4 ms·

Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider: * Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison t

Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider: * Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison to western democracies) * China (the government, not the people) is not subject to the same limitations as the US government * Apple depends on China for a great deal of things, including manufacturing, and a market for products * If Apple can't manufacture and market it's products in China, it's products become more expensive and less available all over the world. * China passed laws and regulations that demand access to source code Apple choosing to fight this battle is undoubtedly motivated by the potential business impact of supplying the software that the US government has demanded, and there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a better long term move for Apple, then it's leadership team would concede, and ship the code they were asked for (see: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-security/hacked-memo-leaked--apple--nokia--rim-supply-backdoors-for-gov-t-intercept-.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-securi... among other instances). Apple is using the polarizing nature of the technical details at hand in light of modern concerns about the surveillance state to frame it's argument against what would be a very bad legal precedent that would be disastrous for Apple, and for the tech sector in general. I don't quite understand where your perceived lack of consistency is - are you implying that Apple didn't try to use every tool at it's disposal to do the best thing for it's investors?

julie1 11y ago
Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens on earth. I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned. Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no poaching agreement. Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common people. And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in the world and how they behave when they have enough power. Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better? Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies and that it did not ended well for anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

julie1 11y ago

Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens on earth. I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned. Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no poaching agreement. Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common people. And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in the world and how they behave when they have enough power. Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better? Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies and that it did not ended well for anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company