In the end the choice is simple: follow local laws or drop features or devices. The calculation is going to be different in each country, but there is no hypoc

In the end the choice is simple: follow local laws or drop features or devices. The calculation is going to be different in each country, but there is no hypocrisy here. The Chinese government messing with Chinese servers affect the Chinese market, which makes a lot of money so there is a strong incentive to remain in it. The UK backdooring FaceTime compromises it for the rest of the world and would actually put Apple in jeopardy in other jurisdictions with stronger privacy and data protection laws, for a comparatively minor market. It’d be more significant if the issue was with the EU or the US (both scenarios can realistically happen in the next few years, unfortunately). All they are saying is that they will comply if the regulations are put in place. Also, the British government is known for making noises along these lines before quietly dropping the whole project when it turns out that it’s actually not that simple. Different countries will lead to different risk assessments. So yeah, there is no inconsistency, it’s just a matter of how you stay on the clear side of the law. > It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss. A company is not sentient, it does not have a stance. Its policies have no value except when they are decided and enforced by people. It’s dangerous to talk of corporations in terms of ideology, because these things can change and often cash trumps good intentions. In the end all that matters is how much the company and our interests align. The best way to have a company behave over the long term is if it makes sense for it to do so from a business point of view.