3 ms·

> From a "change from the inside" perspective, Apple can make more of a positive difference in pushing forward their agenda for countries like Russia, by stayin

> From a "change from the inside" perspective, Apple can make more of a positive difference in pushing forward their agenda for countries like Russia, by staying in the Russian market, complying with a few government demands How did that work in China? More to the point, companies are not nations or governments. Having agendas for countries is not their place.

derefr 7y ago
> How did that work in China? China is mostly what I was referring to, honestly. An iOS device that can run five secure-messaging apps instead of ten is still better than an Android device that's been potentially wiretapped during last-mile delivery to the customer. (This is the same reason that contracts from Western governments propped up RIM for a while, before Apple became a viable replacement for them. A US government official could trust a Blackberry they acquired in China, far more than they could trust a regular Chinese cellphone.) > More to the point, companies are not nations or governments. Having agendas for countries is not their place. Companies (at least S-corps) don't have agendas per se; but their employees, as citizens of countries, certainly do. When everybody behind the design of an iPhone lives in the US, you'd better believe that the iPhone is being designed to put forward an implicit "agenda" carried by the cultural beliefs of citizens of the US, whether Apple-as-a-profit-motivated-corporation likes it or not. (You know how there's a recent trend in the US with corporations adopting social-justice messaging in their community guidelines? Think about how that kind of support develops in a corporation, and then replace "social justice" with "foreign policy.")
- golemotron 7y ago
  That's a bit fuzzy. If you want to carry that argument further, replace employees with shareholders. Re the messaging you refer to, it's good PR and it would occur without employee activism.

derefr 7y ago

> How did that work in China? China is mostly what I was referring to, honestly. An iOS device that can run five secure-messaging apps instead of ten is still better than an Android device that's been potentially wiretapped during last-mile delivery to the customer. (This is the same reason that contracts from Western governments propped up RIM for a while, before Apple became a viable replacement for them. A US government official could trust a Blackberry they acquired in China, far more than they could trust a regular Chinese cellphone.) > More to the point, companies are not nations or governments. Having agendas for countries is not their place. Companies (at least S-corps) don't have agendas per se; but their employees, as citizens of countries, certainly do. When everybody behind the design of an iPhone lives in the US, you'd better believe that the iPhone is being designed to put forward an implicit "agenda" carried by the cultural beliefs of citizens of the US, whether Apple-as-a-profit-motivated-corporation likes it or not. (You know how there's a recent trend in the US with corporations adopting social-justice messaging in their community guidelines? Think about how that kind of support develops in a corporation, and then replace "social justice" with "foreign policy.")

golemotron 7y ago
That's a bit fuzzy. If you want to carry that argument further, replace employees with shareholders. Re the messaging you refer to, it's good PR and it would occur without employee activism.