5 ms·

I'm having a hard time understanding what is cowardly about complying with Chinese law when selling products inside China. There are many laws in the US I don't

by rrggrr 8y ago

I'm having a hard time understanding what is cowardly about complying with Chinese law when selling products inside China. There are many laws in the US I don't agree with, but I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen. For example, its essentially US law that Apple's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholder's best interests. Not participating in the Chinese cellular market over principle violates that principal of law. If you want Apple to be "brave" then persuade the US Congress to require that Apple not comply with repressive Chinese law; or convince Apple's shareholders to prohibit the same. Short of those outcomes Apple is doing precisely what its supposed to be doing.

wyuenho 8y ago
> Apple is doing precisely what its supposed to be doing. Such as aidding and abetting authoritarian foreign governments to suppress freedom of speech. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are having a hard time understanding why this is cowardly, given that Apple is not particularly cowardly when it decided to stand up to US government surveillance.
- dewey 8y ago
  That is such a simplistic view of things. Do you think they'd do it if there was another way? At that scale things are not that easy and you can't just break the law even if it feels "right" to you. Most users are probably never subject to government intervention and they are still protected by the encryption from thiefs, evil ISPs and other bad actors. If Apple would pull out completely and get banned in the country they'd maybe have to switch to other companies that are not that privacy minded.
  - deathhand 8y ago
    Well traditionally tech companies leave open gaps for the average Joe to do the law breaking themselves. If the concept of Taiwan is illegal then it would be a add-on available from other sources. Given how closed source and how rudimentary text input is to an OS I do not know how feasible this is for an IPhone.
- adventured 8y ago
  > Such as aidding and abetting authoritarian foreign governments to suppress freedom of speech. Over half of all countries have few to no protections on freedom of speech. Is your premise that Apple should only sell its products in about four dozen countries? If we wanted to be really strict about it, only a few nations have strong protections on freedom of speech. You are aware of just how bad the individual liberty protections are in the bottom 100+ countries, right? Freedom of speech protections are rare, and it's even more rare for them to be regularly enforced. Major countries as diverse as Turkey, Singapore, Thailand, China, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - have no or very little freedom of speech. The bottom 40-50 nations on human rights barely have any actively enforced rights protections at all.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > Is your premise that Apple should only sell its products in about four dozen countries? I think that public disagreement consistent with their principles regardless of region would be appropriate. I don't think many are asking them to not sell or not abide by the law, just that their pinciples ring hollow if they only voice them against certain governments.
  - wyuenho 8y ago
    Speaking of naivety, if selling to Chinese customers is the most important thing Apple has to worry about, banning Apple products would incense Chinese users. It's the lost of their manufacturing capabilities that's of concern. And no, I think Apple should sell to as many countries as possible, but not at a cost of compromising integrity and universal value. Apple should sell their products INTACT across the world.
  - tonylinn80 8y ago
    As a regular Chinese citizen, freedom of speech is at the bottom of list of things I care about, and I would happily sell that for profit if it is sell-able. I lived in US for quite some time and travel to US regularly. But seriously, I feel much less safe or comfortable when I am in US, and a lot of things Americans care so much about doesn't mean anything
- millstone 8y ago
  Apple is in a position of strength in the USA and a position of weakness in China. Apple could choose to die on this hill, and all it would accomplish would be to deprive Chinese consumers of the strongest privacy-protecting mobile phone choice. Things would be different if Apple were found to be shipping firmware-level spyware like Huawei and ZTE phones. But for flag emoji? Who cares? That's an easy trade.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    When you only speak out when you're in a position of strength, that is cowardly.
    - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
      They spoke out because legally they were allowed to do so. Our government is founded on things like this. We have courts and representatives that we ultimately control. It had nothing to do with "power" or positions of strength. They simply acted in the political environment they were in. Surprise surprise it's different in China.
  - wyuenho 8y ago
    > Apple could choose to die on this hill, and all it would accomplish would be to deprive Chinese consumers of the strongest privacy-protecting mobile phone choice You are clearly drugged out of your mind by Apple's marketing machine. Who exactly uses iMessage in China? Everybody uses Wechat. Are you telling me iOS can protect Chinese users' privacy when the traffic go through their servers? Also, Apple wouldn't die, no alone anyway. Foxconn and Apple would likely both die together. There's nothing scarier than 1000s of 1000s of laid off workers for the CCP. > But for flag emoji? Who cares? That's an easy trade. This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. Today you give them an inch, tomorrow they'll ask for a foot. It is exactly this kind of kautouing the West has given China in the past 20 years that led to its progressive erosion of universal values and leverage to safeguard those values across the world. When it comes to principles, espcially core values of a company, you don't compromise.
    - 8y ago
- derefr 8y ago
  A multinational corporation is not actually one thing. It's a distinct entity per country, that all pretends to be one global entity, but isn't. Are you saying that Apple China—a Chinese corporation, Apple Corp.'s subsidiary—shouldn't be aiding and abetting its own (authoritarian) government? Or are you saying that Apple Corp (a US company) should be attempting to compel Apple China to break Chinese law? (What do you think Apple China's response to this must, necessarily, be?) Or are you saying that Apple China shouldn't exist? I'm not sure there are any other alternatives than these, and none of them sound very sensible.
  - wyuenho 8y ago
    First of all, read your history and news. You don't have to go far, just go back a few years when the Chinese government were blocking the App Store. This isn't a law, this is literally just some arbitrary decision passed down in a piece of paper from the top. Second of all, even if it is a statute, you don't respect the law in China, you respect the MAN. What's legal and what's not depends on not the independent judiciary, as there isn't one, but how well your relationship is with key government officials. Thirdly, all these world-wide subsidiary are there mainly for tax and payroll. Apple China does not operate independently as it's wholely owned by Apple US. Also, I don't know if you are aware, this is likely the decision made directly by Tim Cook if you've seen his activity in China recently. The solution is very easy, appeal to Trump and I'm sure his ilks will go to work. You may not like Trump, but the outcome surely will be infinitely better than compromising your own core values and customer's trust.
    - derefr 8y ago
      > What's legal and what's not depends on not the independent judiciary, as there isn't one, but how well your relationship is with key government officials. Yes, so your first two paragraphs reduce to an argument over semantics. When I say "law in China", I mean "what you will be punished by the Chinese government for doing [whether for cronyist reasons or not]." It's "the law" in the Libertarian sense of "the whims of the people who can command people with guns to come shoot you without reproach." > Thirdly, all these world-wide subsidiary are there mainly for tax and payroll. Apple China does not operate independently as it's wholely owned by Apple US. Yes, that is how multinational corporations work in every other sense. That is not how multinational corporations work when it comes to interactions between the subsidiary and the subsidiary's government, because—and consider this carefully for a moment: the employees of the subsidiary corporation—including those operating its distribution logistics pipeline within China—are Chinese citizens. Tim Cook can try telling these employees what to do, and in all other ways he'll succeed, but the Chinese government can override Tim Cook in this one way, because the people he's giving orders to here are Chinese, and are beholden to the Chinese government. They're not going to do something that's illegal for them personally to do, just because their boss tells them to. They'd just end up quitting, and the people who'd replace them would end up quitting, and so forth. And Tim Cook knows that, which is why he doesn't tell them to do things that the Chinese government would consider illegal. Which includes, for those distribution-pipeline employees, distributing iOS devices that don't have Chinese-government-mandated modifications to the firmware. Those employees would be arrested for that. So Tim Cook orders his US employees to make the modifications to the firmware, such that those Chinese employees can then comply with the "law in China" when they distribute the phones. (Which is really to say, such that Apple retains Chinese employees at all.) The only other choice he has (since "force your Chinese employees to get arrested" is not actually a workable strategy) is not distributing the phones in China in the first place. Sure, he can try to get the "law in China" changed. Every corporation is always lobbying in every market they're in. But it doesn't usually work; if it did, we'd be living in a far more dystopian-corporatist world than we already do. ;)
benchaney 8y ago
> For example, its essentially US law that Apple's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholder's best interests. Not participating in the Chinese cellular market over principle violates that principal of law. This isn’t true at all.
- obmelvin 8y ago
  More info for those curious: Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School, is the author of "The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public." https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
  - Bromskloss 8y ago
    Aren't shareholders and investors the same thing?
    - abrowne 8y ago
      Yes, so the title is saying they too will be harmed by "putting them first".
- brisance 8y ago
  Except that it is true that directors face lawsuits about breaches of fiduciary duty frequently enough for it to be not uncommon. A suit was filed recently naming Eddy Cue for violating anti-trust law relating to the settlement for the e-books case brought by the federal government. http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-18-154515&CIK=320193 http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-18-...
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The problem is getting sued in itself is meaningless. PETA could sue Tyson Foods by arguing that selling meat is a longterm liability. They would lose badly and quickly.
testvox 8y ago
The courts don't review normal business judgements. Even when there is a fiduciary duty. If that wasn't true then no one would want to risk being a officer because they would be constantly getting sued by upset shareholders. > The courts will defer to erroneous business judgments, provided that the officers or directors did not show gross negligence in their review and decision-making process. Without this rule in place, many individuals would be unwilling to serve as officers and directors and business people might be reluctant to take commercial risks that could benefit a corporation in the long run. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibility-corporations.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...
kodablah 8y ago
> I'm having a hard time understanding what is cowardly about complying with Chinese law when selling products inside China. There are many laws in the US I don't agree with, but I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen. That you draw such equivalence may be why you have a hard time understanding.
- brisance 8y ago
  Do you agree that if Congress passes a law that bans phone encryption, Apple would have to comply with it? Yes or no?
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Not quietly and without disagreement, no. And not a ban on an image of a flag or name of a disputed country, no. These equivalences are getting ridiculous and I'm beginning to believe the only justification for constantly bringing them up is to distract from the issue at hand.
    - brisance 8y ago
      Merriam-Webster defines "ban" as "to prohibit especially by legal means". I don't see the problem. If you replace the word "Apple" with "Microsoft" or "Red Hat" or "Canonical", would you still be as outraged?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - BrandoElFollito 8y ago
      You mean that one can have its own interpretation of the law and follow the rules which they see fit? This is anarchy. Apple could leave the US in that case, but if they stay they have to follow the law. Whether they do it loudly or not is irrelevant.
jumelles 8y ago
> I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen. Some would argue - me included - that morally, only just laws must be followed.

by rrggrr 8y ago

wyuenho 8y ago

> Apple is doing precisely what its supposed to be doing. Such as aidding and abetting authoritarian foreign governments to suppress freedom of speech. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are having a hard time understanding why this is cowardly, given that Apple is not particularly cowardly when it decided to stand up to US government surveillance.

dewey 8y ago
That is such a simplistic view of things. Do you think they'd do it if there was another way? At that scale things are not that easy and you can't just break the law even if it feels "right" to you. Most users are probably never subject to government intervention and they are still protected by the encryption from thiefs, evil ISPs and other bad actors. If Apple would pull out completely and get banned in the country they'd maybe have to switch to other companies that are not that privacy minded.
- deathhand 8y ago
  Well traditionally tech companies leave open gaps for the average Joe to do the law breaking themselves. If the concept of Taiwan is illegal then it would be a add-on available from other sources. Given how closed source and how rudimentary text input is to an OS I do not know how feasible this is for an IPhone.
adventured 8y ago
> Such as aidding and abetting authoritarian foreign governments to suppress freedom of speech. Over half of all countries have few to no protections on freedom of speech. Is your premise that Apple should only sell its products in about four dozen countries? If we wanted to be really strict about it, only a few nations have strong protections on freedom of speech. You are aware of just how bad the individual liberty protections are in the bottom 100+ countries, right? Freedom of speech protections are rare, and it's even more rare for them to be regularly enforced. Major countries as diverse as Turkey, Singapore, Thailand, China, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - have no or very little freedom of speech. The bottom 40-50 nations on human rights barely have any actively enforced rights protections at all.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Is your premise that Apple should only sell its products in about four dozen countries? I think that public disagreement consistent with their principles regardless of region would be appropriate. I don't think many are asking them to not sell or not abide by the law, just that their pinciples ring hollow if they only voice them against certain governments.
- wyuenho 8y ago
  Speaking of naivety, if selling to Chinese customers is the most important thing Apple has to worry about, banning Apple products would incense Chinese users. It's the lost of their manufacturing capabilities that's of concern. And no, I think Apple should sell to as many countries as possible, but not at a cost of compromising integrity and universal value. Apple should sell their products INTACT across the world.
- tonylinn80 8y ago
  As a regular Chinese citizen, freedom of speech is at the bottom of list of things I care about, and I would happily sell that for profit if it is sell-able. I lived in US for quite some time and travel to US regularly. But seriously, I feel much less safe or comfortable when I am in US, and a lot of things Americans care so much about doesn't mean anything
millstone 8y ago
Apple is in a position of strength in the USA and a position of weakness in China. Apple could choose to die on this hill, and all it would accomplish would be to deprive Chinese consumers of the strongest privacy-protecting mobile phone choice. Things would be different if Apple were found to be shipping firmware-level spyware like Huawei and ZTE phones. But for flag emoji? Who cares? That's an easy trade.
- kodablah 8y ago
  When you only speak out when you're in a position of strength, that is cowardly.
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    They spoke out because legally they were allowed to do so. Our government is founded on things like this. We have courts and representatives that we ultimately control. It had nothing to do with "power" or positions of strength. They simply acted in the political environment they were in. Surprise surprise it's different in China.
- wyuenho 8y ago
  > Apple could choose to die on this hill, and all it would accomplish would be to deprive Chinese consumers of the strongest privacy-protecting mobile phone choice You are clearly drugged out of your mind by Apple's marketing machine. Who exactly uses iMessage in China? Everybody uses Wechat. Are you telling me iOS can protect Chinese users' privacy when the traffic go through their servers? Also, Apple wouldn't die, no alone anyway. Foxconn and Apple would likely both die together. There's nothing scarier than 1000s of 1000s of laid off workers for the CCP. > But for flag emoji? Who cares? That's an easy trade. This is an extremely dangerous line of thought. Today you give them an inch, tomorrow they'll ask for a foot. It is exactly this kind of kautouing the West has given China in the past 20 years that led to its progressive erosion of universal values and leverage to safeguard those values across the world. When it comes to principles, espcially core values of a company, you don't compromise.
  - 8y ago
derefr 8y ago
A multinational corporation is not actually one thing. It's a distinct entity per country, that all pretends to be one global entity, but isn't. Are you saying that Apple China—a Chinese corporation, Apple Corp.'s subsidiary—shouldn't be aiding and abetting its own (authoritarian) government? Or are you saying that Apple Corp (a US company) should be attempting to compel Apple China to break Chinese law? (What do you think Apple China's response to this must, necessarily, be?) Or are you saying that Apple China shouldn't exist? I'm not sure there are any other alternatives than these, and none of them sound very sensible.
- wyuenho 8y ago
  First of all, read your history and news. You don't have to go far, just go back a few years when the Chinese government were blocking the App Store. This isn't a law, this is literally just some arbitrary decision passed down in a piece of paper from the top. Second of all, even if it is a statute, you don't respect the law in China, you respect the MAN. What's legal and what's not depends on not the independent judiciary, as there isn't one, but how well your relationship is with key government officials. Thirdly, all these world-wide subsidiary are there mainly for tax and payroll. Apple China does not operate independently as it's wholely owned by Apple US. Also, I don't know if you are aware, this is likely the decision made directly by Tim Cook if you've seen his activity in China recently. The solution is very easy, appeal to Trump and I'm sure his ilks will go to work. You may not like Trump, but the outcome surely will be infinitely better than compromising your own core values and customer's trust.
  - derefr 8y ago
    > What's legal and what's not depends on not the independent judiciary, as there isn't one, but how well your relationship is with key government officials. Yes, so your first two paragraphs reduce to an argument over semantics. When I say "law in China", I mean "what you will be punished by the Chinese government for doing [whether for cronyist reasons or not]." It's "the law" in the Libertarian sense of "the whims of the people who can command people with guns to come shoot you without reproach." > Thirdly, all these world-wide subsidiary are there mainly for tax and payroll. Apple China does not operate independently as it's wholely owned by Apple US. Yes, that is how multinational corporations work in every other sense. That is not how multinational corporations work when it comes to interactions between the subsidiary and the subsidiary's government, because—and consider this carefully for a moment: the employees of the subsidiary corporation—including those operating its distribution logistics pipeline within China—are Chinese citizens. Tim Cook can try telling these employees what to do, and in all other ways he'll succeed, but the Chinese government can override Tim Cook in this one way, because the people he's giving orders to here are Chinese, and are beholden to the Chinese government. They're not going to do something that's illegal for them personally to do, just because their boss tells them to. They'd just end up quitting, and the people who'd replace them would end up quitting, and so forth. And Tim Cook knows that, which is why he doesn't tell them to do things that the Chinese government would consider illegal. Which includes, for those distribution-pipeline employees, distributing iOS devices that don't have Chinese-government-mandated modifications to the firmware. Those employees would be arrested for that. So Tim Cook orders his US employees to make the modifications to the firmware, such that those Chinese employees can then comply with the "law in China" when they distribute the phones. (Which is really to say, such that Apple retains Chinese employees at all.) The only other choice he has (since "force your Chinese employees to get arrested" is not actually a workable strategy) is not distributing the phones in China in the first place. Sure, he can try to get the "law in China" changed. Every corporation is always lobbying in every market they're in. But it doesn't usually work; if it did, we'd be living in a far more dystopian-corporatist world than we already do. ;)

benchaney 8y ago

> For example, its essentially US law that Apple's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholder's best interests. Not participating in the Chinese cellular market over principle violates that principal of law. This isn’t true at all.

obmelvin 8y ago
More info for those curious: Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School, is the author of "The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public." https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- Bromskloss 8y ago
  Aren't shareholders and investors the same thing?
  - abrowne 8y ago
    Yes, so the title is saying they too will be harmed by "putting them first".
brisance 8y ago
Except that it is true that directors face lawsuits about breaches of fiduciary duty frequently enough for it to be not uncommon. A suit was filed recently naming Eddy Cue for violating anti-trust law relating to the settlement for the e-books case brought by the federal government. http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-18-154515&CIK=320193 http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-18-...
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The problem is getting sued in itself is meaningless. PETA could sue Tyson Foods by arguing that selling meat is a longterm liability. They would lose badly and quickly.

testvox 8y ago

The courts don't review normal business judgements. Even when there is a fiduciary duty. If that wasn't true then no one would want to risk being a officer because they would be constantly getting sued by upset shareholders. > The courts will defer to erroneous business judgments, provided that the officers or directors did not show gross negligence in their review and decision-making process. Without this rule in place, many individuals would be unwilling to serve as officers and directors and business people might be reluctant to take commercial risks that could benefit a corporation in the long run. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibility-corporations.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...

kodablah 8y ago

> I'm having a hard time understanding what is cowardly about complying with Chinese law when selling products inside China. There are many laws in the US I don't agree with, but I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen. That you draw such equivalence may be why you have a hard time understanding.

brisance 8y ago
Do you agree that if Congress passes a law that bans phone encryption, Apple would have to comply with it? Yes or no?
- kodablah 8y ago
  Not quietly and without disagreement, no. And not a ban on an image of a flag or name of a disputed country, no. These equivalences are getting ridiculous and I'm beginning to believe the only justification for constantly bringing them up is to distract from the issue at hand.
  - brisance 8y ago
    Merriam-Webster defines "ban" as "to prohibit especially by legal means". I don't see the problem. If you replace the word "Apple" with "Microsoft" or "Red Hat" or "Canonical", would you still be as outraged?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - BrandoElFollito 8y ago
    You mean that one can have its own interpretation of the law and follow the rules which they see fit? This is anarchy. Apple could leave the US in that case, but if they stay they have to follow the law. Whether they do it loudly or not is irrelevant.

jumelles 8y ago

> I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen. Some would argue - me included - that morally, only just laws must be followed.