You'd think they would tilt it the other way.
"Oh wow! My signal strength shows no bars but my iPhone is still working! This thing is the best."
"Cleanliness is next to FAIL", a biochemist sends Wired a theory of why the "signal problem" of the iPhone 4 probably wasn't caught.
The theory is sound enough that I will have to adjust my theory that someone was aware of the problem on some level within Apple. It is actually quite possible that it wasn't detected...
Considering how important Apps are the fact that developers are interested in Android and planning to support Android long term suggests Android has a decent future in spite of the head start the iPhone has.
Similarly the complete lack of interest in the Windows 7 phone and Symbian pretty much foreshadows a slow death for those platforms. They might survive by making some sort of support for Android apps.
Symbian has been around for a very long time. As an "named OS", it was never popular in North America; its predecessor powered Psion devices which never quite took off here as a PDA. I thought they were pretty nice back when I was a heavy Palm V user. It has huge penetration though.
AFAIK, Windows 7 development is limited as well to Silverlight and XNA. You'd think the XNA Creator's Club folks would be jumping all over it.
|
Android keeps chipping. Apple and Microsoft shares slide.
As long as there is plenty of choice, Apple's practices don't much matter in the long run.
|
Android keeps chipping. Apple and Microsoft shares slide.
As long as there is plenty of choice, Apple's practices don't much matter in the long run.
Agreed, I am fully of this opinion. To be honest, some people like Apple's approach and it's simplicity to those users. Those people should be rewarded with a good product. At the same time others will want their products with as much customization etc. a la Google Android. I do hope that competition increases as it'll make better phones for everyone (Apple included who could very easily become complacent).
|
Lawsuit against Apple and AT&T alleged monopoly moves up to class action level.
If I design and sell a product (iPhone) that includes a key feature (making phone calls) which can only be reasonably accessed (no hacks) if you buy and use another product (AT&T cell service), how have I created or encouraged a monopoly?
There are probably thousands of cell phone models, certainly dozens of models available in the US and usable with multiple carriers. No-one forced anyone to buy an iPhone or to sign a contract.
|
|
If I design and sell a product (iPhone) that includes a key feature (making phone calls) which can only be reasonably accessed (no hacks) if you buy and use another product (AT&T cell service), how have I created or encouraged a monopoly?
They clearly have a monopoly in iPhones. They have 100% of the iPhone market which makes it a monopoly. They have manipulated the market through trademarks and copyright law to ensure no one else can market an iPhone. How would you feel if someone had monopolized the car?
|
|
If I design and sell a product (iPhone) that includes a key feature (making phone calls) which can only be reasonably accessed (no hacks) if you buy and use another product (AT&T cell service), how have I created or encouraged a monopoly?They clearly have a monopoly in iPhones. They have 100% of the iPhone market which makes it a monopoly. They have manipulated the market through trademarks and copyright law to ensure no one else can market an iPhone. How would you feel if someone had monopolized the car?
** spoiler omitted **
I'd say you're right, they monopolized the iPhone, their invention. They did not monopolize the cell phone (akin to monopolizing a car--or the smart phone, akin to monopolizing a luxury car)) anymore than BMW has monopolized the 325i.
I'd say you're right, they monopolized the iPhone, their invention. They did not monopolize the cell phone (akin to monopolizing a car--or the smart phone, akin to monopolizing a luxury car)) anymore than BMW has monopolized the 325i.If I design and sell a product (iPhone) that includes a key feature (making phone calls) which can only be reasonably accessed (no hacks) if you buy and use another product (AT&T cell service), how have I created or encouraged a monopoly?They clearly have a monopoly in iPhones. They have 100% of the iPhone market which makes it a monopoly. They have manipulated the market through trademarks and copyright law to ensure no one else can market an iPhone. How would you feel if someone had monopolized the car?
** spoiler omitted **
I think the law suit is based on the restriction of fair trade part of the anti-monopoly laws.
Apple reportedly deleting posts that mention the Consumer Reports removal of recommendation of the iPhone 4.
Wireds' article on the same story.
----------------------------------
Flippity-flop
Consumer Reports gives iPhone 4 highest ranking of all smartphones.
No, not a flippity-flop.
Just complete information disclosure. Consumer Reports reported its' test results, then went on to not recommend the iPhone.
The signal problem is the reason that we did not cite the iPhone 4 as a "recommended" model, even though its score in our other tests placed it atop the latest Ratings of smart phones that were released today.
((Source))
Several sources believe Apple needs to recall the iPhone 4. One compares it to the Toyota problem with brakes and accelerators. Some might find that uncalled for.
Odds on iPhone 4 being recalled. (Actual bookmaker website, so might not be safe for work.)
If I made a bet it would be that they offer complimentary cases. Far cheaper than a recall, a case is shown to fix the issue, and this is the first iPhone to have an Apple Brand case available for it.
No, not a flippity-flop.
Just complete information disclosure. Consumer Reports reported its' test results, then went on to not recommend the iPhone.
First, they recommended it in their preliminary report.
Then, they released their engineers results and withdrew their recommendation.
Then, they released their rankings, with the iPhone 4 taking top place.
Then they released an explanation as to why they could not recommend the iPhone despite their rankings.
Actually, I think you're right that it is not a "fippity-flop" insomuch as an "inconsistency". While the initial reports may represent different opinions or experience within Consumer Reports early on, the rankings really confuse the issue - either their rankings are incomplete and not a good judge of cellphones, or their final opinion is overly harsh in rejecting their own findings that generate the rankings. I've used Consumer Reports rankings to aid in major purchasing decisions for years, and the inconsistencies are disturbing, though also somewhat amusing in a depressing sort of way. And while their final explanation goes through the process of how they evaluate products, and why the inconsistencies in their statements came out, they are still inconsistencies that don't help with sorting out how much of a problem the "Death Grip" is.
Bottom line for me, I wish I had the money to buy an iPhone 4 and see if I was one of the people who are able to replicate the problem.
I am not aware of any of the inconsistencies you mention, but Consumer Reports - and any review system actually - needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I don't say that because I do not trust their results, or believe they are not doing a fair job. Testing procedures are only as good as the tests used. And unfortunately, there needs to be a reason to test something.
A manufacturing plant I worked in had a fairly severe problem with one of the products we made. Once the problem was identified, the engineers admitted that they never thought to test for that problem.
I can easily imagine antenna attenuation not being one of the things they tested for (but are likely to do so in the future). So, in order to be a fair tester, they had to publish their reports on their findings of the tests they did run on all phones. (And the iPhone 4 clearly won out.)
But because of the repeatable problem with the antenna (which wasn't part of their tests), they felt the iPhone 4 couldn't be recommended.
I'm afraid that is the nature of the beast, as it were.
--------------------------------------
Apple to hold a press conference on Friday to address iPhone 4.
|
|
Steve Jobs allegedly warned of the antenna problem before launch from within Apple, and from a carrier.
This would certainly support the strange introduction of the Bumper case.
When I first saw the Bumper during the Keynote I remember thinking it was the silliest case they could have come up with, since most people are likely more concerned with the screen damage or scratches on the back, and the band is made of steel--why does it need protection?
As circumstantial proof, that doesn't help Apples defense against the class action lawsuit. That is not to say that it helps the prosecutor.
I am curious to see where this goes. IF it can be proven that Apple "willfully released defective products," and receives a punishment that is more than an figurative slap on the wrist, I wonder what that would do to the manufacturing fields' general "quantity over quality" attitude.
I don't think that releasing a product that doesn't work for sweaty tight gripped people is "willfully released defective product." There's a lot of iPods that fail because people sweat all over them too. Sweat + electronics = fail.
Now the issue with the inaccurate signal readings would be interesting, but that's nothing an update can't fix. We'll find out what's going down during the press conference tomorrow.
Well, first it isn't restricted to sweaty only. Second it isn't restricted to tight grip only. And finally, for a device that is designed to be held in the hand, holding it in the hand shouldn't present such a problem.
It would be a different situation if the iPhone 4 was shipped and designed to use the bumper case - and people were having this problem when they removed the bumper case. But making the bumper case an additional purchase puts a new spin on this.
-----------------------------------------
Some are having problems updating to iOS 4.0.1.
-----------------------------------------
Steve Jobs admitted a problem, and did the right thing. I admit, it wasn't what I expected. The reports I read of the conference did point out that he is still trying to say the signal problem isn't limited to the iPhone 4... And while he is correct about that to a point, the problem is increased due to the design of the iPhone 4.
Anyway, it is reported that not everyone will be able to get a case due to demand, so if you are looking to get one be ready. (Offer starts the 22nd.)
|
|
This has happened to me a couple of times since the update to iOS4 upgrade, during calls and not during calls. iOS4 has been nothing but a headache for my 3G, everything runs slowly, the phone constantly freezes, I know some of it is because of incompatibiliy issues with apps and the new ios, but even after those where upgraded they still run slow, and stuff that are not apps like SMS and Contacts are slow as hell. I so wish I never upgraded to the new OS.
|
|
Apple's response: Buy a new iPhone 4 (now with free bummper case).This has happened to me a couple of times since the update to iOS4 upgrade, during calls and not during calls. iOS4 has been nothing but a headache for my 3G, everything runs slowly, the phone constantly freezes, I know some of it is because of incompatibiliy issues with apps and the new ios, but even after those where upgraded they still run slow, and stuff that are not apps like SMS and Contacts are slow as hell. I so wish I never upgraded to the new OS.
Not going to happen until they fix the connection problems, the bumber is a patch not a fix. Not only that, I just git the 3G, I have atleast 2 more years of use of it.
|
|
Phonemakers are insulted by Steve Jobs claim that "all smartphones behave the same way."
Of course they are 'insulted' :D
A friend of mine is a techno-phile and he has an iPhone 4 and loves it. He does notice the issue with the antenna but doesn't seem to care. I suspect most iPhone users are similarly happy with the phone which is otherwise excellent.
While the Android phones don't have these specific issues there are tons of other issues with them starting with the fact that many of the biggest phone makers aren't updating even fairly new phones to the latest version of Android.
Installing a bumper to improve reception is a pretty minor issue compared to buying a phone that is obsoleted by the maker within six months.
Also, Jobs isn't the only one blaming phone problems on users, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt want to blame their users for issues also.
I can understand why other phone makers are insulted by Steve Jobs lumping them all in together on antenna attenuation.
As shown by AnandTechs analysis, the (bare) iPhone 4 signal reception drops ~10 dB just sitting in an open palm. Even compared to Apples own iPhone 3GS (less than 1 bB lost for sitting in an open palm) that is horrible.
But that doesn't matter, since the antenna problem with the iPhone 4 was "blown out of proportion." It has nothing to do with the design plan to put the antenna on the outside, without even the industrial equivalent of clear nail polish.
Do you know of any reports of poor Android battery life without "all the bells and whistles turned on?" I haven't read anything on it, but I would like to find out if it is a design problem, or a consumer choice problem.
|
|
I'm just mentioning this because while perhaps other phone makers don't have antenna issues they have their own set of issues, the upgrade issue is IMO far worse in the long run than the antenna issue because while a single design make indicates a screw up the upgrade issue reflects the vendors willingness to support their products through their lifecycle.
Someone screwing up a product is a mistake, not supporting a 3 month old product in my opinion is a business model (which sucks). This thread is about business models right?
This kind of thing is one of the reasons the iPhone and Apple computers are so popular, you buy an Apple product and you can generally expect the product to have a decent lifecycle.
If you want to get technical, this is a thread about Apple business models.
I do agree that the Android update issue is a problem. One that could be fixed if phones were easy to do fresh installs on. If a carrier is unable/unwilling to support an upgrade, "crowdsource" it. But somewhere along the line, phone consumers "allowed" manufacturers to lock their devices...
But that is a problem with Sprint. The current model (which mimics ISPs, or ISPs mimic phone carriers... Take your pick) does suck. But then I believe all devices should be "jailbroken" for the consumer.
If you want to get technical, this is a thread about Apple business models.
Welcome to the Paizo boards, sounds like you're new here. Lilith will be along with cookies shortly.
|
|
If you want to get technical, this is a thread about Apple business models.
I do agree that the Android update issue is a problem. One that could be fixed if phones were easy to do fresh installs on. If a carrier is unable/unwilling to support an upgrade, "crowdsource" it. But somewhere along the line, phone consumers "allowed" manufacturers to lock their devices...
But that is a problem with Sprint. The current model (which mimics ISPs, or ISPs mimic phone carriers... Take your pick) does suck. But then I believe all devices should be "jailbroken" for the consumer.
How can you say Apple's business model is bad without comparing it to others?
From what I understand Android upgrade woes extend beyond just sprint. Hopefully Google's newest Android release will address this but ultimately the unless Android vendors upgrade their older phones (seems unlikely) it's going to screw a lot of folks stuck with older versions with no real options other than buying a new phone.
Most people don't want to deal with jailbreaking phones, they just want stuff to work. It's not too hard to find unlocked Android phones on the internet but they are more expensive than locked ones. People are willing to accept the lack of freedom in exchange for the lower price or in Apple's case the easier to use/ upgradeable device.
How can you say Apple's business model is bad without comparing it to others?
I could point out that I haven't claimed Apples' business model is bad... And that is just an assumption. But I am not going to waste the effort.
It is easy to claim Company A's business model is bad without comparing it to others. If all companies have the same business model, that sure as hell doesn't make that business model good. Just the accepted model.
From what I understand Android upgrade woes extend beyond just sprint. Hopefully Google's newest Android release will address this but ultimately the unless Android vendors upgrade their older phones (seems unlikely) it's going to screw a lot of folks stuck with older versions with no real options other than buying a new phone.
That could all very well be true. But the truth is, I haven't seen anything on the matter. No, I am not claiming it doesn't exist. All I am doing is admitting it doesn't get as much press in what I read.
Most people don't want to deal with jailbreaking phones, they just want stuff to work. It's not too hard to find unlocked Android phones on the internet but they are more expensive than locked ones. People are willing to accept the lack of freedom in exchange for the lower price or in Apple's case the easier to use/ upgradeable device.
And guess what? If phones were shipped "jailbroken," people still wouldn't have to deal with unlocking them. And even "unlocked" Android phones don't really allow OS installs on them. It is a trend in the smartphone market that users just shouldn't have control over their devices.
|
|
That could all very well be true. But the truth is, I haven't seen anything on the matter. No, I am not claiming it doesn't exist. All I am doing is admitting it doesn't get as much press in what I read.
Because good or bad Apple gets about 5 times the press of anyone. Also because many of the problems are 'isolated' to individual vendors.
And guess what? If phones were shipped "jailbroken," people still wouldn't have to deal with unlocking them. And even "unlocked" Android phones don't really allow OS installs on them. It is a trend in the smartphone market that users just shouldn't have control over their devices.
Regardless, the average consumer doesn't care if it's unlocked or jailbroken. If it will save them money, time, or effort they will take the locked phone every time.
That could all very well be true. But the truth is, I haven't seen anything on the matter. No, I am not claiming it doesn't exist. All I am doing is admitting it doesn't get as much press in what I read.Because good or bad Apple gets about 5 times the press of anyone. Also because many of the problems are 'isolated' to individual vendors.
Since I pretty much said the same thing (or at least meant it) I can believe that.
The big question is: "Why does Apple get more press?"
It might be as Steve Jobs whined (paraphrased) "people are trying to tear us down because we are popular." (I am reminded of the Kelly Lebrock "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" Pantene ad (YouTube video) that got a good number of people pissed at her.) It is possible. But I find it difficult to believe because I can think of a few popular* companies that people didn't try to tear down. So I am thinking there is more to it.
I am not certain what Steve Jobs meant when he said he sees the same thing with Google. I have to think it is over the wi-fi snooping. And if that is the case, consumers at large quieted down when Alan Eustace admitted it was a mistake. Something that Apple refuses to do.
I think Apple receives the most press because they try to promote their devices in ways that polarize consumers. That polarization is a great way to drum up press. Which leave Apple in "the drivers seat" as to how much press it receives. It can stop driving the wedge between schools of thought and reduce press, or it can bite the bullet and suck up the press it gets from its' choice of promotions.
*How do we define a popular company? I do not think it is fair to go by any real numbers, because that will skew the results towards larger companies that aren't necessarily more popular. But one of my "go to" examples would be Blizzard. They were terribly popular, and now not so much - although still thriving.
And guess what? If phones were shipped "jailbroken," people still wouldn't have to deal with unlocking them. And even "unlocked" Android phones don't really allow OS installs on them. It is a trend in the smartphone market that users just shouldn't have control over their devices.Regardless, the average consumer doesn't care if it's unlocked or jailbroken. If it will save them money, time, or effort they will take the locked phone every time.
No. Not regardless. Just because the average <whatever> prefers <product x> without regard to <policy a> in no way makes <policy a> acceptable, right, or "good." This is even more true when <policy a> can be changed, or removed, without impacting the average <whatever>s' enjoyment of <product x>.
As an off the cuff idea, phonemakers could put a switch/jumper inside their cases that allows consumers to "unlock" their phone to install the OS of choice onto it, and the return the switch/jumper back to its' protective state. This would remove all liability from the phonemaker, since opening the case voids the warranty outright. Nothing has to change for the average consumer, and those of the mind could update their phones at their own whims.
But then again, that gets back to the business model that carriers and ISPs have. They do not allow users to upgrade their phones/modems in order "to ensure proper compatibility." (Yes, even if you purchase your own modem, you rely on your ISP to "push" upgrades.)
And that starts to take this discussion into the "Apples (no pun meant) and Oranges" range, since Apple is not a carrier in any way.
Apple crowned the new leader in software insecurity. NOTE: This isn't to say that Apple software is insecure. The primary source for these numbers are third party software.
|
|
The big question is: "Why does Apple get more press?"
When good or bad things happen to a faceless company people don't care. When good things happen to a person, they do. Jobs is the personification of Apple.
People are fascinated by winner and Jobs is seen as a winner. Steve Jobs has become a celebrity, beyond just his persona of CEO. It's... really damned strange.
So people hang on the results of Apple seeing it as a direct reflection of Jobs. Some people are hoping they crash and burn, some cheering him on irrationally. Just like NASCAR.
Ironically even the people who are rooting for his failure are helping him by driving hits to articles on Apple and making Apple the most notable news entity. You are doing a marvelous job of generating interest in Apple, driving the very idea which you question.
I think Apple receives the most press because they try to promote their devices in ways that polarize consumers. That polarization is a great way to drum up press. Which leave Apple in "the drivers seat" as to how much press it receives. It can stop driving the wedge between schools of thought and reduce press, or it can bite the bullet and suck up the press it gets from its' choice of promotions.
Ah but controversy drives media, people are fascinated by controversy, it gives them something to cheer or boo. People love the bad-boy rebellious image Jobs represents, they figure it rubs off on them even as they wait in line to buy the next trendy Apple widgit.
No. Not regardless. Just because the average <whatever> prefers <product x> without regard to <policy a> in no way makes <policy a> acceptable, right, or "good." This is even more true when <policy a> can be changed, or removed, without impacting the average <whatever>s' enjoyment of <product x>.
You are under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of morality involved here. It's a business transaction, they offer a product, if you like it you buy if you don't then you can buy something else. The problem is that the phone makers don't make a phone that YOU like. The herds of common man are fine with whats offered and folks who want a more open product are left out in the dark.
I'm with you, I'd love a more open phone. I don't however think that someone has a sort of moral obligation to create one.
As an off the cuff idea, phonemakers could put a switch/jumper inside their cases that allows consumers to "unlock" their phone to install the OS of choice onto it, and the return the switch/jumper back to its' protective state. This would remove all liability from the phonemaker, since opening the case voids the warranty outright. Nothing has to change for the average consumer, and those of the mind could update their phones at their own whims.
Wasn't the Google Nexus One pretty much wide open? I didn't look into it too much.
After Linksys eliminated their hackable Linux router they brought it back at a slightly higher price point (while leaving the less open, less expensive one available to the masses) to fill demand. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable expectation for the phone market because the locked phones are subsidized so much. An unlocked (not even jailbroken) phone costs $200-300 more than it's locked and bundled counterpart, I think that price barrier is a huge incentive for people to accept what's offered.
Ironically even the people who are rooting for his failure are helping him by driving hits to articles on Apple and making Apple the most notable news entity. You are doing a marvelous job of generating interest in Apple, driving the very idea which you question.
That reads as if you expect me a) to be rooting for Steve Jobs failure, b) to care if Apple gets hits or not, c) to suddenly realize "OMG! I am helping the devil! I should kill myself right now!"
Since you are assuming I have some emotional tie to all this, let me clear things up for you. First, I am not questioning why Apple gets more press. You appeared to be. I mentioned that others don't get as much press in what I read, and you replied with "that is because Apple gets 5 times more press," as if that was some revelation. Next, I don't care how popular Steve Jobs, or Apple is. My goal - mt only goal - is to make sure consumers (past, present, and future) have as much information as possible. After that, what happens doesn't phase me one bit. If it is pointed out that continuing buying habits will cause the end of the world, and people still do it, it isn't my concern.
Ah but controversy drives media, people are fascinated by controversy, it gives them something to cheer or boo. People love the bad-boy rebellious image Jobs represents, they figure it rubs off on them even as they wait in line to buy the next trendy Apple widgit.
Steve Jobs has a bad-boy rebellious image? I would never had thought. But that is probably because I have spent my life around various forms of bad-boy rebels, that Steve Jobs comes off as little more than a geek to me.
You are under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of morality involved here.
That is only because you are under the impression that I am mistaken. Every decision has morality. That is because every decision has a level of ethics (or lack thereof). And it is impossible to have, or lack, ethics without some moral compass to guide you. If business transactions, and/or decisions, were truly devoid of morality or ethics, there would be no need for any regulatory entities like Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau. Now, perhaps you are right and the actual act might be devoid of such things, but since the consumer society imposes a level of ethics and morality to the act, the act still has (or at least imitates) morality.
I like chocolate milk!
|
|
Ironically even the people who are rooting for his failure are helping him by driving hits to articles on Apple and making Apple the most notable news entity. You are doing a marvelous job of generating interest in Apple, driving the very idea which you question.That reads as if you expect me a) to be rooting for Steve Jobs failure, b) to care if Apple gets hits or not, c) to suddenly realize "OMG! I am helping the devil! I should kill myself right now!"
Whether you are rooting for Job's to fall or not is irrelevant. Your fascination with the subject to 'enlighten the public' demonstrates that are caught up in the whole reality distortion field regardless of how you feel about the company or what your motivations are.
Steve Jobs has a bad-boy rebellious image? I would never had thought. But that is probably because I have spent my life around various forms of bad-boy rebels, that Steve Jobs comes off as little more than a geek to me.
Oh, a rebellious image has to involve leather jackets and cigarettes? Forgive me for stepping on your stereotypes.
You are under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of morality involved here.That is only because you are under the impression that I am mistaken. Every decision has morality. That is because every decision has a level of ethics (or lack thereof). And it is impossible to have, or lack,...
So buying toilet paper at the store is moral or immoral? How is buying a cell phone any different from buying toilet paper?
So what exactly is immoral about an iPhone? What tenant of any system of moral beliefs does Apple violate?
They are a bit deceptive in some of their statements regarding antennas... ok *shrug* Not very high on my moral compass.
They... sell phones that are tied to one cell phone vendor. Hmm how is this immoral? Ummm robs people of choice? Well no they can choose not to buy the phones so you can't say that. How is this exactly evil again?
Hmm.... a little help, what are they doing that's immoral???
Oh, a rebellious image has to involve leather jackets and cigarettes? Forgive me for stepping on your stereotypes.
My god, you are full of assumptions aren't you?
So buying toilet paper at the store is moral or immoral?
Yes. Decisions have consequences. Just because you aren't aware of the consequences, does not eliminate the ethics (and therefor morality) of your decisions. Buying toilet paper is moral or immoral.
|
|
Oh, a rebellious image has to involve leather jackets and cigarettes? Forgive me for stepping on your stereotypes.My god, you are full of assumptions aren't you?
At least I recognize that I have them rather than blindly pretending they don't exist.
So buying toilet paper at the store is moral or immoral?Yes. Decisions have consequences. Just because you aren't aware of the consequences, does not eliminate the ethics (and therefor morality) of your decisions. Buying toilet paper is moral or immoral.
Which is it? And which is buying an iPhone? Or selling one for that matter? And under what crazy code of morality is two free willed people exchanging cash for merchandise immoral?
If we are discussing morals than we must know by what set of morals are you judging? Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
If anything the public acceptance of Apple products and procedures makes it a moral norm.
In comparison to say Microsoft a company which the United States (a pretty fair representation of society) has had to actually step in and tell them to change their practices.
You may want to actually read through the iPhone 4 conference.
Which is it? And which is buying an iPhone? Or selling one for that matter? And under what crazy code of morality is two free willed people exchanging cash for merchandise immoral?
It's at least potentially immoral under a crazy code that exists in a world with:
* Sweat shops* Unsafe working conditions (*cough* Upper Big Branch mine *cough*)
* Negative externalities.
* Defective products which aren't recalled because paying damages has a better ROI!
Good thing we don't live in a world like that, eh?
All decisions have the potential for a moral component. The fact that we're usually unaware of such components doesn't mean they aren't there. Likewise, the moral imperative to maximize returns for shareholders doesn't absolve a corporation from its other obligations.
As for the morality of buying a roll of toilet paper: It depends. If that toilet paper was made by slaves, then buying it may well be immoral. If the manufacturer knowingly polluted rivers, there would be a potential moral component (though again, probably one of which you would be unaware) of a purchasing decision. There is no single right answer; that doesn't mean there isn't a question.
*crosses fingers, hopes thread doesn't become another alignment debate*