Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#11

Post by justicezyx » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 12:48 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #8

IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

The big issue is that they'd actually have to shoot themselves in the head: they can't exist in China without giving into things like this. And Tim Cook can't keep his job if he decides to leave his 1st (or 2nd, depending on the quarter) largest market for moral reasons. I'm not really sure if its a rule of law issue (though China definitely has problems there). One problem is that western companies generally must fo…

> Chinese companies, however, have no such limitations, and will bend the rules all the time, often with minimal consequences.

Do you mind point some examples?

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#12

Post by sriku » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 12:55 AM UTC

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours".

A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is part of law, the legal system recently ruled that Facebook can continue to track users online even when they're logged out. So pretending that the privacy issue is one of "morality" is just borrowing the emotional power of the "morality" label for something that is not a universal law on the planet ... not even within aspects of the US. It is not different from a middle-eastern global company offering christmas discounts for its products in western countries, or Amazon not selling banned books in the countries they operate, or selling books on witchcraft and sorcery as though the books were of the same standing as, say, Principia Mathemtica.

Permitted? Do. Not permitted? Don't. ... unless the goal of your company is to champion a particular political ideology. So, frankly, this NYTimes article is, from a global perspective, "politically incorrect".

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#13

Post by ariwilson » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

Why does Apple get a free pass on this when Google has such a clear stance for free expression?

[1] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#14

Post by mc32 » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

I wonder what Apple's reaction would be if China (or another large non-western market) demanded to have root on people's iphones. If Apple said, it's our HW design, it can't be compromised, I'm sure some market with enough heft could come back and say, make one specific to our market or you don't sell here. At that point they'd likely capitulate.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#15

Post by Barrin92 » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 12:59 AM UTC

sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

exactly. Outsourcing foreign politics or issues of morality to a business is both harmful (because that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be) and it circumvents Chinese law.

If issues of privacy in China are very important to you electing officials who's foreign policy reflects that is a better idea.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#16

Post by mikestew » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:00 AM UTC

IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

Apple has most certainly taken a moral stance in the past as you point out. The galling part of the article to me was "The company has not fully tested its political and economic leverage in China." It is not Apple's job to take a political stance. They can if they want, as evidenced by the examples you laid out, but there is no requirement. If the NYT wants to talk politics and precedence, perhaps they should direct their criticisms toward the U. S. government, et. al., who collectively think that China's membership in the WTO, and therefore I assume free trade with China, is just a-okay.

Apple is playing by the rules, and this time decided that this is not the hill they want to die on. That's their prerogative. Don't like the rules? Then go complain to those that make the rules to begin with, not those that play by those rules.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#17

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:02 AM UTC

justicezyx wrote: post #11

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big issue is that they'd actually have to shoot themselves in the head: they can't exist in China without giving into things like this. And Tim Cook can't keep his job if he decides to leave his 1st (or 2nd, depending on the quarter) largest market for moral reasons. I'm not really sure if its a rule of law issue (though China definitely has problems there). One problem is that western companies generally must fo…

> Chinese companies, however, have no such limitations, and will bend the rules all the time, often with minimal consequences. Do you mind point some examples?

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#18

Post by 0xbear » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:04 AM UTC

the_common_man wrote: post #10

Absurd article. Why is this special to Apple? Why can US govt not take a stance and ban all chinese articles from their country?

That'd be very bad for business. The government is particularly hypocritical in this regard. Our BFFs in the Middle East _execute gays_, oppress women, and finance terrorism, and we pretend not to notice.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#19

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:05 AM UTC

justicezyx wrote: post #11

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big issue is that they'd actually have to shoot themselves in the head: they can't exist in China without giving into things like this. And Tim Cook can't keep his job if he decides to leave his 1st (or 2nd, depending on the quarter) largest market for moral reasons. I'm not really sure if its a rule of law issue (though China definitely has problems there). One problem is that western companies generally must fo…

> Chinese companies, however, have no such limitations, and will bend the rules all the time, often with minimal consequences. Do you mind point some examples?

Ya, for the big one, Baidu is the ultimate search engine for porn and health care scams, where they used to derive most of their revenue. Compared to Chinese Bing which is pretty clean with pretty effective porn filters (but also makes almost no money).

Payments via AliPay and WePay were technically illegal before they were legalized post facto after they became popular. A western company could have never gone near that.

All the western companies pay income tax on private health insurance benefits, while all the Chinese companies don't, because the law is unclear.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#20

Post by MVf4l » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:09 AM UTC

I won't call obeying local laws or following host's rules sets precedent. MNCs have been following the local rules since day one. What do you expect?

Would you stop speaking local language because it helps the rulers communicate? Would you stop using the bank notes because it's issued by a dictatorship? You didn't because it's essential to run your business within the country.

The US is your own country, you have obligation to fix it, that's why you stand up against FBI. But not for other countries, they have to fix their own country by themselves.