"Apple does have a point" - Louis Rossmann

[Brumby]

No, Louis hasn't changed his thoughts about Apple overall - but read on...

Outline and recommended 6 minutes of viewing:

About a year ago, Louis posted a video about a Norwegian independent repairer being chased by Apple for using 'counterfeit' screens.  The opinions he expressed were based on what he understood at the time.  When he was called as a witness in a Norwegian court case, he became privy to some information which changed his understanding of the issue.  In response to this he posted a new video and included a comment in the original to watch the new video instead.

Louis was dismayed that while his original video had attracted 2.4 million views, his subsequent video had only achieved 42,000 views (about 46,000 now) - and it was this second video that painted an accurate picture of what was really going on.  As a result, he has produced a third video in an attempt to increase the awareness of the truth of the matter and apologise for his original commentary.

Watch the whole 41 minute video if you want, but I suggest the tldr can be picked up in two parts.  Part 1 - from 9:29 to 11:36 - outlines what had actually happened and part 2 - from 34:01 (or maybe 31:58) to 37:48 - which is his call to arms.

[bd139]

Can we just have a one sentence tl;dr? Life is too short to derive context.

[Brumby]

The tl;dr on the above is this:

Executive Summary:

The screens in question had an LCD and flex that were original, but it was the after market glass that was being used to refurbish the screens which had a fake Apple logo printed on it.

Louis' "call to arms" was an appeal to the repair industry to put pressure on the manufacturers to not put fake logos on components used in refurbishing or other parts that get exported..

[bd139]

Thanks for the summary. Saved me 40 minutes of my life.

[Mr. Scram]

Thanks for the summary. Saved me 40 minutes of my life.

Summaries for posted videos should be both common sense and common courtesy, but are rarely seen.

[coppice]

Corrections never get much attention, even when they completely change the original picture. That's why the media feels so free to lie these days, when they used to be much more inclined to merely distort. They've learned that  if they are pushed to publish a correction, or even a complete retraction, hardly anyone will notice it.

[tggzzz]

Thanks for the summary. Saved me 40 minutes of my life.

Summaries for posted videos should be both common sense and common courtesy, but are rarely seen.

If I can't see a summary of the video, the video itself will remain unseen by me.

Remaining life is too short!

[janoc]

Corrections never get much attention, even when they completely change the original picture. That's why the media feels so free to lie these days, when they used to be much more inclined to merely distort. They've learned that  if they are pushed to publish a correction, or even a complete retraction, hardly anyone will notice it.

There is also confirmation bias - when someone says "Evil Apple is suing a little guy!" it is going to make waves and is a good attention grabber/clickbait. Also an army of various Apple bashers will jump on it right away.   Correction that says that, um, Apple was maybe right on this one doesn't really interest anyone.

That's not really media's fault neither - that's our human nature that is being exploited by pandering to our interests and preconceptions.

[coppice]

Corrections never get much attention, even when they completely change the original picture. That's why the media feels so free to lie these days, when they used to be much more inclined to merely distort. They've learned that  if they are pushed to publish a correction, or even a complete retraction, hardly anyone will notice it.

There is also confirmation bias - when someone says "Evil Apple is suing a little guy!" it is going to make waves and is a good attention grabber/clickbait. Also an army of various Apple bashers will jump on it right away.   Correction that says that, um, Apple was maybe right on this one doesn't really interest anyone.

That's not really media's fault neither - that's our human nature that is being exploited by pandering to our interests and preconceptions.

Playing to the audience is clearly a big part of why people pass over the follow up material. Confirmation bias is not an "also" issue. Its at the very heart of how the media gets away with blatant lies.

[janoc]

Playing to the audience is clearly a big part of why people pass over the follow up material. Confirmation bias is not an "also" issue. Its at the very heart of how the media gets away with blatant lies.

And is that the fault of the media? People buy those tabloids for some reason ...

[bd139]

Yep. Because at least half of the human race are dribbling idiots.

[coppice]

Playing to the audience is clearly a big part of why people pass over the follow up material. Confirmation bias is not an "also" issue. Its at the very heart of how the media gets away with blatant lies.

And is that the fault of the media? People buy those tabloids for some reason ...

I guess that depends on whether think its OK for the part of the media publishing news to work exactly like the part of the media publishing fairy tales. The news media has always been heavily biased, but reports used to primarily distort the truth, or carefully package it, rather than make stuff up. They reserved direct lies for when they could be damned sure of no repercussions. For example, when learning public speaking you are frequently taught the "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell it to them, then tell them what you told them" rule. In the news, up to the early 90s, this was implemented as "you are about to hear the following from someone we find controversial", then you would hear the person's actual words, without tricky editing or context distortion, then the presenter would tell you what you should have heard. This was generally sufficient to make most listeners focus on the presenter's interpretation, rather than the speaker's actual words. It was certainly enough to guide bd139's 50% of dribbling idiots to hear what the presenter wanted them to. However, anyone could focus on the actual speaker, and try to block out the interpretation. The media used to get called out if they didn't let the actual speaker's words through unedited, but there was seldom comeback for wrapping it in spin. Now the news media, of all political colours, has given up such subterfuge, and simply presents fiction. Its damned hard to find what's really going on at all.

[bd139]

Yes indeed. And this is intentional. Most issues are divisive enough to cause an approximate 50/50 opinion split based on the two classes of news that are presented. All you have to do is get a small amount of dribbling idiots on the side of your agenda and you have a voting majority. I used to work for a rather well known analytics company that was in the feedback mechanism which lead to stuff like Trump and Brexit. I was right in with this shit and saw it happening and the media are wholly responsible for the world of pain we live in.

[janoc]

The media would be where they are with this if people didn't actually demand being fed this crap. Whether it is the endless thirst for voyeurism over someone else's mishaps or tragedies or demanding "unbiased reporting" where that really means they want to be fed with stuff confirming their own prejudices, biases and beliefs - everything else is seen as "lying press" or "biased" or "having an agenda". The problem with that is that then when someone actually publishes something true nobody believes them and nobody buys that.

Trump, brexit and all that is only the logical conclusion of it, but, seriously - it is only us ourselves to blame here.

[bd139]

Totally. Lets not forget that we are the media.

Think I need to build a giant space ship and leave 

[Brumby]

Thanks for the summary. Saved me 40 minutes of my life.

Summaries for posted videos should be both common sense and common courtesy, but are rarely seen.

That's why I took the time to pick out just 6 minutes of the video so that the key messages could be communicated in the author's own words.  Clearly, I overestimated the value of doing that.

If I can't see a summary of the video, the video itself will remain unseen by me.

Remaining life is too short!

I have added annotations to make things clearer.

[SparkyFX]

That's not really media's fault neither - that's our human nature that is being exploited by pandering to our interests and preconceptions.

That and not even trying to prolong the presumed attention span of a goldfish.
I mean... at some point this becomes a problem and the inability to recognize this as a problem leads to what? Redefinition of common sense or "simple english"?

I however wonder how the whole thing boiled down to "the printing technique used was not good on the counterfeit part". If an "original apple supplier" (whatever that would mean) would ship parts to apple with a smeared print that goes inside an assembly no customer would see, who would care? Even apple is run economically and needs to focus on the important things.

Then why would everything work, but only the logo print is smeared, whats the logic behind such a fabrication process? Someone painting it on in his sparetime? Is this the unwritten rule to counterfeiters, do everything good, except the logo?