Apple now worth TWO TRILLION US$

[themaniac]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Nah Google doesn't have a ton of shares and they're not sold often

Still though, with the amount of money and influence they have i would have expected them to be up near MS and Amazon

[vortextech77]

9 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Overrated company. Mostly from iPhone sales and their cult fanbase. 

Every company has a "cult fanbase".

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, themaniac said:

Still though, with the amount of money and influence they have i would have expected them to be up near MS and Amazon

But if the shares aren’t sold much then they won’t increase in prove 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, Caroline said:

All I know is that this world needs a new wealth distribution system

 

Quote

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life -will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semicriminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and economic practices, affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the accumulation of capital, we shall then be free, at last, to discard

(...)

But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
 

 

John M. Keynes, 1930.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Just because louis was wrong doesn't mean apple was right.

 

Also if you want to equate a repair shop importing 20 batteries to apple outright ripping off consumers then  you have lost more than the moral high ground in any discussion. 

 

 

 

A repair shop committing a felony is a jailable offence. "It's just business" is not. Even if you don't like it.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Kisai said:

A repair shop committing a felony is a jailable offence. "It's just business" is not. Even if you don't like it.

irrelevant, being a criminal doesn't mean they are wrong or should be ignored.  Everything needs to be judged on it's merits, character assassination does not change the argument or it's legitimacy.

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

irrelevant, being a criminal doesn't mean they are wrong or should be ignored.  Everything needs to be judged on it's merits, character assassination does not change the argument or it's legitimacy.

 

 

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2320

Quote

18 U.S. Code § 2320.Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

(a)Offenses.—Whoever intentionally—

(1)

traffics in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,

(2)

traffics in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,

(3)

traffics in goods or services knowing that such good or service is a counterfeit military good or service the use, malfunction, or failure of which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, the disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a combat operation, a member of the Armed Forces, or to national security, or

(4)

traffics in a drug and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such drug,

or attempts or conspires to violate any of paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

 

(b)Penalties.—

(1)In general.—Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a)—

(A)

if an individual, shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000; and

(B)

for a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a), if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

Are you going to argue that US code is fictional now too?

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Kisai said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2320

Are you going to argue that US code is fictional now too?

How does the US law change the fact that being a criminal doesn't mean they should be ignored or that what they say is wrong?

 

 

You tried to argue that louis can't take the moral high ground because he is a criminal.

 

I said the moral high ground does not change the argument being made, meaning being a criminal doesn't automatically make him wrong or negate his evidence.

 

you  now try to argue that the US law some how changes that. 

 

Honestly what are you trying to prove?   as I said before being a criminal doesn't mean what they say is wrong or that they should be ignored.

 

 

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

watching his latest series in the hearing regarding right to repair has been an eye opener.  I have yet to hear or see a rebuttal to any of the submissions from the apple camp that makes any sense.  Not even the people they hired are able to answer a question without muttering some random unrelated gibberish about safety and consumer experience.

Yeah the hired lobbyists paid to BS the courts is what bothers me the most, they're essentially telling the consumer they're too dumb to actually own their devices.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Just because louis was wrong doesn't mean apple was right.

 

Also if you want to equate a repair shop importing 20 batteries to apple outright ripping off consumers then  you have lost more than the moral high ground in any discussion. 

 

 

 

iirc that was over batteries some refurbishing company was repacking new cells into original battery cases, there wasn't any issue with the batteries until some refurbished batteries were sent without the logo covered up. If it's some law then IMO the law needs changed because it's copyright trolling to jail someone over some batteries with a logo on it.

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

How does the US law change the fact that being a criminal doesn't mean they should be ignored or that what they say is wrong?

 

 

You tried to argue that louis can't take the moral high ground because he is a criminal.

 

I said the moral high ground does not change the argument being made, meaning being a criminal doesn't automatically make him wrong or negate his evidence.

 

you  now try to argue that the US law some how changes that. 

 

Honestly what are you trying to prove?   as I said before being a criminal doesn't mean what they say is wrong or that they should be ignored.

 

 

No, they should absolutely be ignored. He claimed Apple stole his batteries when he really had counterfeits made and Apple was in the right. Why should I believe anything he has ever said about anything now. The ends do not justify the means when no life is at stake. This is just computer tech, not life saving ventilators or insulin.

[Tieox]

I want to see Tim Cook order his companies net worth in chicken nuggets.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, they should absolutely be ignored. He claimed Apple stole his batteries when he really had counterfeits made and Apple was in the right. Why should I believe anything he has ever said about anything now. The ends do not justify the means when no life is at stake. This is just computer tech, not life saving ventilators or insulin.

 

So lets ignore everyone who has done something wrong,  well done you can;t listen to anyone.

 

We can judge every argument on it's own merits, you are simply engaging in ad hominem.  Nothing more.

 

EDIT: the strangest thing about your argument against him is that the videos in question aren't even his words or actions, they are recordings of senators and submissions to the inquiry.  You are literally arguing we should ignore the expert opinions of everyone else because they were recorded and published by rossman. 

 

 

[ARikozuM]

Can we start taxing them for revenue produced within the US? 

Spoiler

Maybe close their little bullshit loopholes? 

 

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

So lets ignore everyone who has done something wrong,  well done you can;t listen to anyone.

 

We can judge every argument on it's own merits, you are simply engaging in ad hominem.  Nothing more.

 

 

There's those personal attacks again. I pointed you to the US law, and you went "blah blah blah, that doesn't count" again.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Can we start taxing them for revenue produced within the US? 

  Hide contents

Maybe close their little bullshit loopholes? 

 

30% would be a fitting start. 

 

 

Mind you, this is the governments fault as much as anything, I am a staunch proponent of using the laws of the land to my full advantage.  If there is a problem with tax then the government needs to fix it.

[mr moose]

Just now, Kisai said:

There's those personal attacks again. I pointed you to the US law, and you went "blah blah blah, that doesn't count" again.

 

 

You claim rossman's opinions/evidence is irrelevant because he is a criminal, then try to use the US law to prove that.  It's pretty clear you are attacking rossman and not his arguments. (even when they come from someone else).

 

How is pointing out the obvious a personal attack?

 

 

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

You claim rossman's opinions/evidence is irrelevant because he is a criminal, then try to use the US law to prove that.  It's pretty clear you are attacking rossman and not his arguments. (even when they come from someone else).

 

How is pointing out the obvious a personal attack?

 

 

Why should I listen to his arguments, when he's not on trial here.

The facts are simple:

a) A man named Louis Rossman repairs mac's

b) A man named Louis Rossman ordered counterfeit parts and had them seized at the border but claims Apple stole them

c) A man named Louis Rossman said he'd rather spend a fortune defending his behavior believing he was in the right, potentially paying millions of dollars in fines and going to jail than to just admit he doesn't know jack about legal system.

 

There is no reward in real life for playing the rogue. You either end up penniless, in jail, or dead.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Why should I listen to his arguments, when he's not on trial here.

The facts are simple:

a) A man named Louis Rossman repairs mac's

b) A man named Louis Rossman ordered counterfeit parts and had them seized at the border but claims Apple stole them

c) A man named Louis Rossman said he'd rather spend a fortune defending his behavior believing he was in the right, potentially paying millions of dollars in fines and going to jail than to just admit he doesn't know jack about legal system.

 

There is no reward in real life for playing the rogue. You either end up penniless, in jail, or dead.

 

And none of that means apple is not the evil he portraits, nor does any of that negate of the evidence he presents. US law does dictate that every criminal is always lying.

 

If you don't want to listen to him then that is great, but to argue his videos or evidence carries no merit is preposterous.

[Kisai]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

And none of that means apple is not the evil he portraits, nor does any of that negate of the evidence he presents. US law does dictate that every criminal is always lying.

 

If you don't want to listen to him then that is great, but to argue his videos or evidence carries no merit is preposterous.

I'm not going to watch his videos, because quite frankly his smug attitude is unbearable, and not endearing at all. 

 

I like Leonard French, he actually knows what he's doing, legally. Louis Rossmann does not, and he went to a trial as a witness... for another repair shop using counterfeit batteries, which Apple won. That doesn't bode well for his own case does it?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

I'm not going to watch his videos, because quite frankly his smug attitude is unbearable, and not endearing at all. 

 

I like Leonard French, he actually knows what he's doing, legally. Louis Rossmann does not, and he went to a trial as a witness... for another repair shop using counterfeit batteries, which Apple won. That doesn't bode well for his own case does it?

How does any of that relate to:

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

And none of that means apple is not the evil he portraits, nor does any of that negate of the evidence he presents. US law does dictate that every criminal is always lying.

 

If you don't want to listen to him then that is great, but to argue his videos or evidence carries no merit is preposterous.

 

Trying really hard to prevent this from going in circles, but you keep quoting me and bringing up things that don't relate to what I or others have said.  I clearly said if you don't want to listen to him that that was fine, but just because you don't like him does mean that he is always wrong or that the law dictates the relevance of his evidence.  

 

I have to ask again, what is the point you are trying make here?  that we shouldn't trust rossman? fine don't trust him, instead scrutinize his evidence.  Which I clearly said we should do several posts ago.  Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

 

[Ertman]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

But particularly on these forums the Apple fans are clearly worse.  Any thread about anything slightly phone related and they want to turn it into a iphone good android bad discussion.  I made the mistake of saying no phones were of the same quality as they used to be, I got bombarded with posts telling me how I hate apple because the iphones are all exceptional.

 

On these forums there is actually anti-apple fanatics that will bash anything or anyone even mentioning an Apple product or news mentioning them. It’s truly remarkable.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Ertman said:

On these forums there is actually anti-apple fanatics that will bash anything or anyone even mentioning an Apple product or news mentioning them. It’s truly remarkable.

I've been accused of that,  even though of the 5 current apple threads I am actually defending them in 2. 

 

But I agree, some of the hate comments are just deficient of logic and do nothing for the forum community.

 

[Blademaster91]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I'm not going to watch his videos, because quite frankly his smug attitude is unbearable, and not endearing at all. 

 

I like Leonard French, he actually knows what he's doing, legally. Louis Rossmann does not, and he went to a trial as a witness... for another repair shop using counterfeit batteries, which Apple won. That doesn't bode well for his own case does it?

So you choose to attack the person, and ignore the arguments and his stance on allowing people to repair the tech they own, over some batteries that Apple refused to sell?

If the OEM refuses to sell those batteries because they deemed them "obsolete" then the company shouldn't have any grounds to sue on because they no longer even make the parts. Apple refused to provide batteries, and repair techs like Louis Rossmann benefits from offering repairs on stuff Apple insists is better turned into e-waste, then it definitely is just business.

 

[Kisai]

34 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

So you choose to attack the person, and ignore the arguments and his stance on allowing people to repair the tech they own, over some batteries that Apple refused to sell?

If the OEM refuses to sell those batteries because they deemed them "obsolete" then the company shouldn't have any grounds to sue on because they no longer even make the parts. Apple refused to provide batteries, and repair techs like Louis Rossmann benefits from offering repairs on stuff Apple insists is better turned into e-waste, then it definitely is just business.

 

If you actually knew the details, you knew it was entirely possible to acquire the batteries without the apple trademarks on them, which then the "counterfeit" trademark issue goes away, and this is how low-quality after-market "OEM" parts end up in the supply chain.

 

That's exactly how refilled ink and toner cartridges are done.

 

Heck the non-OEM batteries the office used in some Dell laptops, only one nearly caught fire, the rest physically do not resemble the Dell OEM battery except for the shape needed to fit the laptop and the connector which they would have needed to salvage from dead batteries or buy from the manufacturer who made the connector in the first place. 

[imreloadin]

Man it's going to be rough when this current tech bubble pops...