Apple as poisoned fruit.
March 6, 2014

Two reports give pause to this long-time user of the products initially of Apple Computer, latterly reduced to Apple Inc.  

The first told of CEO Tim Cook’s remark that climate change sceptics need not hold shares in his company.  I presume that extends to customers as well.  If not, why not?

The second tells of Apple cheating Australian taxpayers of significant taxation revenue.  Still, I don’t suppose anybody else–say, Microsoft, Dell etc.–does anything differently.  But Apple does promote itself as somewhat more pure morally than most like firms.  Perhaps that’s just part of the Democrat ethos (what with former Veep Al Gore on the board).  I have often wondered just level of market share Apple has lost owing to its Democratic connections and promotion (e.g. New York Times).  Given that elections in Australia are no more than auctions with even the expression of bids by the opposing players paid for by taxpayers compelled by law to attend, this may not be that important.  Against that is the expense of Apple (and other) products in Australia.  iTunes, which cannot define a music file, is breath-takingly expensive here.  But, again, what the heck?  

Recall that Thomas Hobbes remarked that “the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” in the absence of political community.  The twentieth century showed that it held true even in many forms of political community.  Life itself is longer now, but the qualifications on “solitary”, “nasty” and “brutish” are weakening.  Apple seems determined to advance, if that’s the right word, these conditions.