To artykuł z drugiego maja, ale dopiero teraz trafił w moje ręce za sprawą The Mac Observer. Leonid Bershidsky, który przez wiele lat nie szczędził słów krytyki w kierunku Apple, pisze:
It’s the perfect tech company for this day and age, an example to the rest of Silicon Valley.
Why the change of heart? Because this is a time when Amazon is pushing innovations that don’t solve any real-world problems but may create some: like smart speakers, with their threat of big brother-style surveillance in exchange for a minimal increase in convenience, or complex and expensive cashierless stores that won’t deliver much of an improvement to our shopping experience but may cost underprivileged people their jobs. This is a time when an entire driverless car industry is trying to convince the world that its products are safe before it can even come up with convincing stats — or prevent deadly accidents like the one in Tempe, Arizona, earlier this year. This is a time when Google is trying to subvert new privacy regulations to turn them against content producers. A time when Facebook, blasted by media and regulators for ignoring people’s privacy concerns, starts a dating service which will collect people’s most intimate data.
This is a time when companies whose innovations are more intrusive than useful, more gimmicky than problem-solving, operate with business models that either burn investors’ cash or turn the users into products.
At a time like this, Apple is a rock of common sense, sobriety, dignified engineering supremacy, prudent financial and supply chain management, effective marketing, and customer-oriented retailing. It’s a traditional business that does most things well, demands a high price for it, and receives that high price. With Apple, what you see is largely what you get, and when it’s not, the company will not just apologize but offer a fix.
Podoba mi się też sama końcówka tekstu, wciąż wychwalając podejście Apple do prywatności, Bershidsky zwraca uwagę na ceny produktów.
That sets him [Cook], and Apple, apart in an industry that has already gone wrong and is rapidly turning evil. Instead of taking part in this ugly process, Apple exemplifies what economists describe as the maturity of the information technology revolution. It shows that a stage of useful progress is over and doesn’t tip over into overhyped uselessness.
For that, I am thankful. (But I won’t buy a $1,000 phone; sorry, Mr. Cook.)
Z kolei Andrew Orr, z The Mac Observer, komentuje:
Apple certainly has had its share of issues. But they are issues related to its products, not societal issues. We don’t have to worry any time soon about Apple creating mass surveillance facial recognition systems, advertising systems that belittle media and treat people like products, or secretly track them.
Operatorzy sieci komórkowych ewidentnie lubią grę słów. Na przykład słowo nielimitowany. Nielimitowany według Verizon, zresztą według polskiego Play również, to X GB w pełnej prędkości, po wykorzystaniu których Internet działa na tyle wolno, że staje się bezużyteczny. I choć frustrujące bywa wolno wczytujące się zdjęcie na Instagramie, to co myśleć o sieci Verizon która zastosowała taki sam mechanizm spowolnienia Internetu wobec kalifornijskich strażaków walczących z pożarami?
Verizon Wireless’ throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules.
„County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon,” Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. „This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire’s ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.”
Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for „unlimited” data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden’s declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
Po fakcie Verizon posypał głowę popiołem, sprawą być może zajmie się Federalna Komisja Handlu. Ta historia wiąże się z neutralnością sieci, co pokazuje jak bardzo ważna jest wolność Internetu.
Even if Verizon’s throttling didn’t technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices.
Santa Clara County disputed Verizon’s characterization of the problem in a press release last night. „Verizon’s throttling has everything to do with net neutrality—it shows that the ISPs will act in their economic interests, even at the expense of public safety,” County Counsel James Williams said on behalf of the county and fire department.