4 ms·

> by removing apps from the App Store at the Chinese government's request So they follow the law in the market they’re operating in? Holy shit, how dare they.

lapcat 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're replying to me with a sarcastic response when I was merely disputing the notion that "The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments". On the other hand, the issue is not as simple as Apple following the law, because Apple chose to lock down iPhone and set themselves up as the sole gatekeeper for app installations. On the Mac, which allows distribution from outside the App Store, it's not possible to completely ban apps in this way.
realusername 2y ago
It depends, they cried much harder for the DMA in the EU and still aren't really fully compliant. In China, they were quite okay to throw citizens under the bus without much complaints though.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. That doesn't really fit, because the course of action would be the same in both cases. If the CCP says they have to ban apps then enable side loading or third party stores so customers in China can install the banned apps from another source but the company can still feign compliance. This is the same thing the EU says they have to do anyway, except that it actually defeats the onerous regulation in China whereas in the EU the regulation is intended to benefit rather than oppress the user and Apple objects to it because they're the one wearing the boot. The explanation that fits is that they care about their own control (and so fight the EU) but don't care as much about China oppressing their customers (and so bend the knee there). > US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China. In general company leaders should try to have morals and use their influence to push back against rules from governments trying to harm their people. Obviously publicly-traded companies have a perverse tendency to do the opposite of this once they're controlled by Wall St rather than the original founders.
Qwertious 2y ago
Following the laws of a market you choose to operate in does not absolve you of your actions - just ask IBM.

lapcat 2y ago

I'm not sure why you're replying to me with a sarcastic response when I was merely disputing the notion that "The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments". On the other hand, the issue is not as simple as Apple following the law, because Apple chose to lock down iPhone and set themselves up as the sole gatekeeper for app installations. On the Mac, which allows distribution from outside the App Store, it's not possible to completely ban apps in this way.

realusername 2y ago

It depends, they cried much harder for the DMA in the EU and still aren't really fully compliant. In China, they were quite okay to throw citizens under the bus without much complaints though.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. That doesn't really fit, because the course of action would be the same in both cases. If the CCP says they have to ban apps then enable side loading or third party stores so customers in China can install the banned apps from another source but the company can still feign compliance. This is the same thing the EU says they have to do anyway, except that it actually defeats the onerous regulation in China whereas in the EU the regulation is intended to benefit rather than oppress the user and Apple objects to it because they're the one wearing the boot. The explanation that fits is that they care about their own control (and so fight the EU) but don't care as much about China oppressing their customers (and so bend the knee there). > US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China. In general company leaders should try to have morals and use their influence to push back against rules from governments trying to harm their people. Obviously publicly-traded companies have a perverse tendency to do the opposite of this once they're controlled by Wall St rather than the original founders.

Qwertious 2y ago

Following the laws of a market you choose to operate in does not absolve you of your actions - just ask IBM.