Or of just a power outage or driver causing a loss of write back cache.
95 and 98 and ME crashed on a regular basis. I specifically remember upgrading from ME to XP and being so happy with the massively improved stability of the NT kernel over the 9x kernels.
If you think that's 9x was stable and reliable, you may be thinking very nostalgicly.
I am not so sure. I've ran 98 on bad hardware, and it crashed regularly. So much so, that I installed linux on it already in 1998, and that was much more stable. It only crashed now and then. No doubt in both cases the poor hardware was the cause of it.
Anyway, two years later I got a brand-new laptop with good hardware that was running 98se. As far as I remember, it didn't crash during normal usage. By then I was studying computer science, and would sometimes write or run programs that would make it crash, but that was on me. I did dual boot in Linux, and that didn't have any problems on that machine either.
Fun fact, I still have that laptop, it's over 25 years old now, but it still works and runs Windows 98se!
Or a modem driver reading the stream and writing shit - I still have some of those burping mp3s. But if you blame this solely on the OS then you may be thinking very nostalgically too.
Hell, it most of the time worked on some combo of the cheapest parts - modern systems wont even get to UEFI boot part on the parts of the same quality.
> If you think that's 9x was stable and reliable, you may be thinking very nostalgicly.
I agree. Remember Plug'n'Play? It was so bad that we used to call it Plug'n'Pray. It frequently caused PC crashes. Modern OSes are a miracle in how stable they are with drivers.
I've seen enough stories of power outages permanently damaging SSDs, that if you have bad power from your utilities provider and can't get them to fix it, then I recommend investing in a UPS.
The 180-page injunction outline the reason for it and the goals of the injunction. They knew the court ruled against them for specific reasons but came up with a solution that didn't take into account any of the stated goals into account.
Their solution didn't address any of the goals of the injunction.
At some point it has to be documented as to the decisions made and the reasoning.
If there is literally no documentation up until the final moment, doesn't that itself act as evidence that they were consciously and deliberately not wanting their reasoning documented?
> At some point it has
> to be documented as to
> the decisions made and
> the reasoning.
It really doesn't, I've worked in large organizations where almost all text strings shown to customers were the decision of some UX design sitting at their desk, with no "paper trail".
In this case (approximately page 35-40) you can see the "execs" had clearly provided guidance on the interface needing to be "scary"
The teams tasked with implementing that then proceed to create an extensive and incriminating on-the-record discussion, including things that the court could subsequently use to contradict their testimony.
They could have just ... not done any of that.
Whatever "exec" involved could have written the copy themselves.
The court could still infer that the interface was in violation, as they're doing here, but didn't need to be handed incriminating statements on a silver platter.
It's not exactly what he said. The fact the they agreed to a contract prohibiting them from using an outside payment method and then willfully violated that contract is a detail that courts may not be so willing to overlook.
Contract law allows you to sign away many rights you would otherwise retain. I'm not sure that a contract provision being found illegal under antitrust law has the effect of it being retroactively considered unconscionable or excuses agreeing to the contract in bad faith.
Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that
1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying
2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order.
In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane.
I really hope that criminal charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. Hopefully that will make other executives think twice when put in the same situation.
> I really hope that criminal charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order.
I do as well, but I have little hope that it will.
Prosecutors don't like prosecuting perjury. It's tricky to prosecute (particularly because of how close it is to the first amendment), takes a lot of time, and often it just ends up with a minor slap on the wrist. I've seen other cases with outrageous perjury that resulted in no criminal prosecution.
This is a broken part of the justice system. Particularly because these apple execs have the money and lawyers to drag out any prosecution until everyone involved is dead. But also because it relies on government prosecutors caring in the first place.
We have a lot of messed up rulings in the past that allow corporations to act like people but skate by when they do things as if they weren't people. I say if a corporation can have free speech like a person then they can get thrown in jail like a person too. When illegal stuff happens it should have real, meaningful, consequences like the board being fired and massive fines or outright closing the company. I am not a fan of the industry right now. Apple is a symptom of a broader problem and we need bigger changes to start correcting the direction corporate america has been heading for the last 50 years.
The judge should really fine apple in the form of a 100% refund of everyones fees for the duration of this behavior. That's the only way the pain is great enough to force forward compliance.
Corps are separate legal entities so individuals are generally protected from personal liability. There can be exceptions in criminal and civil liability instances but even then there things like D&O. Until we stop giving corporations so much legal cover we’re hosed.
>Corps are separate legal entities so individuals are generally protected from personal liability.
not really.
corps have the defining feature that their passive shareholders are protected from personal liability, but not their officers, directors, nor employees.
they are "entities" so they can sign contracts and you can sue them and bring them to court. they are entities so the entire body of preexisting laws about suing and bringing to court would not need to be rewritten from scratch for corporations, it slots them into the rights and responsibilities that individuals have.
95 and 98 and ME crashed on a regular basis. I specifically remember upgrading from ME to XP and being so happy with the massively improved stability of the NT kernel over the 9x kernels.
If you think that's 9x was stable and reliable, you may be thinking very nostalgicly.