by simon_acca on 10/21/23, 1:28 PM with 138 comments
by nabla9 on 10/21/23, 2:32 PM
Apple's revenue from China is $74 billion, 19% of the total. They also have manufacturing there still, even when they try to separate.
You can insult anyone in the free world except Xi from China and MSB from Saudi Arabia.
by andybak on 10/21/23, 2:33 PM
Yes. Such a challenge to choose between censorship and their own business interests.
It's like the "challenge" to decide whether to do the right thing or not. Don't we have another word for that kind of "challenge"?
by kryptiskt on 10/21/23, 2:45 PM
by efitz on 10/21/23, 3:41 PM
China’s handling of COVID showed how vulnerable global supply chains were, and their censorship regime shows that they are not aligned with anyone with typical western values of freedom of expression.
It seems to me that Tim Cook is chasing sunk costs.
by xivzgrev on 10/21/23, 2:31 PM
There was another thread on this where several people said the show was painful to watch / not enjoyable.
Do a lot of people watch it?
by azangru on 10/21/23, 2:27 PM
Highlights a problem with reliance on a big centralized distributor with an editorial policy and a conflict of interests.
Perhaps he should start a podcast, like so many others have done :-)
by grecy on 10/21/23, 3:10 PM
Years ago Discovery Channel were told NOT to allow Mythbusters to do an episode on credit card RFID security [1]
Murdoch owns so many publications around the world who are not allowed to run stories about things he doesn't agree with, Bezos owns the Washington Post, etc. etc.
It's manipulated all the way down.
[1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/2275605/was-mythbuster-...
by kzrdude on 10/21/23, 2:32 PM
The significant part about podcasts (compared with say youtube) is that distribution can be independent, listening (watching) to podcasts is not tied to any single platform.
by gigatexal on 10/21/23, 2:53 PM
Maybe Apple said all the right things at the beginning and then changed their tune. Either way it sucks because I liked the show a lot.
by chiefalchemist on 10/21/23, 2:22 PM
Or better (my remix, so to speak)...
The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges consumers face not knowing how much the content producers and platforms control and influence what is - or more importantly is not - spotlighted. In order to mitigate the possibility of big problems for said company's overall business the incentive is to keep consumers as ignorant and distracted as possible. The less consumer know, the less consumer think, the better.
---
It's important to point out that democracy can't exist in information darkness (i.e., lack of transparency and completeness). And yet it's these gate keepers who are so quick to promote "threat to democracy" narratives that somehow always seem to fail to mention their own willing and intentional efforts in to limit information.
by Invictus0 on 10/21/23, 2:46 PM
by fredgrott on 10/21/23, 2:44 PM
by ChrisArchitect on 10/21/23, 2:50 PM
Most of this covered in previous discussions and stories this week
by lttlrck on 10/21/23, 4:11 PM
Or maybe the show had terrible ratings and it wasn't worth the potential grief. Why needle a business partner (China) when there is no upside?
by excalibur on 10/21/23, 2:22 PM
by 29athrowaway on 10/21/23, 3:04 PM
The guest was respectful, the host was vulgar.
by dmead on 10/21/23, 2:50 PM
by pipeline_peak on 10/21/23, 3:02 PM