6 ms·

When they took on the FBI I decided that it was more than just vacuous PR. A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist.

When they took on the FBI I decided that it was more than just vacuous PR. A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. It took real cojones for Apple to stand up for privacy at such a time.

smnscu 10y ago
Wow, how gullible you are. It's obviously Apple and FBI are actually best buddies and this was just a PR move to sell more iPhones. Wake up, sheeple. /s Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  Language aside, the cynicism might not be entirely invalid too. It might be naive to believe any one side of the two (i.e., entirely PR, or entirely for 'the greater public good')
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Eh you know right that TC was more thaneager to comply if FBI had issued the request privately? All the thing was a PR show from both sides.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    Your source for this allegation?
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      all trace back to this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
      - nicky0 10y ago
        We don't know if he would have agreed.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. Why exactly? If Apple wants to make privacy and security its unique selling point, it has to deny an FBI request to unlock one of their phones. Anything else would be a PR debacle.
andyjdavis 10y ago
>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist Not if they were any good at their job. Very publicly standing up against what many would see as heavy handed government and being seen to defend the rights of the little guy (who happen to be their customers and potential customers) got them an enormous amount of very positive press not just in the US but in many countries. It would have cost them a small fortune to pay for that kind of advertising. I am not saying that it wasn't a good thing for them to do but I really doubt it was some sort of selfless act that happened over protests from PR.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  Good PR is sort of like a Turing Test of being a decent human being; it cannot be differentiated from being a reasonable person.
- matt4077 10y ago
  It's not easy to decide either way. I recently advised a women's rights organization in a similar matter: they were poised to publish a scathing (and somewhat stupid) indictment of islam with regards to women's rights. It's obviously a minefield, with popular opinion divided almost equally. You have to judge the intensity of emotions it will cause in people, the propensity of people to act on those emotions and the base desirability of the different groups. In this case, they rightly passed on the 'opportunity' because it seemed as if the people who would agree were unlikely to donate to women's rights in the first place (and vice-versa). (And because their employees threatened to collectively quit)
  - robbiep 10y ago
    > 'with popular opinion divided almost equally.' that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I just tried to look up statistics and the results mostly depend on the wording. "Afraid of islamic radicalization": 53:47, "Islam part of Germany":37:60, "Muslims can be German": 70:30 etc.
piyush_soni 10y ago
I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point, it's the best PR you can have. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this nytimes article [1], but if we believe it, Tim Cook had asked FBI to submit their request 'in private' - but FBI did it openly, so Tim Cook 'had to' become the privacy crusader. [1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
- IBM 10y ago
  It's perfectly compatible to comply with the law and still be known for security and privacy and there's no reason Tim Cook "had to" oppose law enforcement. The only people who don't believe this is the HN crowd. This is a fraction of the people who believe Apple was in the wrong for opposing the FBI.
  - piyush_soni 10y ago
    Yes, it's "perfectly compatible", but that also means it's "perfectly normal". And normal is no good when it comes to advertising - that's no PR. How about a company which can fight even with the government for your privacy? Now that will make the users drool.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point Only safety and security weren't Apple's "perceived selling points". They were mostly touted for user friendliness, it just works, being the first to bring some technologies to market in a well-thought way (e.g. as opposed to crude crap for early adopters), style, high-end ("luxury") items, etc.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason. (Incidentally, why the past tense?)

smnscu 10y ago

Wow, how gullible you are. It's obviously Apple and FBI are actually best buddies and this was just a PR move to sell more iPhones. Wake up, sheeple. /s Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.

piyush_soni 10y ago
Language aside, the cynicism might not be entirely invalid too. It might be naive to believe any one side of the two (i.e., entirely PR, or entirely for 'the greater public good')
LoSboccacc 10y ago
Eh you know right that TC was more thaneager to comply if FBI had issued the request privately? All the thing was a PR show from both sides.
- nicky0 10y ago
  Your source for this allegation?
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    all trace back to this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
    - nicky0 10y ago
      We don't know if he would have agreed.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. Why exactly? If Apple wants to make privacy and security its unique selling point, it has to deny an FBI request to unlock one of their phones. Anything else would be a PR debacle.

andyjdavis 10y ago

>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist Not if they were any good at their job. Very publicly standing up against what many would see as heavy handed government and being seen to defend the rights of the little guy (who happen to be their customers and potential customers) got them an enormous amount of very positive press not just in the US but in many countries. It would have cost them a small fortune to pay for that kind of advertising. I am not saying that it wasn't a good thing for them to do but I really doubt it was some sort of selfless act that happened over protests from PR.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
Good PR is sort of like a Turing Test of being a decent human being; it cannot be differentiated from being a reasonable person.
matt4077 10y ago
It's not easy to decide either way. I recently advised a women's rights organization in a similar matter: they were poised to publish a scathing (and somewhat stupid) indictment of islam with regards to women's rights. It's obviously a minefield, with popular opinion divided almost equally. You have to judge the intensity of emotions it will cause in people, the propensity of people to act on those emotions and the base desirability of the different groups. In this case, they rightly passed on the 'opportunity' because it seemed as if the people who would agree were unlikely to donate to women's rights in the first place (and vice-versa). (And because their employees threatened to collectively quit)
- robbiep 10y ago
  > 'with popular opinion divided almost equally.' that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I just tried to look up statistics and the results mostly depend on the wording. "Afraid of islamic radicalization": 53:47, "Islam part of Germany":37:60, "Muslims can be German": 70:30 etc.

piyush_soni 10y ago

I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point, it's the best PR you can have. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this nytimes article [1], but if we believe it, Tim Cook had asked FBI to submit their request 'in private' - but FBI did it openly, so Tim Cook 'had to' become the privacy crusader. [1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...

IBM 10y ago
It's perfectly compatible to comply with the law and still be known for security and privacy and there's no reason Tim Cook "had to" oppose law enforcement. The only people who don't believe this is the HN crowd. This is a fraction of the people who believe Apple was in the wrong for opposing the FBI.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  Yes, it's "perfectly compatible", but that also means it's "perfectly normal". And normal is no good when it comes to advertising - that's no PR. How about a company which can fight even with the government for your privacy? Now that will make the users drool.
coldtea 10y ago
>I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point Only safety and security weren't Apple's "perceived selling points". They were mostly touted for user friendliness, it just works, being the first to bring some technologies to market in a well-thought way (e.g. as opposed to crude crap for early adopters), style, high-end ("luxury") items, etc.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason. (Incidentally, why the past tense?)