Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   sdw@mastodon.social's status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:08:06 JST sdw

   • Daring Fireball

   This is just an incredible bit about the one time Tim Cook lost his cool. What a guy. (on @daringfireball — https://daringfireball.net/2024/09/the_things_they_carried)

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:08:06 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     @sdw @daringfireball
     
     > "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
     
     Well, a little surprised that didn't lead to a massive shareholder lawsuit considering that what he's saying is borderline illegal.
     
     "Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc." kinda cemented into case law that the court can determine you have to pick the option that maximizes shareholder value. This was related to a merger, but I could see its interpretation being further expanded.
   • Embed this notice
     sdw@mastodon.social's status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:25:51 JST sdw

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld

     @feld @daringfireball I'm guessing they'd be happy to take that one to court. Shareholder value should apply to values, not just money.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:25:51 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     @sdw @daringfireball Investors don't lend you their values, they lend their money
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:29:13 JST feld

     in reply to

     • SlicerDicer
     • Daring Fireball
     @SlicerDicer @daringfireball @sdw the reality is that boardroom chaos at Apple would probably have tanked the stock enough in the short term that it wouldn't be worth the courtroom drama
     
     but some day that calculation will change and they'll come for the throat of the CEO who pulls this
   • Embed this notice
     SlicerDicer (slicerdicer@bikeshed.party)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2024 01:29:14 JST SlicerDicer

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld
     @feld @sdw @daringfireball Correct, they have a legal obligation to return maximum profits. Core values are not part of that law.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:21:39 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     @reiterator @daringfireball @sdw there is literally no law that says you need to sell your smartphone with accessibility features
     
     Apple's accessibility is *amazing* and Google/Android has nothing close. Where's the lawsuit against Google/Android? *crickets*
   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:21:41 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld

     @feld @daringfireball @sdw It’s not illegal because some things like accessibility, Apple does for legal reasons. They will get sued if they don’t do them. Whether that is the only reason, or is Tim playing a good game of cards, is debatable perhaps, but it’s a solid defense against shareholder lawsuits.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:33:25 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     @reiterator @daringfireball @sdw
     
     I did edit my post to clarify (USA) but also:
     
     > The legislation will apply from 28 June 2025 to the following.
     
     So yes I'm sure, it is not enforced by anyone yet.
     
     Additionally this law is *crazy* and destroys the chance of there being competition in the market. So now if Microsoft or Nokia wanted to get back into the smartphone game they are going to be forced to meet these standards?
     
     Does this mean it will be illegal to sell e.g., the Librem5 in the EU? This places an incredible burden on anyone who wants to build an open source phone that isn't built on Android
     
     Great job EU, way to once again destroy competition and force a duopoly because of your insane regulations.
   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:33:26 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld

     @feld @daringfireball @sdw are you *sure* about that?

     https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/accessibility-of-products-and-services.html

   • Embed this notice
     Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:38:27 JST Sick Sun

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     • feld
     @feld @reiterator @daringfireball @sdw there's upward of 4000 ADA lawsuits against software every year because years ago the courts applied a novel theory to argue that some phone apps are a public accommodation. This goes all the way back to the Obama DOJ. A lot of them are dismissed but a lot of them are settled.
   • Embed this notice
     Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:52:19 JST Sick Sun

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     • feld
     @reiterator @feld @daringfireball @sdw it appears this applies to state and local governments (it's been a rule for federal websites for a long time already but many federal sites are still not compliant)
   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:52:20 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • Sick Sun
     • feld

     @sun @feld @daringfireball @sdw It’s possible there is a better justification now? (though recent scotus rulings might put this in question? Idk)

     https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publish-final-rule-strengthen-web-and-mobile-app-access-people

   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:54:01 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld

     @feld @daringfireball @sdw Finally and I only mention this as an irrelevant sidebar because I personally work on Android and have implemented things like Talkback and high contrast in apps, but your dig on Google for not being sued seems a little off base to me. Maybe Apple is better, good on them. https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/6006564?hl=en

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:54:01 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     @reiterator @daringfireball @sdw Google/Android really can't compare to VoiceOver, Voice Control, and the Braille keyboard input that Apple has had for years.
     
     Maybe it's better now but Android has been many many years behind on this.
   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 00:54:02 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • feld

     @feld @daringfireball @sdw So your position is that a large multinational like Apple only needs to start trying to comply after a law is in effect, not plan ahead beginning from the time the law is enacted? (In this case, 2019).

     And further is your claim that the EU is the only place where such a rule has been contemplated? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publish-final-rule-strengthen-web-and-mobile-app-access-people

   • Embed this notice
     reiterator (reiterator@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 01:09:13 JST reiterator

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • Sick Sun
     • feld

     @sun @feld @daringfireball @sdw Ok. I suspect Apple sells devices to those government agencies. The article also refers to title 2 of ADA that is above my pay grade to understand, but if I were a lawyer defending against a shareholder lawsuit, I would probably read carefully.

     Sick Sun likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2024 01:09:43 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Daring Fireball
     • reiterator
     @reiterator @daringfireball @sdw turns out it doesn't really matter, the law you cited has a huge exception that everyone smart will use. They can just argue the economic burden is too high and they get a free pass to not do the accessibility work.