Is there any stupid comment you won’t try to spin for Cook? Do you also defend gay marriage and DACA?
I am educated as an Economist. I know what "Value priced" means. That is a fact of economics. You have a layman's grasp of what the "hype" meaning is from advertising distortions. I provided the explanation of what the term means in business and provided you with a link where the terms were discussed which you obviously ignored. You can use the educational opportunity or not. Your choice.
No, I don't defend "gay" marriage. Regardless of the religious and moral issues involved, societally, marriage is an economic construct designed for the security of children and raising children. Extending that economic construct to people of the same sex who have little potential to procreate who merely want to co-habitate for their sexual or mutual pleasure, or even their financial benefit, when they can do that contractually without the structure of marriage, is a distortion of the societal purpose of marriage. Permitting same sex marriage has no societal benefit worthy of distorting the institution of marriage.
However, I can make a strong argument for Trump's position on voiding Obama's illegal legislation via un-Constitutional Executive order DACA. By voiding DACA, Trump has put the status back to the point so that Congress can properly address the problem of children—many of whom are now adults—who have been raised and educated as American children in American culture by their illegal alien parents and know no other culture (those who were close to adulthood when brought here as minors is another matter) in a Constitutional, and legal, manner. If Congress can find a way through this conundrum, especially if it concludes with a border wall finally being built, great. However, with intractable Demoncrats and Rinos I am not putting much hope for that happening anytime soon. My thought is that the logical resolution is permanent resident status with a VERY DIFFICULT PATH TO CITIZENSHIP, due to the criminal nature of their entry, and end visitor birth citizen ship to stop the anchor baby issue.
The concept that any child born on American soil gained American citizenship was dicta (commentary) found in a MINORITY Supreme Court opinion of a single Justice. Minority opinion, especially dicta, do not have the force of law. . . but this dicta was adopted by Liberal bureaucrats latched onto it and accepted the concept that such birthright citizenship actually existed, contrary to every other nation on Earth's policies, giving rise to the anchor baby concept.
I will give Cook credit where credit is due. You, however, will view anything Cook does through a lens of your negative Gay or Liberal light filter, no matter if what he does or says is actually the logical or right thing to do, because you are blinded by Cook's idiocy of putting his personal Liberal agenda before Apple's best business interests, because the fact is that he, himself—like most Liberals—is blind in that area, unable to separate his own Liberal bias from what is actually good for the welfare of Apple, its stockholders, its stakeholders, or its customers, conflating his Liberal bias as being somehow integral and necessary with Apple's position and success. Steve Jobs never made that mistake. Tim Cook views everything through his biases. You apparently do the same thing. I am more discerning.