?"
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple is acting in Apple's best interest without attributing malevolence.
By downplaying rational arguments:
"I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched (because others are worse)"
By using loaded terms:
"Dogwhistles
The privacy squad mobilised"
Presenting strawmen:
"if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code. This is a fallacy that people buy in to thanks to effective marketing "
Lying by omission:
"It's not feasible for an individual to maintain the list of trustworthy or untrustworthy parties that Apple does."
It's perfectly feasible for a group of individuals. I'll take any group distro maintainers over Apple's word.
He really doesn't just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.
He did. Your comment was a long winded apologetic on why Apple was justified in lying, bending the truth, and promoting half truths.
You started by saying "I don't agree" then ended up "Apple needs to state their viewpoints" which is subtly justifying their behavior.
In my opinion, this is an open and shut case of Steve not being honest in his keynote, and he should be called out.
It's especially disappointing to hear this as a fan of Apple as I don't think this kind of reality distortion is necessary given Apple's success. It just makes them look desperate and much lower then their actual position would dictate.
I agree that "lying" is incorrect. However your analogy in turn massively underplays what happened. Context matters.
A casual reply to your wife is not the same as walking out on stage in a high profile event as a CEO for a company and stating "I will take the trash out". External third parties don't depend on you taking the trash out either. Investors aren't making decisions based on you taking the trash out. Consumers aren't buying phones based on you taking the trash out. All these things matter and that's why CEOs become legally liable for things they say and commitments they publicly make.
I think on this count there would be room for a class action from consumers who feel they bought iPhones on the basis that they would be able to video chat with other phones and now find that they can't because Apple has failed to make good on a public commitment.
Tim Cook lies about there were no settlement talk between Qualcomm and Apple. Although one could argue he spoke of it in January and the Settlement were in April, so may be they did all that negotiation in three months. Although I highly doubt it, I am siding with Steve Mollenkopf on this one, out of all the evidence given in court I think Qualcomm were extremely professional.
There were bunch of other things where I caught Tim Cook lying. Steve Jobs uses to be very deceptive when he needs to, his wording weren't clear cut and leads you to wrong assumption. Tim Cook doesn't have that talent.
And once you have been caught lying, you lose trust.
While I do have doubt on Bloomberg story, I am not going to trust sold on Tim Cook's word.
It shouldn't be too hard to make the case for that being malicious compliance, though. It seems to have worked in this particular case, for example: People called Apple's bluff.
It's not a reasonable interpretation. Bray is just very far outside of Apple to interpret it the correct way. That email wasn't from Tim Cook to the world, it was from Tim Cook, new CEO, to his employees.
Neither does it exclude the possibility of internal investigations of which Apple's press office is unaware. If Tim Cook simply said this never happened I'd believe him. This elaborate denial suggests otherwise.
> In an email to around 5,000 staff across the UK, Apple senior vice president of operations Jeff Williams said both himself and the chief executive were "deeply offended by the suggestion that Apple would break a promise to the workers in our supply chain or mislead our customers in any way".
Well, that makes 7% being lied to. Did I understand this correctly?
To be pedantic, that wasn't an insinuation, it was an accusation. I also believe it is a false accusation, since Apple has many happy customers and employees on HN, but he is within the letter of the law.
Care to set the record straight? What's actually going on if not what they're presenting?
They're making an assumption about intent. Unless you can prove you're part of the Apple team responsible for this hardware behavior, you're just going to be doing the same.
I am "mixing up" nothing. The author may conclude that any number of things are justified by his opinion of Apple's behavior, but that conclusion is hardly beyond criticism in the way you try to imply.
Agreed - and this is quite obvious to anyone who isn't already carrying quite a lot of bias with them to begin with (Apple zealots, basically). He was acting as an unacknowledged technical expert and that's very very dangerous.
reply