3 ms·

I struggle with Apple's China situation as well, but the more I turn it over in my head, the more I think it's that Tim is pulled between two parties: 1) His t

I struggle with Apple's China situation as well, but the more I turn it over in my head, the more I think it's that Tim is pulled between two parties: 1) His team + Apple Directors that I firmly believe, both in words AND in their action, are strong proponents of privacy of the user 2) The Apple Board + Sharedholders that would revolt if the privacy principles from (1) prevented access to a market of ~1.4 billion people, and potentially gave a competitor like Huawei a further leg up. In this scenario, I don't see it as "grand-standing," but more of a necessary public act that US should move more in the policy direction of the EU, in spite of steep lobbying from most of the Valley / FANG group that would benefit from less-strict privacy regulations.

reacharavindh 8y ago
Yes, I agree that there is a nuance to it. But, if they said "We'd like the United States to stand up for the privacy of its citizens and create a law like that if GDPR. Apple is in full support of it because it helps our business too(it is our competitor's weakness)" I'd agree that they are talking the truth. But, writing that we "absolutely" care about your privacy, and that "caring for privacy is in our DNA" and so on just to turn around and give up the same principles to an authoritarian government(one that is building Social credit system nevertheless) is just plain hypocrisy IMO. I know several American and European friends that trust Apple as if they're infallible, and will protect their data in a war. That's what I think is wrong. Apple will give up its users, DNA, principles if there is enough money to be made or leverage to be taken.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that it IS hypocrisy: if you want to operate in a place for business, and you have no choice (i.e. my point about Apple's Board + Shareholders,) you can rail against the policies in public as much as possible and hope that the law favors your principles. That's what Tim Cook is doing here: hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government, and lobbying as much as he can to prevent that. Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," or data pooling (a la social credit system) - what are his choices? 1) Not operate in the US? Not realistic 2) Ignore them and pay hefty fines up the whazoo? Maybe for a short period of time until Shareholders revolt or the Feds push to start pulling some folks in court.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    > hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government > Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," That's what they're trying to bring in in Australia now. I feel that it's a test-case for the other 5 eyes countries to learn from. I'm hoping that the way they're going about it in such a ham-fisted and causeless way ensures their power-grab falls flat on its face.
paxys 8y ago
You can make this exact argument for Google or Facebook or anyone else. Simply bringing up "evil shareholders" doesn't absolve any company or individual from criticism.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood my argument - apologies for not being clearer. There is a difference between a company's _incentives_ to do something that is permitted by law - for which I would agree that said company is worthy of criticism to a reasonable extent - and that which a company is _compelled to do so by law._ My point was that Tim Cook's speech was largely to prevent scenarios that would lead to law-makers wanting to create laws like the latter. And Apple _should_ get credit that they have a bunch of incentives to collect user data at will, like many other tech companies, but explicitly avoid that as company policy.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Apple has a record of doing the right thing. Google and Facebook don't. It really matters when you are being asked to blindly trust a company.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  In the case of Google, I thought a handful of people had controlling interest. (Just Larry and Sergei?) Maybe similarly for Facebook, I haven't checked.

reacharavindh 8y ago

Yes, I agree that there is a nuance to it. But, if they said "We'd like the United States to stand up for the privacy of its citizens and create a law like that if GDPR. Apple is in full support of it because it helps our business too(it is our competitor's weakness)" I'd agree that they are talking the truth. But, writing that we "absolutely" care about your privacy, and that "caring for privacy is in our DNA" and so on just to turn around and give up the same principles to an authoritarian government(one that is building Social credit system nevertheless) is just plain hypocrisy IMO. I know several American and European friends that trust Apple as if they're infallible, and will protect their data in a war. That's what I think is wrong. Apple will give up its users, DNA, principles if there is enough money to be made or leverage to be taken.

s3r3nity 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree that it IS hypocrisy: if you want to operate in a place for business, and you have no choice (i.e. my point about Apple's Board + Shareholders,) you can rail against the policies in public as much as possible and hope that the law favors your principles. That's what Tim Cook is doing here: hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government, and lobbying as much as he can to prevent that. Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," or data pooling (a la social credit system) - what are his choices? 1) Not operate in the US? Not realistic 2) Ignore them and pay hefty fines up the whazoo? Maybe for a short period of time until Shareholders revolt or the Feds push to start pulling some folks in court.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  > hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government > Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," That's what they're trying to bring in in Australia now. I feel that it's a test-case for the other 5 eyes countries to learn from. I'm hoping that the way they're going about it in such a ham-fisted and causeless way ensures their power-grab falls flat on its face.

paxys 8y ago

You can make this exact argument for Google or Facebook or anyone else. Simply bringing up "evil shareholders" doesn't absolve any company or individual from criticism.

s3r3nity 8y ago
I think you misunderstood my argument - apologies for not being clearer. There is a difference between a company's _incentives_ to do something that is permitted by law - for which I would agree that said company is worthy of criticism to a reasonable extent - and that which a company is _compelled to do so by law._ My point was that Tim Cook's speech was largely to prevent scenarios that would lead to law-makers wanting to create laws like the latter. And Apple _should_ get credit that they have a bunch of incentives to collect user data at will, like many other tech companies, but explicitly avoid that as company policy.
threeseed 8y ago
Apple has a record of doing the right thing. Google and Facebook don't. It really matters when you are being asked to blindly trust a company.
abecedarius 8y ago
In the case of Google, I thought a handful of people had controlling interest. (Just Larry and Sergei?) Maybe similarly for Facebook, I haven't checked.