10 ms·

Why would Apple do this to help a foreign company? They have nothing to gain except a small amount of app store fees. And they'd piss off a ton of Republican an

Why would Apple do this to help a foreign company? They have nothing to gain except a small amount of app store fees. And they'd piss off a ton of Republican and some Democrat lawmakers, not to mention the 80% of their customers who don't use TikTok. If Apple did do this to help a foreign company (or any company), it would probably fall afoul of the law: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. (emphasis mine) IANAL, so I'm sure there are other laws I am not aware of that would squelch such a move.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
They almost certainly don't want to set the precedent of caving in to a sub-national jurisdiction's bills when they don't even have any business operations in that jurisdiction. Because then every state, province territory, etc., in the world will have an excuse. Since there are App Store users everywhere.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  This is what lawsuits are for, not preemptive refusal to do business with an entire state. It's a lot cheaper to code geographic controls (that they already have for national-level jurisdictions) than to only temporarily boycott even only 100k paying App store customers.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    It's not possible to code sub-national geographic controls without sacrificing markets much bigger then Montana. There's a reason why no company has ever successfully done such a thing for any consumer product.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      As long as they do the best they can to comply with the law they would likely be protected from judgement. Courts do not require unreasonable standards of compliance. If phone users turn off their GPS location feature Apple can't be held accountable.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

They almost certainly don't want to set the precedent of caving in to a sub-national jurisdiction's bills when they don't even have any business operations in that jurisdiction. Because then every state, province territory, etc., in the world will have an excuse. Since there are App Store users everywhere.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
This is what lawsuits are for, not preemptive refusal to do business with an entire state. It's a lot cheaper to code geographic controls (that they already have for national-level jurisdictions) than to only temporarily boycott even only 100k paying App store customers.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  It's not possible to code sub-national geographic controls without sacrificing markets much bigger then Montana. There's a reason why no company has ever successfully done such a thing for any consumer product.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    As long as they do the best they can to comply with the law they would likely be protected from judgement. Courts do not require unreasonable standards of compliance. If phone users turn off their GPS location feature Apple can't be held accountable.