Sprint to a replacement? To basically do the same mistake twice (or thrice if you will)?
My bet is that they'll retreat and introduce the basic concept in/as another brand next year.
I agree mostly, but I think not the usage of this analogy is the real problem in this specific case. I think the usage here is apt as a figure of speech. However, like you already pointed out, the usage of the word terrorist in general is inflationary and has a strong significance from its literal meaning. The notions compete with each other on this level and for some readers reading those words in this context appear to be like a cheap, sort of unfair stake in the battle(!) for attention.
There's something terrifying about this, yes. But the article doesn't "attempt" to hide it's authors terror, it simply fails to verbalize it – if that's the authors underlying worry.
I understand this is a rant. But the writer comes over as a desperate bully who can't stand the fact that his childhood future fantasies didn't come true.
I like cyberpunk. I like the aesthetic. But it's not how the future looks like.
There's more to the future than what people envisioned in Gattaca on the one hand, and Blade Runner, on the other.
Because concept cars are combining efforts into a prototype to test those concepts with. Also, to get a reaction of press and potential customers. Concepts very often contain elements which are adopted by later production models and pointing the way ahead for a whole brand in terms of design language, automotive philosophy and technological advancements. It is far from a waste of talent and resources. Actually, it is necessary for top automakers to stay ahead of the game.
But there are parallels to certain human anxieties... ants falling into limbo, where certain death awaits you and the supply of poor souls never run out. If you listen closely you can hear their screams and their agony and despair from having no purpose.
Apple is de facto a multinational corporation. Heck, it seems it's a supranational corporation even. In that context, what does "bring the money back" mean?
My rationale: Make sure to have IDs, CCs, etc. on you. Grab your small bag from under the seat. Leave the overhead closed. It should be locked automatically as suggested in the article.
I own a couple of Apple notebooks. Two years ago I bought a used X201 because I needed a Linux backup (official excuse) and because I love the design (actual reason). It's completely different from Apple's approach and Richard Sapper's original draft is still visible in those machines.
And it runs Ubuntu just fine with an SSD upgrade and still enough memory for all purposes I have.
Oh geez, not another multi-millionaire claiming he doesn't need money, he would give it all away in a heartbeat when it comes to his "endgame". For a lot of people with actual money problems the endgame is paying the hospital bill from an unprecedented emergency pop-in.
Does it really matter if it is PR or not? It doesn't change the result, regardless if it is a good result for you personally or anyone else.
I understand that people are looking for reasons to like or dislike a brand because, I believe, most of us see a brand choice as a reflection of (a part) of our personalities – that includes company politics. But in the end we have to assume that Apple does what's best for Apple and that includes advocating for civil rights _as in_ defending one of their main selling points. However, Apple is not your buddy, it might pretend to be here and there, but after all corporations are not people.
How likely is this to be some kind of bait'n'switch? Scenario: Swedish diplomats enter negotiations – raising delusive hope in Assange and everyone in the Embassy – with the intention to never follow with any feasible agreement in order to make Assange give up so he can deal with his health issues.
Wasn't there a similar initiative in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis? With the difference that private people could help out indebted individuals on a smaller scale with some proxy gross debt buyer?
Why is it Apple that's a real-world incarnation of Huxley's world? Why is it not the whole society itself (including Apple as a very prominent figure) – as you aptly described with your observations – that is the real real-world incarnation of the Brave New World?
That is just profoundly wrong. In the 80s he stated that a country which was responsible for something like the Holocaust did not deserve to be re-unificated.
It seemed that he had his fair share of issues with his past, that is we he himself decided to come out with it.