5 ms·

I am not surprised by this. I always thought Tim Cook talks a good talk, but fails to walk the walk when the stakes at hand is real. He’s fine with standing up

I am not surprised by this. I always thought Tim Cook talks a good talk, but fails to walk the walk when the stakes at hand is real. He’s fine with standing up to the CIA/FBI because he knows it’s good PR for business and the US government cannot do anything without a lengthy court fight that is mostly fair. Same with other US domestic issues such as DACA, sane sex marriage, etc. But when it comes to the PRC government, he caves immediately because the threat is real. He knows he CAN and probably WILL lose access the Chinese market and manufacturing capacity, and there’s no court system to appeal—-the system is rigged and controlled by the CCP. Therefore, principles bow down before revenue. Personally I don’t care what Tim Cook and Apple does to get and keep access to Chinese market, but I am disgusted by hypocrite with the high rhetoric about privacy, human rights, etc., but compromising immediately when $$$ is at stake.

dannyw 7y ago
If you compromise, at least be frank about it.
- baq 7y ago
  here's the thing: he can't. that would offend the CCP.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
When did he stand up to the CIA? As far as standing up to the FBI, the impetus behind that was to cover up another lie. Apple had told customers "it's not technically feasible" for Apple to respond to data requests and got a mountain of free press for it. The FBI showed a method by which Apple could obtain the encrypted data on those devices. Soon after, that claim disappeared from Apple's "Privacy" marketing page. https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to-police-if-your-1636197341 https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to... Complying with the data request would have given users who had their data obtained standing to sue Apple, so Apple's willingness to litigate the issue went so far as the cost of the lawsuits it wanted to avoid. The FBI dropped the case not because it didn't think it could win but because it could access the data more quickly using another vendor's data extraction service.
- panda88888 7y ago
  My mistake. It was just FBI.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  >Complying with the data request would have given users who had their data obtained standing to sue Apple This is wrong. Complying with a court order doesn't open you up to any liability; furthermore, the users the FBI was after in this case were already dead.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Complying with a court order doesn't open you up to any liability It does if you've told your customers that you can't. > the users the FBI was after in this case were already dead. The owner of the device you're talking about was the user's (singular, not plural) living employer, but I wasn't talking about that user in the sentence you quoted. After implementing the data extraction procedure the FBI described, Apple would have been asked to extract data from many other devices. Most of the users of those devices are alive, and some might even be innocent of the crimes that were being investigated.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      >It does if you've told your customers that you can't. Not really. First of all, a suit is unlikely when the person who'd bring a lawsuit is someone that committed a crime with probable cause. Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. They wouldn't be liable at all; if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. It doesn't add up as a motivation for Apple.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > committed a crime with probable cause Your error is that you don't know the difference between committing a crime and probable cause.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
If the alternative were to lose manufacturing capacity, it wouldn’t be “...compromising immediately when $$$ is at stake.”. What’s at stake then is the future of the company — everyone’s jobs, industries that have come to rely on Macs, the consumers that have come to rely on iPhones. Just folding up and losing the $$$ isn’t the path of courage here.
- summerlight 7y ago
  And still Apple hasn't even begun to migrate off from Chinese manufacturers while Samsung has shut down most of its factories in China and heavily invested into Vietnam supply chains. The only meaningful explanation is that Apple still gains a significant chunk of its margin from the China market while Samsung has lost almost all of its market share there. I'm pretty sure that Apple had a clear understanding of this kind of political risks and was willing to take it in pursuit of profit maximization.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    Apple does have new manufacturing capacity in the US (state of Texas). I am not sure how long it took it took put together their present supply chain but I bet it took longer than 4 years.
    - panda88888 7y ago
      It’s only for the Mac Pro. They do have I think iPhone 6S manufacturing in India?
- panda88888 7y ago
  I would counter by saying that Apple put itself in this position by not 2nd and 3rd sourcing contract manufacturers. Tim understood the risks, but he chose to profit rather than de-risk.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    That is true but they are not alone in having done the risk calculus wrong on that.
xenospn 7y ago
Honestly - Apple could have doubled their prices and gained 90% of the US market if he stood up to China and told the CCP to stuff it. They would have had amazing PR for decades.
- ladberg 7y ago
  This is completely untrue. Most Americans don't care about Apple's relationship with China, and they're probably only losing a fraction of a percent of customers. If Apple doubled their prices, they would lose the majority of their customers.
- Gigablah 7y ago
  Google exited China and the PR from that didn't last for more than a couple of years. What makes you think this will be different?
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  The iPhone 11 entry level model starts at $699 The iPhone 11 Pro top end model starts at $1449 I don't think all the PR in the world is capable of convincing people that the new iPhones are worth $1398 - $2898
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  My experience is that this China obsession is very much a HN thing. The vast majority of people couldn't care less as long as they carry on getting cheap technology.

dannyw 7y ago

If you compromise, at least be frank about it.

baq 7y ago
here's the thing: he can't. that would offend the CCP.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

When did he stand up to the CIA? As far as standing up to the FBI, the impetus behind that was to cover up another lie. Apple had told customers "it's not technically feasible" for Apple to respond to data requests and got a mountain of free press for it. The FBI showed a method by which Apple could obtain the encrypted data on those devices. Soon after, that claim disappeared from Apple's "Privacy" marketing page. https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to-police-if-your-1636197341 https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to... Complying with the data request would have given users who had their data obtained standing to sue Apple, so Apple's willingness to litigate the issue went so far as the cost of the lawsuits it wanted to avoid. The FBI dropped the case not because it didn't think it could win but because it could access the data more quickly using another vendor's data extraction service.

panda88888 7y ago
My mistake. It was just FBI.
ikeboy 7y ago
>Complying with the data request would have given users who had their data obtained standing to sue Apple This is wrong. Complying with a court order doesn't open you up to any liability; furthermore, the users the FBI was after in this case were already dead.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Complying with a court order doesn't open you up to any liability It does if you've told your customers that you can't. > the users the FBI was after in this case were already dead. The owner of the device you're talking about was the user's (singular, not plural) living employer, but I wasn't talking about that user in the sentence you quoted. After implementing the data extraction procedure the FBI described, Apple would have been asked to extract data from many other devices. Most of the users of those devices are alive, and some might even be innocent of the crimes that were being investigated.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    >It does if you've told your customers that you can't. Not really. First of all, a suit is unlikely when the person who'd bring a lawsuit is someone that committed a crime with probable cause. Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. They wouldn't be liable at all; if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. It doesn't add up as a motivation for Apple.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > committed a crime with probable cause Your error is that you don't know the difference between committing a crime and probable cause.

solidsnack9000 7y ago

If the alternative were to lose manufacturing capacity, it wouldn’t be “...compromising immediately when $$$ is at stake.”. What’s at stake then is the future of the company — everyone’s jobs, industries that have come to rely on Macs, the consumers that have come to rely on iPhones. Just folding up and losing the $$$ isn’t the path of courage here.

summerlight 7y ago
And still Apple hasn't even begun to migrate off from Chinese manufacturers while Samsung has shut down most of its factories in China and heavily invested into Vietnam supply chains. The only meaningful explanation is that Apple still gains a significant chunk of its margin from the China market while Samsung has lost almost all of its market share there. I'm pretty sure that Apple had a clear understanding of this kind of political risks and was willing to take it in pursuit of profit maximization.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Apple does have new manufacturing capacity in the US (state of Texas). I am not sure how long it took it took put together their present supply chain but I bet it took longer than 4 years.
  - panda88888 7y ago
    It’s only for the Mac Pro. They do have I think iPhone 6S manufacturing in India?
panda88888 7y ago
I would counter by saying that Apple put itself in this position by not 2nd and 3rd sourcing contract manufacturers. Tim understood the risks, but he chose to profit rather than de-risk.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  That is true but they are not alone in having done the risk calculus wrong on that.

xenospn 7y ago

Honestly - Apple could have doubled their prices and gained 90% of the US market if he stood up to China and told the CCP to stuff it. They would have had amazing PR for decades.

ladberg 7y ago
This is completely untrue. Most Americans don't care about Apple's relationship with China, and they're probably only losing a fraction of a percent of customers. If Apple doubled their prices, they would lose the majority of their customers.
Gigablah 7y ago
Google exited China and the PR from that didn't last for more than a couple of years. What makes you think this will be different?
oarsinsync 7y ago
The iPhone 11 entry level model starts at $699 The iPhone 11 Pro top end model starts at $1449 I don't think all the PR in the world is capable of convincing people that the new iPhones are worth $1398 - $2898
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
My experience is that this China obsession is very much a HN thing. The vast majority of people couldn't care less as long as they carry on getting cheap technology.