Jon Stewart’s Apple TV Plus show ends, reportedly over coverage of AI and China
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228
TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.
Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.
Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.
Bummer. That’s some weak and feckless megacorp bullshit. Just like something Stewart would cover, which is why this show was such a great power move. And yet? Infinite profit over all else, so never mind.
Look at John Oliver, he talks shit about HBO constantly. Do they care? Nope, because he has more Emmys than anyone could know what to do with. Respect your talent and reap the rewards. Pretty basic stuff, Apple.
The difference is HBO is a media company that largely operates in the US, and Jon Oliver making fun of them isn’t going to hurt their business at all. Apple is a hardware company that also makes media. And selling hardware in China is critical to their business. Since the CCP owns China, they can get their panties in a twist and just ban Apple. Like they did with government devices.
As a publicly owned company they have a legal responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.
Public companies don’t get to take moral stands when there’s money on the line. They legally have to put shareholders first.
"Public companies...legally have to put shareholders first."
I thought this too, but it is apparently a myth.
"There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false.
To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Specifically, the thing that is wrong is the idea that the only way to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders is to maximize profit. They have a legal obligation to put their shareholders' interest first, and maximizing short term profit is not the only way to do this. Benefit corps give some of their revenue to a cause, sometimes companies invest in long-term stability or profitability.
Rare supreme Court w I guess? I dunno
It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.
So bizarre that companies are capable of believing in gods.
Lol try being a CEO and answering to your shareholders about how you’re not trying to maximize profits and growth. Like it may not be legally required but you’re kind of required to just by the nature of the role itself.
It was put to an actual shareholder vote. The individual shareholders voted yes because he was overpaying. The board was fundamentally irrelevant.
Where’d did this “legal responsibility to maximize profit” bullshit come form?
There is no such law, an no entity to enforce the responsibility.
~Court precedent. Shareholders have sued and won for corporations "failing to uphold fiduciary responsibilities" and other similar bullshit. So, now it's baked into corporate culture.~
Update: See reply below. Courts have upheld that corporations have no requirement to seek profits over all else.
That's actually not the case.
"courts have consistently refused to hold directors liable for failing to maximise shareholder value"
"In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”. "
Just more corporate propaganda, that's all.
https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value
Holy shit! That's good to know. Thank you.
It's frustrating but very much a real thing. You might google "fiduciary duty to shareholders." Basically, once a company is public, the board has to act in the best interests of the shareholders (which means maximizing returns and/or shareprice.)
This is terrible for the world but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help.
That's not true. Courts have specifically ruled that maximizing returns is NOT required. The companies do have to consider the best interests of the shareholders, but that does not strictly mean maximizing profits:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
I would re-read that article a bit more closely. The point they're making is that recently there have been developments such that maximizing profits is not seen as the SOLE principle behind decision making above all else.
For example, they cite Hobby Lobby which has Christian practices that doubtless cut into profits but are allowed as part of the company's mission.
But my apologies, a more accurate phrasing would've been duty to shareholders and the company.
Still, unless Apple has a really interesting company charter, annoying a capricious manufacturer of almost everything the company needs that is ALSO one of the world's largest markets, well, not that tough a multi billion dollar decision.
Duty ≠ law
Duty is a legal concept, silly Billy.
You can commit a crime by violating a duty. A common one of which you've probably heard is "duty of care" I.e., a doctor can be charged with a crime by not fulfilling their duty of care to a patient.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/breach-of-duty/
I almost want to look up confidently incorrect. Just maybe learn from this and try googling when you are unfamiliar with a term, you look less silly!
Show me what law enforcers a company to profit.
You're getting confused or you might not actually understand how companies work, so I'll break it down.
There is no law forcing a company to profit. (Though Companies are generally formed for that purpose.) A private organization could do whatever it wants within legal bounds. (This is how non profits, charitable foundations etc exist.)
But, what happens next is many companies go "public" by selling shares. In essence, they put a percentage of themselves on the market and people by shares in that company, such that they, legally speaking, own a tiny percentage of that company. Part of that purchase is that the company now has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. As noted before, a duty is a legal concept like assault, negligence etc. And I explained fiduciary duty earlier, you can look through.
Here is kind of a classic example of a company losing a case because its directors breached their fiduciary duty to minority shareholders:
https://casetext.com/case/ebay-domestic-holdings-v-newmark
Thank you. We’re done now.
lol I'm almost impressed by the brute force of your refusal to comprehend.
It's uhhh, impressive.
By your logic/refusal to understand how simple things work, a doctor has no duty to help you, no company is at fault if its products harm you and a lawyer can do whatever they want to maximize their own profit.
Show me the “legal responsibility to maximize profits” in the law books and the police codes used to enforce said laws or STFU.
You know what? Nevermind.
You mean like I already did?
Why do you think people buy shares? Just fans of three digits and numbers that change?
Edit: Italicized the relevant section to make things easier for you.
The entity is the civil court system, and while there is no law written "no company can work in a way that doesn't maximize profit", upon taking investment, it's typical that companies, the fiduciary, come under the expectation that they'll be working for the sake of their beneficiary's interests. In public companies, this interest is clear-cut. Investors want dividends and to see the value of the company increase. This is typically done through maximizing of profits.
So while it's not explicit that they must forever maximize profits, companies can be successfully sued for not doing so.
Learn more:
Companies have also been sued for not maximizing profits and won the case. "Best interests" can mean a lot of things. It can mean short term profit for one shareholder, long term profit for another, and stable, guaranteed profit for a third.
Then stop calling it a law.
Nobody called it a law. It's a legal responsibility, and it is law, but it is not "a" law.
Apple is a lifestyle company. The hardware is just the base layer.
Nah, Apple is an ad aggregation company same as Google. They use hardware and software to lock users into their products so they can show them ads and collect their data to make the ads more targeted. In return ad companies pay them to serve ads to their users. That's how they make money.
The fuck you smoking. 80% of sales are hardware and 20% is services, ie music, tv, and their cut of App Store sales
Ad revenue from running ads on the app store, their news app , podcast app, etc.
I didn't claim they were making most of their money that way, but that's absolutely the business model they've been shifting to for the last decade as their hardware sales decrease pretty much quarterly, especially their phone sales.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/strong-ad-sales-stable-enterprise-spending-wind-beneath-big-tech-earnings-2023-10-23/
Apple is pretty reliant on China for other aspects of their business though. HBO doesn’t make phones.
You are either paying the subscription or not, your inner states mean nothing to them or us.
I can think of an old great daily news show that still doesnt have a permanent host... please!!!..
Or run for president.
I've been saying, "Stewart for President" for decades now. He is perfect for the job. He would never want that job, which I just see as further qualification.
He fought congress for two fucking decades for 9/11 first responders and the families to get paid, he comes more than prepared to every talk, and he's not afraid to shut someone down and call out bullshit.
I'd say he's over qualified for work in politics
Ukraine got their version of Jon Stewart to become their president and he's successfully fighting off a Russian invasion. Sounds like an endorsement to me.
Jon Stewart 2024 "It worked for Ukraine"
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job
Let’s just kidnap Jon and pressgang him into the Oval Office. He’d be the best president since that peanut farmer, maybe better
Back when he was hosting the Daily Show? Yes. Now? I've watched his show a bit and... I think he went a little nuts on that farm of his.
He sounds like vegan Joe Rogan now. Too much conspiracy, too much long anticapitalist ranting while his guests sit awkwardly and say "uh, okay".
He's a good guy and what he did for 9/11 first responders was amazing, but he's not the man he used to be.
Jon Stewart as president might be the greatest thing that could happen in my lifetime.
Yeah you're either a meal ticket for them or you ain't.
Well sure, point is producing Stewart’s show was a notable choice that indicated favourable things about the platform/studio.
"Let's talk about all the cheap Chinese labour that Apple uses despite being the 10th richest company in the world."
"Let's not."
Chinese people deserve jobs too. Comparative advantage is a good thing that helps everyone involved.
The Yuan is currently trading at 7.32 to 1 USD
Companies that appease the CCP are the problem, not companies that leverage exchange rates to better lives globally.
Chinese people deserve good jobs, not jump off of a building to kill yourself, but wait your the 4th person to do that this month so they installed a net jobs.
I am questioning where I supported Chinese government policies here?
Because the initial concern was pay, and that's due to not understanding economic factors. I don't support Chinese labor regs at all.
In fact I said
"Companies that appease the CCP are the problem" which I also thought was a nice little pun, given the show being discussed.
I wonder why labor is cheaper in China.
Two big reasons
1: currency exchange rates
2: China is sill fundamentally agrarian and industrializing, and many workers are looking for (comparatively) higher pay
How is that a pun?
The show that Stewart walked out on is "The Problem with Jon Stewart"
Chinese people also deserve to not be sent to internment camps.
Yeah totally. Fuck the Chinese government.
Yes, fuck the Chinese government.
And the corporations, both Chinese and American, that help support it.
Depends on what that means imo. Global trade theoretically supports the Chinese government, because money is fungible, but is a net positive all around.
The Chinese will never stop clinging to autocracy without wealth of their own.
The "Chinese" will never have wealth, ask Jack ma.
The ccp would burn China to the ground before releasing an ounce of their power and stolen wealth.
That is not an excuse to stop trying to empower the Chinese to rise against their hellstate.
Capitalism broke the USSR and it will break the CCP.
No, just like capitalism didn't break the states that later formed the confederacy.
Even after they lost formal slavery they put horrible policies into effect like Jim crow and share cropping that allowed them to keep slavery in all but name, but were entirely compatible with capitalism.
Haiti understands this.
We need to stop enabling authoritarians, who do you think taught them how to build the great firewall, they bought literally all of their technology till now from us.
It literally did though. That's why they went to war - the writing was on the wall.
That means nothing without knowing the total supply
It means everything when talking about people's pay.
For that you need 2 data pieces:
You then use the second to convert the first into US Dollars so that you compare the Chinese salaries in USD to American salaries is USD.
Merely the second piece of data wIthout the first means nothing if you're trying to compare salaries.
For example, before the Euro the Italian Lira used to have a cross currency exchange rate with the dollar which was thousands of lire per dollar and that didn't mean Italians in the 80s were incredibly poor: because for every dollar the average US worker received in their salary the average Italian worker got thousands of lire, all put together mean they got about 1/2 to 1/3 of a US salary rather that the 1/1000 that by your the exchange rate alone suffices "logic".
By the way, that cross currency exchange rates are meaningless to compare incomes or costs without the actual incomes and prices in the local currency, is really, really, REALLY basic financial knowledge.
You don't need to do this because you only need to look at the fact that those jobs are competed for to see that they are desirable.
Wage parity isn't a meaningful discussion when discussing comparative advantage. Too many other factors come into play.
Okay but you realize that any job would be competitive in situations of poverty right? That's why you need the second data point.
That's specifically why comparative advantage is a good thing - lifting people out of poverty is a good thing.
To fully measure Comparitive Advantages, you must include the differences in manpower costs, which brings us back to salaries (plus, since this is to compare manpower costs, you also need things like the employer-side tax costs such as social security payments), which then needs to be converted to a single currency using cross-currency exchange rates.
Further, every single monetary elements of calculating Comparitive Advantage which is in local currencies needs to go through those cross-currency exchange rates in order to be comparable.
There is no way you can calculate comparative advantage merelly with the single datapoint which is a cross-currency exchange rate because all that tells you is the relation between two units of measurement and says nothing about the actual quantities being measured.
As I said, this is incredibly basic financial stuff.
To give you a really basic non-financial example which hopefully will make you understand it:
What you wrote in your original post is equivalent to saying that "The farm in Britain produces more milk because 1 pint = 1.759754 liters".
You don't know anything about how many pints the British farm produces, or about how many liters the Dutch farm produces, yet you claimed the ratio between two measurement units is enough by let you draw conclusions about production numbers even though you used no prodution numbers.
If I was to bet I would say you've read some articles about how the exchange rate of the Yuan vs USD is kept artificially low to increase the competiviness of Chinese exports, didn't quite understand how it works and still thought you knew enough and applied it were it wasn't applicable and/or in the wrong way.
No I just work in international business and know hy we outsource certain roles.
You keep pretending you know more about this, and you're describing irrelevant things. I took econ/IB in college too, bud. Lots of people do.
Since we're pulling rank, I worked in Finance, specifically the Investment Banking and the Funds industries, some of which being very well know names (Fidelity, Deutsche Bank, even Lehman Brothers back when they still existed), always in the EMEA divisions which, unlike our US colleagues, deal with cross-currency trades all day every day (because EMEA actually means Europe Middle-East and Asia, so it's a lot more than just trades on USD priced assets, for USD books, settled in USD).
So I'm quite familiar with exactly what cross-currency exchange rates mean, and it's painfully obvious that you have absolutelly no clue what you're talking about when you're quoting a cross-currency exchange rate by itself and claiming that alone is proof of comparitive advantage.
Lmao you either didn't work in finance or can't parse simple comments, which is why you no longer work in finance, but nothing I have said is incorrect whatsoever
Best of luck in your career move
LMAO!
Keep digging.
I do genuinely wish you luck, but I'll amend it to "when you graduate" too
Boy you sure do sound like you just got your MBA. Chasing the cheapest labor and lowest regulations really doesn't do much for the populace other than make them slave laborers for better products for the benefits of other nations.
If the wages are the same across multiple industries then it doesn't really help right? It's just taking advantage of a poor countryand enriching higher members of that country who actually do see the most profit gained.
It might help in getting advanced manufacturing set up in the country but that actually also hurts countries that rely on advanced manufacturing to keep GDP high when they are creating their competitors while doing little investment into themselves.
So yes it works to get the cheapest product possible but it's really not the super helpful beneficial concept that you think it is and the whole world is not richer for these jobs we give to them to enrich further a group that just chases the quickest profit.
It demonstrably improves their personal wealth, incentives inclusive institutions, and changes countries. History is most assuredly not on your side here.
Nativism is a plague and populism is the cancer nativism spawns.
What a strange take when a mountain of evidence is right in front of you. China went from "nothing but cheap labor" to the next world superpower because of exactly this kind of exchange. They have modern cities with rapid transit, EVs, and a top tier domestic tech industry.
Well yeah I mean I kinda covered that. They now have advanced tooling and active investments into their infrastructure and country. It's not yet actually reaching the majority of China and there is still wide issues with these investments. But now companies will have to find the new cheap labor if there is increasing access to jobs that are to pay enough for the citizens to access these higher standards.
A country can't be cheap labor and an important market without either massive divide in the populace or slave labor.
And if they can't get cheap labor there anymore these companies will leave and create rust belts like there are in the US. At which point the advanced manufacturing arm and service economy could take over if it's built enough but they join into a already crowded space with dwindling access to resources. Not to say things haven't gotten better in sense of moving forward technologically and amenities wise but that is basically always a guarantee of time passing. But this hunt for cheap goods for top level enrichment is not a wholly good venture and is quite destructive in ways that take little effort to see.
Why, specifically, do you hate the global poor?
Wow what a terrible response meant to cause an inflammatory response instead of having a discussion about a topic on an intellectual level. You have set up a pin with an impossible answer and claimed that you are the only right response to knock it down.
But, I have an answer. I care about their well being and not their economic status. I don't care if they are making more money or not and they aren't from my country. My countries laws will have no direct impact on them and while I care about the ecology of the planet I can't be reasonably expected to care about everyone.
You falsely assume globalist ideals are the only right way to live and I would rather care for those immediately around me who have an impact on my life.
We can aim for bettering of societies that aren't our own without it being based entirely around taking advantage of their cheap labor and unawareness of their lacking systems.
You speak as an economist who only thinks in terms of money without any real compassion and assumes money is compassion.
These two things are incompatible
And this is evil
Oh my God you are a moron. I am just so sorry, I thought you were capable of complex thought there.
Which I guess was my mistake, I did see your other comments.
...Evil. That's funny, you have definitely truly never met actual evil. Trust me it's much worse than loving those close to you and caring for others as much as you can, without over dedication of mental space to those you can't. And as annoying as you are I actually hope you continue to never have to deal with evil, I hope the world is better and you get to remain a protected smarmy dick. Evil is truly repugnant in a way you apparently can not actually comprehend and it's better if it stays that way.
Literally laughed out loud.
Thanks man.
Companies in China ARE the CCP. Nothing is actually privately owned. Everything is owned by the government, so giving any money to a company in China is supporting the CCP.
Lots of foreign companies have branches in China, including most global corps
True, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic of whether it is ethical to use cheap Chinese labor. Those branches are not the ones employing cheap labor from the blue collar workers in China. Those are almost entirely white collar jobs, and many of them are in place specifically to work with the local companies who DO employ the blue collar laborers. The sweatshops aren't OWNED by Nike or Gucci or Apple. They are contract facilities owned by a CCP-backed corporation.
Sure but that level of contracting is not contributing to the CCP so much as to the Chinese people
It's ethical to employ any sort of labor
did this mfer just imply slavery is ethical
Slavery isn't employment
You didn't say employment. You said labor.
I said to employ labor.
"Employ" is the verb form of the noun "employment."
Hope this helps.
Sure. The context makes it mean something else however. To employ also means to make use of something. You don't "provide employment to" labor, that would make no sense.
Besides, is the alternative that you think any worker treatment is fine so long as it's technically employment and not slavery? That's a little fucked innit
Rather than desperately trying to take me in bad faith, maybe read what I say.
If someone agrees to a certain rate of pay, they are not being exploited. There is nothing unethical about the hiring. I am obviously pro regulations like worker safety.
This is a really stupid discussion that should have been obvious if you weren't trying to be a shit.
$3 per hour.
Ok?
Why the fuck would you have any loyalty to Apple? They sure as shit don't have any loyalty to their customers. In fact they piss in the face of their customers and tell them it's raining.
Apple has setup their walled garden in such a way that you're basically all-in or all-out of their ecosystem. I don't know that they have brand loyalty as much as they have a captive audience that they can sell iWhatever to over and over again.
Oh, they have some brand loyalty atleast. In my country, Apple has a miniscule market share across all domains[ laptops or phones included ]. They recently launched 2 Apple Stores in a bid to slowly extend themselves inside the market. Quoting from a news article
I'm pretty sure those people who wait in line are either paid to do so, or genuinely suffering from a negative mental health condition.
if you see price of iPhone in developing countries, it cones out to be more than a month of income.
so, it's essentially a status symbol.
So they're basically 50s house wives showing off their new microwave. Why are humans like this, like I get showing off your shit but doing it for status is just weird.
that's very much on the point.
As for the reasons — from what I've observed — it's more of a follow culture. they saw someone influencial(in their eyes) doing this, so they now have to ape it. I doubt if there is any more thought process going on here.
I have friends who have bought(or actually, have been bought into) these phones on monthly installments.
This is, and always has been, an illusion.
They have brand fanatics that don't want to research alternatives because most Apple users aren't even close to knowledgeable of emerging technologies outside their own ecosystem.
Apple retains customers by making them comfortable with the fact they offer most of what they need, and in an attractive, easy-to-understand package. The walled garden makes them feel safe and connected in a world they are slowly falling out of touch with, or the world they never were in touch with (the tech world).
I know people of all levels of intelligence that use Apple. It's not about that... But I don't know a single apple user (that has chosen that path) that's highly knowledgeable about things like modern security, privacy, and/or the true potential and limitations of modern devices.
I've met a lot of hardcore people way up in the tech hierarchy that rock MacBooks. Like people who maintain popular languages, people who make kernel contributions, people who design CPUs and accelerators.
There are many knowledgeable people who willingly make the choice, understanding the tradeoffs and accepting them. Some people don't want to be fucking with Arch or Kali for hours, or auditing their smartphone's firmware, for the same reason most combat veterans don't walk around wearing a bullet proof vest and a rifle.
Will you meet some hardcore hackers who won't upgrade the kernel until after they audit the changelog of both the kernel AND the compiler they're using? Sure. You'll also meet some people who live in a bunker. They have their valid motives for doing so, and people have valid motives for not doing so.
Those people have MacBooks almost entirely because of the Terminal and because they don't want to deal with Linux or WSL. Brand loyalty plays little into their decision
They could sell bottled water, claiming it's better than all other water and the absolute fanboys who will live and die by apple will absolutely spend a whole months paycheck and sell their liver just for a single bottle.
Yep, remember this is the company that sold wheels for $700
I'm no fan of Apple, and didn't want to believe they did this. So I googled, "$700 apple wheels," and found this.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-wheels-kit
I swear they could sell literal feces.
That's amazing! They also have a stand for $1000, stainless steel feet for $300 and a water bottle for $80.
It's crazy what money people are willing to throw at apple.
Worst of all, you still need a hex bit (that fits) instead of them adding it to the kit for that ridiculous price.
They currently sell
for $1,000.
It's not even new. It's been out for over three years.
It's not just any monitor stand! It tilts and goes up and down and is shiny.
No, but they have at least two good sci fi series.
What's the other one?
Silo
I'd argue that the two are For All Mankind and Foundation. However, Silo, Ivansion, and Severance could all be in that discussion.
Yeah I'm not gonna lie, their streaming platform is incredible but I ain't giving them any money LOL
They have one or two good shows, but it's a HUGE stretch to claim the entire offering is "incredible".
I've gotten it for free through tmobile for over a year now, and it's the least used platform I subscribe to.
Agree to disagree I suppose 🙂
Hell, they tell them its apple juice and people are swallowing as if their lives depend on it. A few people i know use apple products like the iphone, and then complain when certain software doesn't run on it. I told them thats why they should have stayed with android. And they just get angry because apparently Android is for poor people?
Insert South Park Disney Mickey Mouse China meme
Big props to John for walking away.
How did Apple not see this coming up as future conflict with it's talent. Its almost like they didn't watch the fucking show, or the causes he devoted himself to after retiring. It's a rare thing I know, but not everyone can be bought. His entire platform that he's built up over the years, would have collapsed if he had pulled a John Cena.
Stewart was "edgy" in the 00s but is largely a safe bet these days. More Kimmel than Oliver.
China was always a danger but also seems like the kind of thing that can be "this is the one topic you aren't allowed to talk about" and nobody would ever really notice.
The real issue is AI. You can't NOT talk a bout AI at this point and that is where even liberal leaning centrists tend to have very vocal takes about the implications on labor and media.
I also disagree with the Kimmel comparison, as his facade as a nice guy became transparent as his show progressed. I am not a Stewart fanboy in any sense, and while he may have lost some edge due to maturity, he has stayed true to what he thinks is the right thing.
I am not talking about whether you like them as a person or want to go to their birthday party.
What I mean is that Kimmel will go hard on a "safe" topic like trump but is not going to be causing controversy. That is more or less where Stewart has been since The Daily Show (honestly, kind of during it too).
Whereas people like John Oliver are very much the kind of people you hire knowing that the ratings will be worth the controversy.
What is this thread about?
I will admit I really haven't considered the implications of AI being a real threat. I am aware that it is a potential tool to cut labor costs, but havie not gone further into the rabbit hole.
In the early 2000s, the conservatives were The Man.
Progressive ideology from even 2012 has largely trickled into conservatism as it is now. Modern "progressives" are now going mask off as neoliberal uniparty fascists. It's why the Democrats and uniparty Republicans both support war while conservatives are opposing it. 40 years ago Republicans fully supported proxy wars with Russia.
Let this be the regular reminder that any time that a gigantic for profit corporation seems to be doing the right thing it's a mere coincidence and they are following their bottom line. The moment those two depart, they will look after their bottom line right thing be damned. There are no moral corporations.
Maybe those good things they do while are convenient to them are moral and bring real benefits and can be followed and celebrated, but ultimately they are a convenient mask to trick customers. So don't ever be loyal to a brand, be loyal to principles.
But I thought Apple was the good guy, looking out for us folk and doing privacy-focused things!
What? That's just marketing garbage? Nah, surely Apple wouldn't just be a shitty company just like everyone else. Better buy some more overpriced products to support them!
The privacy thing was always hiding the real truth. Apple will never be able to compete with Google on ads or tracking: they have neither the engineering chops nor the reach. By being "privacy first", it saves Apple money and cuts off a little of Google's revenue stream.
The benefit to customers was a secondary effect.
Apple's stance is more effectively like "Let's get to know each other in private, babe" than "privacy first".
Has anyone ever really believed that? It became very apparent very quickly that their MO was getting customers to buy only Apple products and then to replace them as often as they could get away with.
I dunno the state of stuff now, but my MacBook Pro is from 2011 and I still use it (with some upgrades)
And my phone is five years old, on its original battery, and is still faster than most of my friends’ phones lawl
People love to hate on Apple products, but they are great, IMO.
People hate on them because they are overpriced and they want complete control of your hardware and software.
You cannot repair or upgrade anything and you cannot install software they have not approved.
The experience takes a back seat to all of that. Never owned any Apple products and never will, unless the market or the EU puts sufficient pressure on them to cut out the bullshit.
If you work in audio, media, want to come across as fancy or want something with a dash of Linux functionality then a Mac is a good option. Otherwise, stick with a PC or a Linux compy.
Good for web and mobile dev too tbh
Good for backend dev too tbh.
I hated them when I was a teen, but I suppose that was PowerBook era. I got older and realized that I only hated them because they couldn’t play games and were expensive.
Bought my first MacBook (ironically for playing games on the go—PC laptops were shit back in 2007) and after an unfortunate soft drink accident had it replaced in 2011 (for free woooo!) That’s the one I’m still using today.
I don’t use any Google products or services so my only choice is an iPhone, and I fucking love it. Each iPhone I’ve had lasted more than four years, while still running great. That’s more than I can say about my HTC Dream lawl, but that was first-Gen so I give it some leeway.
Still a PC builder all the way, have four of them. But people shitting on Apple for their products’ longevity are silly. The cost is high (usually) but they’ve got some quality shit that lasts.
My pc has lasted 14 years (and I expect another 40) and been capable of playing every game in that time because I've been able to upgrade it without dropping thousands at once.
Apple products are good for sure, but they don't let the consumer choose very much. Sometimes that's good (I always advocated apple products for my grandparents) but more often than not it's just annoying.
I buy a new android phone every 3ish years and give my old one to my mum, she's never had one break yet so all mine have had at least 5-6 years life before she upgrades to my latest old one (and possibly it still has years left). I don't buy the idea that Apple phones last longer than Android at all.
What upgrades? Not doubting you, just curious what you've been able to do.
That was kinda the point I was making because apple don't really let you upgrade hardware so if you want an improved computer better go spend a couple grand on our shiny new one with a 0.2mm thinner screen!
They definitely make good products, and I advised my grandparents to stick to apple because it's more intuitive for a non techy person, and because they're all identical and customer support would be easier to deal with.
Phones matter a bit less I suppose because we're not all upgrading hardware in android phones, they did recently lose a court case for deliberately throttling speeds on old devices though didn't they?
16GB RAM and replaced the optical drive with a SSD!
Money talks
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/10/23450967/apple-airdrop-limited-china-goverment-protests
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/07/apple-made-secret-5-year-275b-deal-with-chinese-government
https://thehackernews.com/2021/05/how-apple-gave-chinese-government.html?m=1
Canceling Apple TV over this, knew they were spineless, but this is pathetic since it’s one of the few shows I watch on it. Growing really tired of all these service subscriptions as it is.
Same. This is my 3rd to last subscription. The ones left standing are Spotify and Shonen Jump. Because they still deliver what they are supposed to without bullshit.
Spotify suggests new artists to you based on who pays them the most. Their business model is expanding into you being the product.
I'll deal with it once it starts affecting my ability to listen to what I want when I want.
Spotify is nearing the cut point for me. Subbed since 2011. The UI is getting worse...
I mostly listen in my car. As long as the UI has search and playlists I can make, and those play with no issue, it's doing what I need. Play button, pause button, etc... I don't need much else.
I had Netflix and then cancelled it as a cost saving measure during COVID. I also have Prime which I never even bother with, because of it's fucking format. I wound up with an early sub to YouTube because I got completely enthralled with Time Team. I found that it pretty much has everything I want to watch. I never thought that would've happened because I initially considered YT a lower tier service.
Damn that’s a real shame, no surprise Jon walked out. That man actually has standards, he don’t need the money he was there because he cared and wanted to put out a positive voice that analyzed the bullshit we all have to deal with and his platform enabled that perfectly, just like his work for vets and burn pits.
I hope he transitions elsewhere but keeps the content as-is
don't forget his battle with Congress to fund the 9-11 Emergency Responders
Because we all know how easy it is to silence Jon Stewart.
Something tells me he could get more funding for a show with a gofundme than Apple+ is authorized to spend.
Meh, realistically I don't think Jon does it because he needs money.
He seems like the kind of person who does things because it's the right thing to do. So taking away his platform isn't going to make him go away or shut him up.
It might take a while for him to get another one but I'm confident this guy will be on his deathbed telling people in power they suck & should do better.
We need more people like him
Paramount is foaming at the mouth.
Nebula is foaming harder. Honestly they should offer him some sort of syndication, getting Stewart on their platform would solidify them as the YouTube replacement.
I think if Jon jumped to nebula that'd be the final push I needed to subscribe to them
I'd get a lifetime subscription if he went to Nebula.
If I'm not mistaking they stopped offering lifetime subscriptions
That's a shame. They were a couple weeks ago.
Edit: it seems that you are correct for now.
https://blog.nebula.tv/lifetime-memberships/
They are going to hike the price.
We are in a dystopian future, where cooperate interests trump reporting.
Independence or the free media does not exist anymore, they are all governed by the economic interests of the 1%. Democracy is hereby dead, and nobody is fighting to save it anymore.
Democracy offically died in America the day Citizens United was approved by the Supreme Court.
Say it with me everyone - CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
Nice post.
Good for Jon Stewart. He held the line even when the money people demanded that he compromise. Maybe a VP pic. I could see it.
He is successful enough, old enough and made enough money, that he can just retire. Threatening him is an empty threat. He is 60 and probably given his long career earned more than he can spend in rest of his life, unless he goes super yacht and private jet crazy.
The whole show was a come back from retirement essentially. A voluntary indulgence on his part. Surely lucrative indulgence, but indulgence still. Apple needed him, he didn't need Apple.
Most of the crew probably will leave for other project with a letter of recommendation from John in their pocket.
There is something particularly amusing and very ironic that a mega-corp like Apple, the most valuable company in the world, is standing up to defend a communist dictatorship and won't accept any dissent.
Jack Ma approves of their decision.
Apple tv sucks anyway. I'd like to remind people that it's near the end of the mls season and they still have no android mobile app. They actively piss on anyone not totally in line with their ecosystem, etc.
For what it's worth, they do have an Android TV app.
Which makes the lack of an android app all the more shitty. They have one already but refuse to make it available if the device isn't connected to a TV.
Then you get into the actual layout of the program. Spoilers are a huge issue. I can't watch a game later without having the game ruined partially. Sure you can switch off scores, but you still have to scroll through game highlights to get to the full match replay.
Looks like I'm going to continue not watching Apple TV for the foreseeable future.
I have many subscriptions that I pay for, netflix (for now), HBO, prime.. but Apple is not one of them. I just Sail the seas when I want to watch Severance lol
Severance is one of the most original shows I have ever seen. The torrent must flow
Ahoy, matey
another reminder that apple's "privacy, that's iPhone" is a marketing gimmick. they profit from surveillance and censorship in China^1^. elsewhere, this catchphrase has allowed them to suck Facebook's as revenue into their growing ad business, surpassing even tiktok in terms of ad revenue^2^.
they'll happily do pink washing, but will try everything do dilute labour rights^3^.
so, apple is just your average big tech. nothing exceptional about them(except for them suing regular people to oblivion^4^).
in case of hitting a paywall, either disable JavaScript, or use bypass paywalls clean.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html
2: https://finshots.in/archive/apple-is-an-advertising-giant-almost/
3: a simple search result would lead you to many such cases: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+labour+rights&ia=web
4: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/technology/apple-trademarks.html
They were so close to implementing on-device scanning last year it’s scary. The number of people who supported it because Apple promised to only use it for child sexual exploitation material really shocked me. “Think of the children” really does have a way of making people’s brains short circuit.
It was a lot longer ago, like 2.5 to 3 years ago, but that's pedantic.
My own father was shocked that they'd do that (his death is how I know the timeline; no sympathy required, I've dealt with it, it happens). He really respected them, primarily through my respect of them and excitedness about their tech. He was blown away that they'd even consider such a thing. He just couldn't calculate how such a misstep could happen. I can, but what a mistake that was.
I've seen an argument that this could have been a calculated risk to prevent attacks when they enabled increased encryption. I don't think it was that, even if that was the resulting effect. They are too protective of their brand to deliberately take a hit.
I'm not sure in what way it was suggested that Apple was "different", but to clarify, companies don't do things for "ideas" they do things for profit. If it increases that profit, they "believe" in it, and if it doesn't, they'll kick it to the curb.
And not only is Apple no different than any other company in that respect, they are pretty much the top-tier example of it. They're a $2 trillion company, the biggest in the world. They didn't get to that point focusing on the greater good. Nothing is more important to them than their profit.
I hope he moves to a different platform, one that's not so beholden to the Chinese audience.
HBO already has John Oliver. Put the Jon Stewart show back to back with him.
Apple has always sucked Winnie's balls.
Cancelled my Apple TV just now. Really enjoyed the show and not a ton of other content on there that actually came with the sub. If I’m going to have to pay anyway and you’re not supporting your good shows then what’s the point.
I didn't think my opinion of Apple could go any lower but I guess I was wrong.
Stewart for President.
Never gonna happen, unfortunately. He's already said he won't run for office, because he feels he does more useful work from outside the system, asking the uncomfortable questions that need asking, until he gets an answer.
Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for Stewart for any office. I just know enough about the man to know that he refuses to run. He gets asked pretty regularly about it.
POTUS shouldn't be an entry level job.
POTUS should be a job filled by people with regular careers who serve their term, then return to their careers afterwards, if they don't wish to retire.
A POTUS who is a farmer will have unique insight on how to improve the lives of farmers. Then they go back to being a farmer too. Rinse and repeat for every other job. Doctor, college professor, cybersecurity professional, engineer, astronaut, etc, etc, etc.
Instead we just get career politician after career politician, usually with a background in law, or maybe finance.
There should be term limit reforms that also restrict ex-office holders from continuing careers as lobbyists* and other Capitol Hill creatures. Go back to your old career after holding office, or retire.
Sorry to burst your bubble but POTUS is a management position. You oversee millions of jobs as the head of the Executive branch.
It is a job that the vast majority do not have the skills or temperament to manage with any degree of competence. The plantation owner who oversaw the hundreds of jobs/slaves of the past might have been able to be the head of a smaller and weaker government but the modern farmer isn't going to have skills that transfer to POTUS.
The reason why it's finance, politicians, and lawyers that end up in the job is those are the fields whose skills actually do transfer.
POTUS isn't an entry level job. You should have governmental experience and a history of managing large organizations.
For real.
I would subscribe to him if he moved to patreon.
Same here unironically
Many of us would do it too
Unfortunately patreon is getting worse
It's just embracing the enshitification of everything.
He'd be a great leading subscription for that new Grayjay app Louis Rossmann has launched https://grayjay.app
stop making off topic promotions of that flawed product
You're implying I have made a series of promotions spamming the fediverse -- I have not. Twice max, I think. I am merely a rando who found out about by accident around the same time as this story, and it looked kinda cool. Honestly haven't launched it since taking one or two peeks since.
Is there some reason for the antipathy I am not aware of? I admit to liking Louis' channel and his fight for right-to-repair...
He might now.
I’m seeing a lot of anonymous quotes and assumptions but not a lot of verifiable facts. Sure, creative differences may have existed, but did any meaningful number of people watch the show? Even in online communities dedicated to Apple TV specifically I can’t recall seeing anything other than perfunctory mentions. Nobody ever actually talked about this show. I feel like the show was probably already on thin ice with a questionable ROI, and some likely not terribly sensational disagreement pushed it over the edge. Makes more sense than Apple caring what he says about AI, since they’ve pointedly avoided the embarrassing hype train, and clearly aren’t going to engage in the sort of exploitative “all of your documents are now our training corpus” nonsense that he’s likely to actually criticize.
I've seen plenty of talk about the show and some of the interviews being widely celebrated. Doesn't mean that there was good ROI, but I'd also wager that plenty of people watch apple TV+ stuff without being vocal about it that much just because so many people have apple stuff and just watch whatever is "good".
John "walking" means he quit the show, not that he was let go.
Viewership on Apple TV will never be high, as it is a low-performing streaming service in general. It's a bad idea to lose flagship content on a struggling streaming service.
This is a far more significant loss for Apple than it is for John Stewart.
Interesting how you skip over the China part entirely while you cook up an imagined narrative to hand wave away the show based on your personal feelings that has nothing to do with Jon walking.
The article is based on vague claims from anonymous sources. If the claims about AI don’t make sense to begin with (and they don’t because Apple isn’t involved in any of the stuff that he might reasonably criticize), that doesn’t make me think they knew what they were talking about regarding China either. If the source is disreputable, who cares what they said? If you make two claims and one doesn’t pass the smell test, I’m not going to waste time entertaining what really happened regarding the second claim.
Let me put it another way: there are too many real, verifiable outrageous things going on in the world for me to get my pitchfork out for something as weak on sourcing and details as this. Business agreements end for lots of reasons, and often a combination. People often have an axe to grind, especially if they were somehow involved in a deal that went south. This isn’t nearly enough for me to make any judgment.
Jon Stewart is a national treasure.
i would totally help crowdfund a jon stewart show
Yeah. Apple are the Machine
Apple users: buys iPhone for privacy
Apple: all your data belongs to me now
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But ahead of production kicking off on the show’s third season, Stewart and Apple have reportedly parted ways over “creative differences,” and The Problem is coming to an end.
Though new episodes of the show were scheduled to begin shooting in just a few weeks, staffers learned today that production had been halted.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, ahead of its decision to end The Problem, Apple approached Stewart directly and expressed its need for the host and his team to be “aligned” with the company’s views on topics discussed.
Rather than falling in line when Apple threatened to cancel the show, Stewart reportedly decided to walk.
The Times’ report doesn’t detail what about the show’s planned coverage of artificial intelligence and China prompted Apple’s executive leadership to butt heads with Stewart.
But considering how pointed criticality is a big part of what ultimately made The Problem With Jon Stewart a hit for Apple TV Plus and how maintaining a cordial relationship with China is crucial to Apple’s future plans for growth, it doesn’t come as a shock to see the show hit the chopping block this way.
The original article contains 283 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 34%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Uh? Wow! Way to show them bastards. ;)
Not the OP, but Hey… I'm loyal to the makers of my shoes because they fit great and last. I'm loyal to my preferred food brands because they taste great and have consistent quality. I'm loyal to a book publisher because their tech books are comprehensive.
Loyalty to a brand is not submission. It means you pick the brand over others due to positive past experiences. Don't imply that someone is a sheep for liking a company's products; you didn't say it, but it's clear that you think less of the OP for using that word.
I can completely respect your perspective. Yes I was being short when I made this comment, no offense to the op was intended.
To patronize a service because its good does not imply loyalty.
Apple has a long history of being manipulative and exploitative of their customers. Being loyal to them (from my perspective) is like being loyal to an abusive person. You obey their commands not because of respect, but because you feel an emotional bond to them.
Sorry, Jon. This country is owned.
He knows. He's the one who's been trying to teach that to the rest of us for decades now.
Now he and Hassam can start a new show.
Vaush, Hasan, and Stewart. They can bring back a better version of Crossfire.
It would be on brand for Stewart, but these last two weeks have thought me one thing: wait for confirmation and watch the development before reacting
Actual source: https://archive.is/GV0tU
Someone thought Apple was being altruistic by hosting Stewart's show? What the hell would you think that for?
Well, I guess we’ve now unofficially confirmed that, despite the fact that Siri is still terrible, Apple is also investing a shitload of money in large language models behind the scenes.
Imo, it's been pretty obvious that they have big plans for AI and Siri since 1. They've let it languish (they only do that with products they have a roadmap to fixing/replacing) 2. The new silicon has built in ML cores.
Apple is 100% working on AI possibly a new Siri, and it's going to run locally without sending your info to the cloud.
Sad to see for Jon Stewart.
Stewart is awesome, and I'm sure he'll bounce right back in even better shape.
Its okay I hear the daily show is looking for a new host
Fucking cowards.
lol, they never said that. You were just being naive. They were after the money of people who like Stewart.
Freedom of the press comes to an end when Apple is in the house 😧
Even taken at its face value, this allegation is literally an example of freedom of the press in action. Freedom means the ability for a publisher to choose what they publish. That includes telling staff no.
To appease whom?
Oof. I got banned on reddit once for saying that stewart is no longer as good as i remember (but it was in a thread about some trans-issue so of course the mods went full hitler).
To be honest i don't understand what he was expecting to happen in such a highly sanitized garden as apple's. It's so clearly not made for him
When will authoritarian regimes understand that critique ultimately does not matter much?
The ability to foment revolution is what gets authoritarian regimes into power in the first place, no wonder they want to close the door behind them.
Revolutions come from material conditions not from people running their mouth in shows. In no world there is any danger from Jon Steward to Chinese regime. His effect even on US politics (outside his direct activism - which is obviously different) is rather neglect-able - after quite some time he has been on air.
"Reports are not clear, but it's probably China's fault." 🙄
Sounds more like apple not wanting to jeopardize their relationship with china