• @UsernameHere
    link
    English
    71 year ago

    If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.

    He probably would’ve turned down the request.

    You acknowledge that it is common for actors to do what he did so it is safe to say Apple knew also.

    So Apple takes the “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission” approach and plays dumb.

    • kirklennon
      link
      fedilink
      -4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.

      Apple never asked him to give a speech. This is an acceptance speech for an obscure, untelevised awards show. The winners are invited to speak when accepting it. De Niro worked with the producers/Apple on his acceptance speech. For some reason, the draft loaded on the teleprompter wasn’t the version he planned on. There are many different reasons this could be.

      If you’re going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon. The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios. Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be. The most likely scenario is pure mistake with multiple drafts in play; the next most likely is a nobody who grossly overstepped their bounds, made their bosses look bad, and has probably already been fired.

      • @UsernameHere
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you’re going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon.”

        I’ve had many experiences with companies that fire “peons” for bad PR or misrepresenting the views of the company or however HR wants to word it to avoid legal problems.

        It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.

        The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios.”

        Then why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?

        Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be.

        Because it looks like they are censoring his speech.

        • kirklennon
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.

          Seriously, just think through this. Be super conspiratorial if you want to. There’s no upside for Apple as a company. There’s no reason anybody in power would even be involved in the speech in the first place. It’s a minor awards ceremony that effectively nobody watches. If it were a conscious decision, it would obvious piss off De Niro, which seems like an extra stupid idea.

          What’s more likely? A: Intentionally anger a big-name actor by trying to force him to change a speech that nobody was going to hear, or B: Someone accidentally sent the wrong final draft.

          why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?

          He said it before he had any time to reflect on it or carefully choose his words to parse out the nuance we’re discussing now.

          • @UsernameHere
            link
            English
            41 year ago

            It’s not some crazy conspiracy to say this doesn’t look like an accident