I'm just at a loss. This is literally what taxes are for.
If you want to argue that Apple et al should have to pay for their use of, e.g., GPS, I could understand that. (Not agree, but understand.) GPS has enabled high-value features to be built into Apple's products. On the other hand, Amber alert and 911 service support are literally mandated by the government. Apple cannot choose to not include them. (Though in this case, they could choose to not support RapidSOS, at least until it's mandated as well.)
Edit: And yes, it seems entirely fair that taxes could go up to enable additional government services.
It is, but everyone has been avoiding taxes, so here we are with a supposedly first world country with third world infrastructure. Hence, my suggestion.
You have to engineer for the world we have, not a perfect world.
> It is, but everyone has been avoiding taxes, so here we are with a supposedly first world country with third world infrastructure. Hence, my suggestion.
Your argument is that Apple doesn't pay taxes, so they should be taxed to cover the cost of 911 upgrades.
If Apple is so good at "avoiding taxes", how would you possibly make them pay for the 911 upgrades anyway? If you are capable of crafting such an inescapable tax law, why not just apply that to general tax law?
> You have to engineer for the world we have, not a perfect world.
Nothing here is about engineering. This is a proposed cash grab. Apple is successful so we should just take their money, not with reasonable tax law, but with targeted asset seizure.
No. My argument was it would be helpful if Apple voluntarily subsidized rural 911 call center upgrades to support the life critical feature they added to their devices.
You say “cash grab”, I say “corporate responsibility”.
So Apple builds a feature that could potentially save lives. But they are lacking "corporate responsibility" because they aren't also directly funding emergency call center upgrades nationwide.
This viewpoint makes me sad. It's like someone built a house for a homeless family and then they get criticized for not covering the cost of utilities for the lifetime of the house.
> This viewpoint makes me sad. It's like someone built a house for a homeless family and then they get criticized for not covering the cost of utilities for the lifetime of the house.
Likewise, I see it as handing someone a good or service they desperately need with no thought to the recurring costs involved. Just because you believe you've done a good deed doesn't mean you've necessarily helped (see food aid in Africa that has ruined their ag markets).
Call centers can elect not to opt into this if the costs are high. It's not as if Apple has done anything to degrade the existing emergency service process.
If you want to argue that Apple et al should have to pay for their use of, e.g., GPS, I could understand that. (Not agree, but understand.) GPS has enabled high-value features to be built into Apple's products. On the other hand, Amber alert and 911 service support are literally mandated by the government. Apple cannot choose to not include them. (Though in this case, they could choose to not support RapidSOS, at least until it's mandated as well.)
Edit: And yes, it seems entirely fair that taxes could go up to enable additional government services.