6 ms·

I work closely with Apple so need to post anonymously. I believed everything in this until something that happened in late July this past summer. In China, th

I work closely with Apple so need to post anonymously. I believed everything in this until something that happened in late July this past summer. In China, their fastest-growing market, China demanded all secure messaging and VPN apps be removed from the App Store and Apple complied.[1] So privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market. I intend to discuss with Tim next time I see him. 1: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/29/apple-removes-vpn-apps-from-the-app-store-in-china/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/29/apple-removes-vpn-apps-fro...

jonknee 9y ago
What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? How about when Apple removed apps from developers based in Iran because of US sanctions? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/technology/apple-iran.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/technology/apple-iran.htm...
- freehunter 9y ago
  >Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? Your tone of voice seems to indicate you don't think that's actually an option.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company. Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. And no one would be better off. As Cook says at least Apple does the best they can and holds the line on other things like encrypting iMessage.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company. Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. Somehow, that didn't happen when Google effectively withdrew from China.
      - beojan 9y ago
        Apple's business requires physical presence. Google's largely doesn't.
        martinald 9y ago
        Yes. They also have all manufacturing there. I imagine if Apple did pull out it would be so embarrassing to the Chinese govt they would close the foxconn facilities too.
        MBCook 9y ago
        I hadn’t even thought of the manufacture angle. If Apple were to pull out, even if the board didn’t fire Cook for that... would they be able to make phones? Is ANYWHERE on Earth capable of that other than China? I suppose you could buy all the parts from China and have them shipped somewhere else to be assembled but what would that do to the cost of the devices? Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000?
        ForHackernews 9y ago
        > Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000? Probably, yeah. It doesn't seem like people mind paying $1000. It would just make it even more of a status symbol. Are iPhones a Veblen good?
        ariwilson 9y ago
        South Korea is capable of that.
        rtx 9y ago
        I think diversifying production base would all ready be in works.
      - djrogers 9y ago
        Google's revenue from China wasn't significant, and Google didn't withdraw because China wanted them to pull a few apps...
    - zeveb 9y ago
      > Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. That would indeed take courage and principles on Cook's part. If the board had courage & principles they wouldn't fire him. And if they did — they'd demonstrate what sort of men they are. > And no one would be better off. Tim Cook would have his self-respect.
      - MBCook 9y ago
        I imagine a lot of stock holders would move to replace the board if the board agreed with Cook. > Tim Cook would have his self-respect. I agree. And I hope he’d hold the line. But I think the people of China would be worse off. Stockholders would be worse off. Apple would be worse off, which means as an American buying heir products it might make them slightly worse for me.
- danieldk 9y ago
  What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? Which is what Google pretty much did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-ce...
  - pilif 9y ago
    That way, Chinese people would be worse off security and privacy wise though. Think it through: Apple pulls out of China, the Chinese government makes the use of iPhones illegal, the Chinese people lose access to iPhones and with that to the secure enclave, end-to-end encrypted iMessage, secure boot, etc. So in the end, Chinese people wouldn't just lose 3rd party VPNs (the first party ones are AFAIK still present in iOS), they would lose all the security features. Is that still worth the moral stance?
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? That's exactly what Google did: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
  - stingraycharles 9y ago
    Wasn’t that a response of one of their Chinese offices being hacked with the intention of corporate espionage? As far as I’m aware, from a privacy perspective, Google never had moral problems doing business in China. They’re just using it as a convenient excuse that makes them look good.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      >These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. In other words, government censorship and attempts by the government to undermine user privacy were ultimately what led to the move out of China. The straw does appear to have been the hack, but the ultimate goal of the hack appeared to be to steal user data. >Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
freehunter 9y ago
China is indeed a major exception to most tech companies policies. It's either play by their rules or don't do business in that country, and unfortunately it's not just Apple who makes the financial decision over the human rights decision. It's one of those things we choose not to talk about because it's very uncomfortable to see where our loyalties actually lie.
danieldk 9y ago
It has always been clear to me that this privacy stand is maybe 20% Tim Cook and 80% strategy. The privacy card works well as a differentiating feature from Google products. So, we have a situation where the interests of Apple and a chunk of users are temporarily aligned. We have stay continuously aware that this is probably a temporary situation and laying all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea. When governments of larger economies start forcing their hands with bans, etc., they will follow the money. In hindsight, I think the popularity of macOS among UNIX fans has been detrimental to the development of open source software and open ecosystems that can provide more long-term privacy, by sucking a lot of manpower/energy out of the Linux/BSD ecosystem. (I am also guilty as charged.)
- jernfrost 9y ago
  Quite the contrary, macOS has been a boost to Unix. You are rather naive idf you think all macOS users are potential Linux users. macOS helped make Unix a strong competitor to Windows. It helped demonstrate that a Unix system CAN be user friendly something many people used to think was impossible. Thanks to the rise of macOS windows has become a second class citizen for many development tools. The non-gui layer of macOS and Linux can for the most part easily be shared. It means open source developers of non-gui tools have a much bigger usergroup and potential contributors.
MrBingley 9y ago
Never forget people, Apple's emphasis on privacy is only a means to an end, that end being "making money". If Apple needs to relax privacy to help its bottom line, it will, as this example so incisively demonstrates.
- scarface74 9y ago
  It's not that anyone is "forgetting it". Right now Apple's chosen way of making money - charging more than its competitors so it doesn't have to collect and sell users data (Google) or install third party crapware on its devices (almost every OEM) aligns with my interests. I am not bombarded with ads when I use iMessage on my Mac like I am when I use Skype on my Windows PC. Apple has built in support for third party ad blockers. Google would never develop a system to allow ad blockers in Chrome for Android.
jimyl 9y ago
Thank you, thank you so much for pointing out this. Really appreciated!
ksk 9y ago
I don't support their decision, but that is a weak argument. All major companies have factories they work with in China. They are already funneling money to the Chinese government via taxes, fees, etc. In the privacy pie, removing the apps is this tiny sliver, the major chunk of the pie is where the Chinese government continues to get revenue to fund their censorship apparatus.
j2bax 9y ago
I fear the grand majority of people and companies prefer economic advantage over what's right at the end of the day.
artimaeis 9y ago
I see what you're getting at but that decision has little/nothing to do with Apple's stance on privacy. * iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. * iPhones sold in China still utilize Secure Enclave for privacy/encryption. * Aggregate data still uses differential privacy in China. The government made a request of them which did not compromise their user's security, and they obliged. Compare that to when the US government requested backdoor access pass Secure Enclave and they absolutely denied that request. I agree that it's unfortunate for Chinese users that their government is placing additional limits on the available software in that ecosystem (as well as other ecosystems, I'm sure). But so long as the government is not asking Apple to compromise its users privacy I don't see any strong relation to corroborate the idea: "privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market".
- sigmar 9y ago
  >* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. Do you think Apple would refuse to swap out the public keys if ordered to by the government? Have you ever wondered why iMessage doesn't allow out-of-band key verification?
  - cmsimike 9y ago
    This is my fear. Apple nicely shows all devices on my account, but how do I trust there aren't some invisible NSA devices on my account that also get all my iMessages?
- ewzimm 9y ago
  This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business. The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.
__abc 9y ago
Tell Tim I say hi and that I want my $5 he owes me!
nullnilvoid 9y ago
It is unfortunate that the Chinese government made those demands. By no means I am trying to defend the Chinese government. That said, there is a difference here. Apply was trying to comply with the laws in China (I cannot think of a single country where you can operate above the local laws). However, here in the US, it was requested by FBI, not a court order or subpoena. It is not fair to Apple or other companies by forcing them to enforce human rights while doing business. Google pulled out of China not because of human rights but because they were losing to Baidu in China market. It was more a business decision than anything else (Google spins it differently of course).
FiveSquared 9y ago
Please ask tim about the mac pro? iPad mini? Thanks!
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
They need to comply with laws in all markets in which they operate. We can disagree with those laws and speak out against them but it is not our place to decide laws for others. But should Apple pull out of the market in protest? I think that iPhones being available is probably better for China than no iPhone as a protest over the law requiring all VPNs to have a valid “license”. Definitely there is a line that can’t be crossed (i.e. if the chinese government forced Apple to enable GPS tracking of all citizens I would expect them to say no) but to me this does not cross that line. People can still compile and install the app on their phone themselves (though it is harder than if it were on the AppStore). What is happening in China is so tragic and I truly hope things change in the near future so they can reach their full potential as a nation. let’s not forget, in China the government controls the entire internet. If Apple didn’t want to take down the listing, they could easily pull down the entire AppStore (if not all Apple services) with one phone call, just as they did with facebook.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jonknee 9y ago

What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? How about when Apple removed apps from developers based in Iran because of US sanctions? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/technology/apple-iran.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/technology/apple-iran.htm...

freehunter 9y ago
>Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? Your tone of voice seems to indicate you don't think that's actually an option.
- MBCook 9y ago
  You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company. Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. And no one would be better off. As Cook says at least Apple does the best they can and holds the line on other things like encrypting iMessage.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company. Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. Somehow, that didn't happen when Google effectively withdrew from China.
    - beojan 9y ago
      Apple's business requires physical presence. Google's largely doesn't.
      - martinald 9y ago
        Yes. They also have all manufacturing there. I imagine if Apple did pull out it would be so embarrassing to the Chinese govt they would close the foxconn facilities too.
        MBCook 9y ago
        I hadn’t even thought of the manufacture angle. If Apple were to pull out, even if the board didn’t fire Cook for that... would they be able to make phones? Is ANYWHERE on Earth capable of that other than China? I suppose you could buy all the parts from China and have them shipped somewhere else to be assembled but what would that do to the cost of the devices? Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000?
        ForHackernews 9y ago
        > Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000? Probably, yeah. It doesn't seem like people mind paying $1000. It would just make it even more of a status symbol. Are iPhones a Veblen good?
        ariwilson 9y ago
        South Korea is capable of that.
        rtx 9y ago
        I think diversifying production base would all ready be in works.
    - djrogers 9y ago
      Google's revenue from China wasn't significant, and Google didn't withdraw because China wanted them to pull a few apps...
  - zeveb 9y ago
    > Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand. That would indeed take courage and principles on Cook's part. If the board had courage & principles they wouldn't fire him. And if they did — they'd demonstrate what sort of men they are. > And no one would be better off. Tim Cook would have his self-respect.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      I imagine a lot of stock holders would move to replace the board if the board agreed with Cook. > Tim Cook would have his self-respect. I agree. And I hope he’d hold the line. But I think the people of China would be worse off. Stockholders would be worse off. Apple would be worse off, which means as an American buying heir products it might make them slightly worse for me.
danieldk 9y ago
What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? Which is what Google pretty much did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-ce...
- pilif 9y ago
  That way, Chinese people would be worse off security and privacy wise though. Think it through: Apple pulls out of China, the Chinese government makes the use of iPhones illegal, the Chinese people lose access to iPhones and with that to the secure enclave, end-to-end encrypted iMessage, secure boot, etc. So in the end, Chinese people wouldn't just lose 3rd party VPNs (the first party ones are AFAIK still present in iOS), they would lose all the security features. Is that still worth the moral stance?
joshuamorton 9y ago
>Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely? That's exactly what Google did: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
- stingraycharles 9y ago
  Wasn’t that a response of one of their Chinese offices being hacked with the intention of corporate espionage? As far as I’m aware, from a privacy perspective, Google never had moral problems doing business in China. They’re just using it as a convenient excuse that makes them look good.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. In other words, government censorship and attempts by the government to undermine user privacy were ultimately what led to the move out of China. The straw does appear to have been the hack, but the ultimate goal of the hack appeared to be to steal user data. >Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

freehunter 9y ago

China is indeed a major exception to most tech companies policies. It's either play by their rules or don't do business in that country, and unfortunately it's not just Apple who makes the financial decision over the human rights decision. It's one of those things we choose not to talk about because it's very uncomfortable to see where our loyalties actually lie.

danieldk 9y ago

It has always been clear to me that this privacy stand is maybe 20% Tim Cook and 80% strategy. The privacy card works well as a differentiating feature from Google products. So, we have a situation where the interests of Apple and a chunk of users are temporarily aligned. We have stay continuously aware that this is probably a temporary situation and laying all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea. When governments of larger economies start forcing their hands with bans, etc., they will follow the money. In hindsight, I think the popularity of macOS among UNIX fans has been detrimental to the development of open source software and open ecosystems that can provide more long-term privacy, by sucking a lot of manpower/energy out of the Linux/BSD ecosystem. (I am also guilty as charged.)

jernfrost 9y ago
Quite the contrary, macOS has been a boost to Unix. You are rather naive idf you think all macOS users are potential Linux users. macOS helped make Unix a strong competitor to Windows. It helped demonstrate that a Unix system CAN be user friendly something many people used to think was impossible. Thanks to the rise of macOS windows has become a second class citizen for many development tools. The non-gui layer of macOS and Linux can for the most part easily be shared. It means open source developers of non-gui tools have a much bigger usergroup and potential contributors.

MrBingley 9y ago

Never forget people, Apple's emphasis on privacy is only a means to an end, that end being "making money". If Apple needs to relax privacy to help its bottom line, it will, as this example so incisively demonstrates.

scarface74 9y ago
It's not that anyone is "forgetting it". Right now Apple's chosen way of making money - charging more than its competitors so it doesn't have to collect and sell users data (Google) or install third party crapware on its devices (almost every OEM) aligns with my interests. I am not bombarded with ads when I use iMessage on my Mac like I am when I use Skype on my Windows PC. Apple has built in support for third party ad blockers. Google would never develop a system to allow ad blockers in Chrome for Android.

jimyl 9y ago

Thank you, thank you so much for pointing out this. Really appreciated!

ksk 9y ago

I don't support their decision, but that is a weak argument. All major companies have factories they work with in China. They are already funneling money to the Chinese government via taxes, fees, etc. In the privacy pie, removing the apps is this tiny sliver, the major chunk of the pie is where the Chinese government continues to get revenue to fund their censorship apparatus.

j2bax 9y ago

I fear the grand majority of people and companies prefer economic advantage over what's right at the end of the day.

artimaeis 9y ago

I see what you're getting at but that decision has little/nothing to do with Apple's stance on privacy. * iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. * iPhones sold in China still utilize Secure Enclave for privacy/encryption. * Aggregate data still uses differential privacy in China. The government made a request of them which did not compromise their user's security, and they obliged. Compare that to when the US government requested backdoor access pass Secure Enclave and they absolutely denied that request. I agree that it's unfortunate for Chinese users that their government is placing additional limits on the available software in that ecosystem (as well as other ecosystems, I'm sure). But so long as the government is not asking Apple to compromise its users privacy I don't see any strong relation to corroborate the idea: "privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market".

sigmar 9y ago
>* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. Do you think Apple would refuse to swap out the public keys if ordered to by the government? Have you ever wondered why iMessage doesn't allow out-of-band key verification?
- cmsimike 9y ago
  This is my fear. Apple nicely shows all devices on my account, but how do I trust there aren't some invisible NSA devices on my account that also get all my iMessages?
ewzimm 9y ago
This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business. The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.

__abc 9y ago

Tell Tim I say hi and that I want my $5 he owes me!

nullnilvoid 9y ago

It is unfortunate that the Chinese government made those demands. By no means I am trying to defend the Chinese government. That said, there is a difference here. Apply was trying to comply with the laws in China (I cannot think of a single country where you can operate above the local laws). However, here in the US, it was requested by FBI, not a court order or subpoena. It is not fair to Apple or other companies by forcing them to enforce human rights while doing business. Google pulled out of China not because of human rights but because they were losing to Baidu in China market. It was more a business decision than anything else (Google spins it differently of course).

FiveSquared 9y ago

Please ask tim about the mac pro? iPad mini? Thanks!

omarforgotpwd 9y ago

They need to comply with laws in all markets in which they operate. We can disagree with those laws and speak out against them but it is not our place to decide laws for others. But should Apple pull out of the market in protest? I think that iPhones being available is probably better for China than no iPhone as a protest over the law requiring all VPNs to have a valid “license”. Definitely there is a line that can’t be crossed (i.e. if the chinese government forced Apple to enable GPS tracking of all citizens I would expect them to say no) but to me this does not cross that line. People can still compile and install the app on their phone themselves (though it is harder than if it were on the AppStore). What is happening in China is so tragic and I truly hope things change in the near future so they can reach their full potential as a nation. let’s not forget, in China the government controls the entire internet. If Apple didn’t want to take down the listing, they could easily pull down the entire AppStore (if not all Apple services) with one phone call, just as they did with facebook.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]