4 ms·
I've already made my legal and political opinions in other threads on the topic and won't rehash them here, especially since so many other people are making the
by ianamartin 11y ago
I've already made my legal and political opinions in other threads on the topic and won't rehash them here, especially since so many other people are making the points better than I did.
However, here's something I haven't thought of, though I sort of hate to boil the thing down to a business proposition. The fact is that iPhone is a massive business. What all is a company allowed to claim as "burden" in the discussion of undue burden?
Let's say the FBI wins, and Apple is forced into this. Then the narrative in the mind of the public is that Apple has back-doored their phones and made them insecure.
Apple loses literally billions of dollars per quarter for some amount of time until they can repair the PR damage.
Is the loss of, say, 50 billion dollars in revenue over the next calendar year something a reasonable person would call "undue burden?"
What about other ancillary effects that cost either direct money or productivity? There are rumors of something like an iPhone 6c that is scheduled to be released perhaps soon. (Supposedly a revamped 4" phone like the 5s but with the latest hardware) After all this hubbub about a potentially insecure 5c, who is going to go buy a 6c without wondering if it has the same problems?
Casual tech watchers don't understand the nuts and bolts of this situation. They hear some things, read some things and go along with the popular media consensus.
If the alleged 6c were actually going to be launched in a couple of months, the branding, production, packaging, marketing would all have been bought and paid for already.
Does having to recalibrate the launch of a new product and all the costs that might incur count as "undue burden?"
Etc., etc. Maybe they need a significant portion of the iOS team to do this, and the work causes delays in the next version of iOS, iPhone 7 has to get pushed back for release and misses the holiday quarter, again, lost sales accounting for billions.
I think the potential impact on Apple's bottom line could honestly be taken into consideration of burden. Curious about what other people think. Is money just not talked about in these considerations?
- studentrob 11y ago> Is the loss of, say, 50 billion dollars in revenue over the next calendar year something a reasonable person would call "undue burden?" I wonder the same. In another comment in this thread I mention that it's not just undue burden here that is expected under AWA according to USA vs. New York Telephone, it is also expected that the FBI pay for any work they ask Apple to do. Yahoo was forced to deal with many requests from the NSA in 2008, only those dealings were unknown to the public until recently. [1] The last 8 years have not treated Yahoo too well.. It seems when you fight the government on privacy, you lose. It's better if you roll over and wag your tail like Microsoft [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
- brightsize 11y agoAnother twist to this is that the hypothetical burden is not being born by Apple, it's being born by Apple shareholders. I might personally own 1 Apple share, so it's not a huge burden to me if the company loses $50B in revenue and the value of that share goes down 10%. But what about some individual who has invested $1M of her own money, her entire life's savings, in Apple shares and is about to retire and pay the bills by selling shares over time? I would speculate there would be hundreds of thousands of share holders (millions?) who would be burdened as a result of that hypothetical loss of $50B in revenue.