Reply to post: Re: A contract is a contract

Apple is a filthy AWS, Azure, Google reseller, gripe punters: iPhone giant accused of hiding iCloud's real backend

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: A contract is a contract

"If Folgers sold coffee grown by Maxwell and labeled it as Folgers, I'd believe it was grown by Folgers."

From a very quick check online, it doesn't look like either of these companies grows coffee. They buy coffee from other people who grow it then do whatever grinding technique/recipe they use to make their products. I'm going to assume that these products are detectably different; I don't know as I've never tried either, but it helps make your point. Unfortunately, it doesn't help your point enough, because the difference between the companies is what they do to the coffee, from their quality control on the beans to whatever preparation techniques they use. Maybe the companies get their coffee from different subspecies of the coffee plants and from different areas of the globe, but that doesn't get announced in their brands. For all you know, they're buying their coffee beans from exactly the same massive coffee growing company. It's what they do to it that makes it a product. Similarly, Apple has its own software and service, and it buys computing capacity to run it on. Whether it runs on Amazon's servers, Microsoft's servers, Google's servers, servers Apple built that run inside Apple headquarters, or servers that are sourced from mainstream server manufacturers and stacked in a datacenter somewhere random, the service is the same to the users. If there were any difference, including extra non-Apple people having the ability to see unencrypted user data, that would be a problem and a possible cause for complaint. But that's not the case.

"When people defend mega corps with EULA speak, you know people have been mentally conditioned."

First, I'd like to point out that neither the person to whom you replied nor I have used any legal terms, unless you count "Apple's own software and service" as legalese.

Second, we use legal arguments because legal arguments are at play. This is a court case, and part of the discussion is whether the case will succeed. And we're not blindly defending megacorps. I'm sure you can investigate all our post histories and see that we've often denounced many large companies. We defend defensible actions only. And it matters not if it's a company I like or one I dislike, if they're doing something that I don't find problematic, I'm not going to attack them on that basis just because I disagree with something else they do.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020