This is not what HN is for. We should not use it as a place to vent frustrations.
>This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital.
That makes no sense. If that profit were put to better use elsewhere it would be. Either Apple itself would invest it elsewhere or people would invest it elsewhere instead of giving money to Apple in exchange for their products.
If you think a business making money "costs the public" that money you fundamentally misunderstand the very most basic principles of economics. It is the equivalent of saying that you think integers in computers are stored in base 3 or confidently proclaiming that "single entry accounting is the standard way to do it" or something. It is so so so wrong.
how economists managed to fuse math with mysticism I have no clue. This certainly never came from adam smith.
> Some just want something that actually works.
Sure! Some people are rich and assign little "value" to money relative to time (including me). This doesn't change anything: apple still operates at deep cost to the public. All that profit could be being put to productive use outside the reach of centralized capital. But as it stands they're basically lighting aforementioned cash on fire for the vibes and quarterly reports. If I see you with white earbuds in, I'll start selling you a bridge.