[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9#Controversy_and_cri...
Calling the version "KitKat" was basically product-placement.
Nestle have given press releases describing their 'collaboration', and even set up this website. Its inconceivable that Google did not demand payment; Google could have called it something generic like all their previous versions.
Google of course probably approached Nestle. They created a new revenue generating angle on creating an OS.
Debian ought to go get money from other brands through similar version naming.
Seriously, why isn't the next Ubuntu called "Head&Shoulders"?
I haven't seen that anywhere. All reports thus far have said that neither side is paying for this.
To be fair, it's not just this incident that helped me reach the conclusion, its been festering at the back of my mind for a while.
It's trivially easy to find these. I cannot believe that anyone at the largest search engine company in history failed to find or read criticism of Nestle before announcing the co branding.
The only conclusion to draw is that Google knew about, and did not care about, the criticism of Nestle.
Why not go the easy route and find a less obviously evil company?
I'd say the problem is to be too systematic. Same with Ubuntu Zoomy Zoo and Apple iSeries. Would a writer submit himself to such a gimmick for his book's names?
However, my main grip again Kitkat would be that it is the same as all other "chocolate" bar: it is industrial junk-food, making us all obese, and it do not contain chocolate.
You'd be surprised! Some of these are weaker than others.
Stephanie Plum (By Janet Evanovich) start "One for the money", "two for the dough", "three to get deadly", "four to score", etc etc. (https://duckduckgo.com/c/Stephanie_Plum_books)(This is a terrible website)(http://stephanieplum.com/)
Hannah Swenson, 'murder she baked', has food in each title (and a recipe in each book) (admittedly, the titles aren't in any order) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-ali...)
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Janet-Evanovich/e/B000APXTY4/ref=sr_...)
Women's Murder club. Each title starts with an incremented digit. "1St to die", "2nd chance", "3rd degree", etc. (http://www.jamespatterson.com/books_wmc.php#.Uigpk9KRC0I)
Alex Cross, (By James Patterson) starting to get Children's nursery rhymes in the titles. (http://www.jamespatterson.com/books_alex_cross.php#.UigpyNKR...)
Cal Murphy (by Jack Patterson) uses Cross in the title - "Cross Hairs", "Cross the Line", "Triple Cross". (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Patterson/e/B0098F2E48/ref=ntt_...) (This last one feels odd - the author name is close to James Paterson, and the series titling uses a word ('cross') that happens to be the name of the James Paterson protagonist.
Nevertheless, I agree it is hard, and I'll likely be using some of Googles services for a while yet. My main point is how my view of them has changed, and that will make me seek out alternatives when possible.
Not quite sure what that argument has to do with my preposition though. I had no such illusions about my phone manufacturer (Samsung). Google set out on a different path ("Do No Evil"), but turns out they're not much different to Samsung et. al. now, and that was my argument. Many still see them as working in a different way, but they don't.
There is absolutely no need (at least technologically) for this link up. Its purely brand marketing, and they picked the wrong brand.
Now I feel like I need to work out how much money I need to give to an effective charity or something to offset the bad that I'm doing when I buy my next phone or computer.
...Or, in micro-econ terms, if you pay me $5 for vegan bread, I'll spend that $5 on several kit-kats (I am, after all, craving them now), and put some away to save up for a new phone. You've effectively multiplied the harm you're doing!
It's the same general argument as "a portion of every tax dollar goes to killing brown people", but escaping the economy entirely is actually harder than plain-old tax evasion. Basically, voting with your wallet only sways sole proprietors; anything larger may be externally capitalist, but is internally more socialist/syndicalist, driven by long-term contracts, quotas, "consumer confidence" ratings, futures, government certifications, and insurance-risk-purchases more than hard revenue. All that is opaque to you as a consumer, so there's really no way to influence any entrenched player by purposefully tugging on money-strings. They've purchased entire portfolios to hedge against precisely that effect!
1. A large chunk of people buy the Fairphone. Let's pretend it's 500,000.
2. Samsung notices this. Of course they don't care about that tiny amount of competition, but they do care about competing with Apple.
3. Samsung commissions a study. They find that of the respondents, 0.5% answer "yes" to "Have you bought, or do you plan to buy a Fairphone or other specialty phone which uses conflict-free materials". When asked "If not, which of the following reasons describes why?", 25% answer "I don't want to take a chance with an unknown manufacturer."
4. From this, they conclude that they can expect to sell roughly 20 million additional phones if they (and they alone among major manufacturers) if they switch to conflict-free materials. That is NSFPMS/HB = 20 million, where
NS = non-Samsung marketshare ~= 75%
FF = Fairphone sales = 500,000
MS = % who would buy a mainstream conflict-free phone = 25%
HB = % who have already bought/will buy a Fairphone = 0.5%
Now obviously this is an oversimplification. The numbers are made up, Samsung would also add in some uncertainty about customers doing what they say they will do, I haven't taken into account the cost difference for the materials, those survey questions are atrociously designed, etc. But you get the point.
Also, it's not just controversial in the UK, it is in many countries, and it's not just Student Unions that have held boycotts against it.
I'm also not saying that it's in anyway alone in being a truly horrible company, there are many others in that category as well.
Given that The Sun is the most circulated paper in the UK [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unite...] and Sky TV claims to reach 1 in 6 people in the UK [http://corporate.sky.com/media/key_facts_and_figures] I would completely agree with your statement that the Nestlé boycott is as effective as these others.
Also, he was still the CEO at the time this statement was made. source: We feed the world (documentary)