Re:Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
by Clubber on Monday July 31, 2017 @10:36PM
(#14897519)
Trump called for a boycott on Apple because of that, and that was when he was somewhat credible. It was a bad short term play financially, but I believe it was a good long term play. Apple plays the long game, one of the few public companies that still do. What they bought is that I believe Apple implements more security and privacy measures in their phone than any of the competition, and actively improve it as a priority.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-apple-bo...
Remember this document? Apple was the last company to be subverted either willingly nor not. I'll bet it pissed Cook the hell of that Apple was even on this list. I believe they completely revamped their cloud architecture after that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...
Re:Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
by JumpCrisscross on Monday July 31, 2017 @10:24PM
(#14897458)
Practically all my non-technical friends required several conversations to understand why Apple did what it did in the San Bernardino case. On one side you have a company refusing to unlock a mass shooter's phone. On the other side you have an abstract discussion about rights and technology. Guess which one appeals to the broader denominator.
Perhaps not. But Apple absolutely benefited from the overwhelmingly positive press coverage it received as a result of their decision to oppose the FBI. And when the FBI withdrew their request, Apple looked like the winner. So yes, I do believe they opposed the FBI in that instance to strengthen their brand.