Apple Stops Hiding Samsung Apology On Its UK Site 189
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has quietly decided that it probably shouldn't be using JavaScript code on its UK site to hide its second Samsung apology. While you still have to scroll down in almost cases, the company is no longer forcing it; check it out yourself at Apple UK."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?
Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with what Apple does or does not think. In fact, the court wasn't even forcing them to "lie" or even apologize, properly speaking, it is forcing them to publicly set the record straight about the facts of the case, which is that Samsung was found to not be copying them after Apple claimed they were. It's a correction of the public record, not an apology.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
so instead of deliberately hiding the apology, it's now automatically hidden. See? Better! /facepalm
Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".
Judge should make Apple stop dicking around (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.
The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
"You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
"That's not fair!"
"Two weekends. Don't say another word."
"But-!"
"Three. Wanna go for four?"
"You're going to post an apology."
"Fine." *hides it in the paper*
"Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
"Fine." *hides it on the website*
"Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, they just made sure you'd have to scroll even if you disable javascript. If I can't see it on a full-screened browser at 1920x1080, it's because they didn't want me to. They don't seem to have any problem making sure I can see the ad copy they WANT me to see.
No, your honor, I did not kill that man. Yes, I wired the doorbell for a million volts, replaced the welcome mat with a grounded copper plate, and then invited him over for tea, but he's the one who touched the doorbell button! It was suicide!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not forcing it with Javascript anymore. Now they're forcing it by making the parts they actually want you to see bigger. I fail to see why a poor attempt at obfuscating their clear motive is an improvement.
Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
An apology isn't meaningless. It means you are truly sorry for what you did. If you aren't truly sorry, and an authority coerces you to make such a statement, then yes. It's wrong. It looks like that's a lot for people to wrap their heads around here, especially when they don't like the person being coerced.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before, the image above the apology was set up so it auto-sized to fill up the space until the browser view was 1600 pixels tall, at which point it stopped. (Mind you that you couldn't see the apology, the image knocking it off the bottom just stopped getting larger.)
Now, in order to see the apology without scrolling, your browser window needs to be 1700 pixels tall, and the image doesn't change size depending on the browser window size.
So, yes, it's an "improvement." Now NoScript doesn't make the apology visible.
Incidentally, they're just showing both ad campaigns they're running at the same time. On the US website, you either see the iPad Mini or the iPad 4th gen ad. On the UK, you always see both, so that the apology gets knocked off the bottom in nearly all use cases.
I'm really hoping that the judge will force them to make the apology "click-through" on every page they control and show in the UK after this bullshit.
Re:So What. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite.
"We" like Google and Samsung because they don't do such kind of thing. "We" got mad at Apple only when they started to do that. You must go check your belived causality. If the roles reversed, I'm pretty sure nearly everybody here would be rooting for Apple, and you'd be complaining that if it were Apple that did that, we'd be laughing.
Also, you are conflating a BSD distributor against a Linux distributor, and claiming that we are partial because of Linux. That's just ridiculous.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only does it not appear on a full-size 1920x1080 monitor, it's carefully designed with equal white-space between the titlebar and the top of the screen and the footer and the bottom of the screen to appear there is absolutely nothing beneath. There is no way I would have seen that notice if I hadn't known to look for the browser bar and to try and scroll down and find it.
Ignoring the hypocracy of a company that was suing for subtle differences and then is trying subtle subfertuge, it STILL DOES NOT COMPLY. They are not printing the text of the original judgement, even hidden from view.
At the bottom of the web site at the moment: "On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
This is NOT WHAT THE COURT ORDERED. They really are taking the piss out of the judge.
Phillip.