[fnordprefect]

This all comes down to the statement near the end: "I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments"

Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."

The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).

It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."

That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.

And that choice has implications for the company in other countries, when they become dependent on the countries they do business in, which then start making demands of the company's behavior globally.

[unishark]

I think the point is when it comes to censorship, taking the high road of refusing to collude with the government and ceasing to operate in the country (whether willingly or by non-compliance leading to being banned yourself) has ultimately the same effect as following the law. The communication which the govt wants to censor gets censored.

[soperj]

>That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.

Same with South Africa and IBM during apartheid.

[threeseed]

In this case it is largely an issue for governments.

Because what Apple is doing is not immoral or unethical but completely standard business practice. Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them.

In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.

[strogonoff]

I know that if Apple did not offer products in some of the countries I live(d), many more citizens would be using spyware-loaded phones—because they don’t have the skills or dedication to use a PinePhone (or even to clear their Android devices of preinstalled malware and maintain them in that state), because it’s infeasible for them to purchase an Apple device overseas, or because they just don’t know better—which would lower the bar for propaganda and censorship, ensuring people with inconvenient opinions are fewer and farther between.

It seems highly unlikely that oppressive governments would be compelled to stop being such if Apple decided to withdraw from their countries’ markets. Yes, it is profitable to allow and tax Apple’s sales, but by my reckoning not nearly enough to pursue through a fundamental shift in political climate. (Yes, some citizens will wonder what happened, but considering Apple’s minor market share and domestic media’s capability to spin the story in favour of the leading party, public opinion would hardly be a factor either.)

To allude to an essay I read recently, a withdrawal in this context would be somewhat akin to Apple acting like Star Trek Federation (first do no harm, avoid mistakes at all costs), while remaining engaged, preserving the opportunity to enact a positive change laterally through non-obvious implications of attractive technology with superior security, would be them acting more like Culture.

[grishka]

Apple could have avoided this entire issue by not forcefully inserting itself between the app developers and their users.

[sudosysgen]

The solution is incredibly simple.

Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.

Then, Apple isn't in the position to apply the censorship to begin with, and it can both allow for a way to install these apps, and follow local rules.

It's not some issue that everyone else has to contend with. You can buy a Pixel or an LG in China and install anything you want on it. It's only Apple that has this issue.

[theshrike79]

> Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.

There isn't a disclaimer in the world that would make this worth it. If someone bricks their phone with a dodgy app after "fully unlocking", they WILL be going after Apple, not the app developer.

I consider the locked nature of Apple devices a feature and an useful at that.

[Siira]

Apple doesn’t lawfully sell in Iran; Its products are still ubiquitous in the upper middle class.

[rendall]

Aside, OT: Cool username, fnordprefect. It's so clever I wish I had thought of it.

[AntiImperialist]

Except for the prescedent set by the Nuremberg trials.