As I pointed out in the previous discussion, your smartphone, whatever the brand, almost certainly has metals mined or processed by children in dangerous and unhealthy work environments.
That has a much bigger impact on child health than some tenuous three degrees of separation link of a marketing partnership.
Yeah...seriously. I expect some people will take offense to this, but here it goes:
So what? If this contrived issue that Google may face is now considered a serious matter, then I guess everything is off limits.
"Hey Tom, what should we name our new operating system?"
"I don't know, how about 'daring diamond' - it's got alliteration, and everybody loves diamonds."
"Mmmm...nope, sorry, that whole blood diamonds thing...don't want to risk that!"
Google isn't making a statement supporting Nestle's practices in other countries. They're not saying people are silly for boycotting the product. This is really just hypersensitive.
I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott Nestle. But KitKat is a fantastic name. It's not a loaded word. If you stopped people on the street and asked them what they thought about it, they'd probably say, "Hey, those give me a break commercials?" not "Hey, I boycott Nestle! Screw those bastards."
It's a cute name that has alliteration and is well known. I mean...come on. Criticize Google for something substantial, not because they named an operating system after a delicious chocolate treat marginally related to some controversy. If you're going to criticize Android, go the whole hog and do it with something that actually matters.
If you stopped people on the street and asked them what they thought about it, they'd probably say, "Hey, those give me a break commercials?" not "Hey, I boycott Nestle! Screw those bastards."
Clearly _some_ people think the latter. And those are the people who are causing a fuss right now.
I try to avoid Nestle products, for lots of reasons, visible on their Wikipedia page. They are a truly scummy company. Like most people I'm not perfect, but I make a point of avoiding products (you can get a lot of mileage out of not eating junk!).
I was very disappointed to see the tie-in. It won't alter my purchasing decisions though. I believe what I read about no money changing hands, so I won't be financially supporting the company. I won't see the KitKat logo anywhere on my tablet/phone (I hope!). In fact I have two Android products and I couldn't tell you the version-name of either of them.
This episode might have two effects. First, it might raise the profile of the Nestle boycott. Second it might make more people aware that Google is a commercial entity not some fuzzy benevolent organisation. Perversely, this might end up being a good thing.
>you can get a lot of mileage out of not eating junk!
It's true, but the body also seems to build something of a tolerance. I eat a very healthy diet, and I've found that when I occasionally eat junk food, the result is damned near debilitating.
But as long as I stick to my uncooked oats, peanut butter and soy milk, I'm generally fine. Sounds boring, but whatever. I've almost always viewed food as fuel, and more of an annoyance than anything.
This seems like something a competent editor would have removed from the post before it went up:
"We could simply dismiss this Nestle boycott as the wibblings of a bunch of hypersensitive hippies. Which is pretty much how I view it myself for whatever little my personal opinion is worth."
Why? It's an opinion piece. Thus, it expresses the opinions of the author. You can see more, in a similar style, on their blog:
http://timworstall.com/
The edit at the bottom of the post that was added in an attempt to make the article 'balanced' after Nestle's complaints makes it obvious that it is not just an opinion piece...
Overall this is a rather poorly written article, with little or no meaningful information in it.
I think the odds that this Nestle boycott (that I've never heard of or noticed before) would transfer to Android KitKat devices are pretty slim. And even if it did, I think it would be barely noticeable in the sales of Android devices.
Google really didn't think this one through. I don't see how any possible marketing 'synergies' can overcome the vague confusion that some people will have when confronted with the word KitKat and its associated Nestle registered trademark and the very real opinions that Nestle does not behave ethically as a company.
Maybe they couldn't think of anything else sweet that started with K but don't I think they've come to the best solution. (The best solution would be to skip K)
It's ridiculous on the face of it that this was some whimsical choice. A whimsical choice wouldn't have chosen a major brand.
When I first heard of it, the thoughts through my head were "sellout" and "product placement"… in contrast to say, OSX or Windows project names like Tiger, Longhorn, Mohave, etc. which really don't reference something that can be nothing other than an artificial manufactured product.
People generally won't be confronted with Nestle's questionable practices though, so it's likely a non issue. At any rate enough people either don't know, or don't care to make KitKat a popular enough brand for Google to do well out of it.
Given that Nesté still survives somehow despite the boycott I guess the impact on Android device purchases would be quite low. For what it's worth, I guess most people don't even know the code name of their Android version, let alone which version they use.
Yes, how evil Apple and Google are. Giving jobs to thousands of people, creating new billion dollar markets, creating products billions of people love to use and buy. Evil indeed. How dare they really?
Despite the ghost of Godwin's law, it's worth pointing out that your reasoning works almost as well, with only minor changes, if you replace "Apple and Google" with the Nazi party.
Someone can do good stuff and still be evil to the bone.
(No, I'm not implying Apple or Google are anywhere in the same ballpark as the nazis; for that matter, I don't Apple or Google are evil, even if there are practices I disagree with)
I don't think it's possible to be as successful and big as Google and Apple and not do practices that some people will disagree with, I mean when their actions affect billions of people, it's obvious that it is simply impossible not to anger anyone. In fact, the only way not to offend anyone in business is probably by not doing any business at all.
I watched it, and he seems to be basically saying that water should have a value or price. And that for those who don't have access to it, we need to take steps to address that.
I don't see anything controversial about that - fresh water isn't free and it damn as hell is a limited resource. We in our comfortable Western lifestyles definitely use too much of it, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't have a price.
Nowhere in that video does he claim we should somehow go into random third world countries and steal their water - which is what this meme somehow seems to have transformed into.
Anyway, if you want to read the other side (obviously from their perspective):
I think the part people take issue with is the idea that water supplies should be privatised. In the video you linked he says that "declaring water as a public right [...] that's an extreme solution". He doesn't say we should steal 3rd world contries' water, but he is clearly in favour of the water supply becoming property of a multi-national like Nestle, rather than managed by the government (i.e. property of the people).
From the Nestle website you linked and subsequent articles and interviews Brabeck seems to have backtracked and now states he believes a minimum amount of water is a human right. He still wants water privatisation though, and must have his shareholders first in mind as CEO of Nestle, not public interest.
> Indeed, if I worked on Infinite Loop or in Redmond I’d be phoning around the boycott groups to see who needs a little help in making some signs and organising transport for the demos expressing their outrage.
This is a good example for how far Google has drifted away from having "Don't be evil" as a core tenet. No PR or marketing person with those words in mind would go near a company like Nestle. Dealing with a company whose CEO views the human right to access to clean water as "extreme" is not something Sergei or Brin would have done ten years ago.
I wonder how many Google employees today would know the meaning of "Don't be evil".
Google literally didn't do anything evil by releasing an update to Android with the codename same as a popular chocolate product, which is owned by a company with unethical practices. This is not evil unless you specifically redefine a meaning of the word.
Oxford dictionary
evil
noun
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force:
his struggle against the forces of evil
a manifestation of this, especially in people’s actions:
the evil that took place last Thursday
something which is harmful or undesirable:
sexism, racism, and all other unpleasant social evils
Playing Devil's advocate, one could make an argument that by promoting Nestle, they are accomplices in their harmful (and often illegal) activities.
Personally I don't think Google is any more guilty than any other company where Nestle has advertised on, including TV channels or newspapers, but I do think the world would be a better place if companies with Nestle's track record were to be ostracized by both consumers and other companies.
Yeah, the world really would be a better place. But it is nash equilimbrium all over again and its absolutely pointless to shame one of the players(corporation or consumer). The only effectively viable path to making a world a better place is to change the rules of the game.
It's worth also remembering that the Nestlé CEO declared that OGM food is healthy, water is not a human right and we should all work more, not less: http://youtu.be/SEFL8ElXHaU
Err, no he didn't. Did you actually look at the link you posted? Or did you just look at the title, and hope nobody would watch it?
First, he claimed that in 15 years of eating GM food in the US, there haven't been any reported illness. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Now, you might think there could be issues down the track, sure - and that may be your informed medical opinion.
But nothing he stated is actually false.
And just to forestall you, he also claimed that he personally thinks this obsession with organic everything is bad - sure, you might disagree with him, but he's entitled to his opinion, and it's hardly that controversial an opinion, to be honest.
Also, organic doesn't mean "all natural and the way we did it 4000 years ago". In fact, it's probably very different to what most people think:
He said that water should have a value, or price on it, and that for those who didn't have access to it, we should take steps to help them.
I for one think that people in developed countries are terribly wasteful fresh water (among other things) - and it should definitely have a price, since it's a limited resource, and if you use it up, somebody else doesn't get it.
The fact that you and I are using computers to type this probably makes us better off than a large proportion of the world.
How about we stop all this silly hypocritical DOWN WITH THE EVIL CORPORATIONS! muck, and I don't know, start using that energy to something like World Vision, or CharityWater? (https://www.charitywater.org/donate/)
There is an argument for his view on water to avoid the 'tragedy of the commons' problem. But replying to multiple comments with the same reasoning is tantamount to shouting your point.
> A very minor part of it comes from mineral water: there are those who think that if tap is good enough for them then no one should use the bottled kind. A rather more serious part of it comes from the production of baby formula.
This is garbage writing that's misleading to boot. The issues with Nestlé and water are much more about its pursuit of water rights at the expense of local populations. These are hardly frivolous concerns. One day you wake up and find that globalization has priced water outside of your income bracket.
More like the time they convinced women in third world countries to use formula over breast milk, gave them poor instructions on using it that resulted in hundreds of infant deaths, then subsequently withdrew the formula these women now depended on as their breasts no longer produced milk, and hundreds more babies died...
That has a much bigger impact on child health than some tenuous three degrees of separation link of a marketing partnership.