"Your choice is, do you participate or do you stand on the sideline and yell at how things should be," Mr. Cook said. "My own view very strongly is you show up and you participate, you get in the arena, because nothing ever changes from the sideline." [1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-tim-cook-no-point-yellin...
Apple can walk away from China whenever it wants to. Apple is the one company in the entire world best equipped with the cash to make this kind of public stand. But it doesn't want to because doing so will cost a lot of that money.
The only thing stopping Apple from closing its Chinese stores, and moving manufacturing to another country is fear of the faceless shareholder bots that have no AI for morality, and will punish Apple for doing the right thing.
Every time I see Tim Cook on stage patting himself on the back for making some minor environmental improvement because it's the right thing to do, I can't help but think it's all a farce because incremental environmental improvements aren't even low-hanging fruit. They're the fruit that has already fallen from the tree and rolled through his front door into his kitchen.
If Mr. Cook and the rest of his company want to impress, then do something hard.
Disclosure: Apple shareholder, with morality, but not enough shares for Apple to care.
Not unless they've spent the last decade building a secret duplicate supply chain ecosystem.
See for example https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/business/apple-california...
If you really cared about this, shouldn't you sell your Apple stocks and invest in a company with morals compatible with yours instead? Otherwise, you're part of the problem as you're willing to profit from China just like Apple.
Actually, if you really cared about this, I think it'd be better buy more Apple stock and start making a fuss in their shareholder meetings.
It doesn't absolve Apple or other companies (or me), but it does make Apple an odd target to fix on.
The reality is there's no way the company can make that change on the basis of "it's the right thing to do" without also being able to convincingly argue that it's better for long term shareholder value.
I don't care if your for or against those types of laws, but if we go through the legislative effort to give up the economical efficiency for the social good and pass those laws, than you damn well better contribute to said social good if you want to do business on our shores
The decision isn't free, and that is the problem everyone is pointing out. You can't expect companies to "do the right thing" when it gets in the way of profit. The only way to make that happen is to put massive PR pressure on them to do "the right thing" whatever you believe that to be.
Bad PR isn't enough. It takes convincing A LOT of customers to stop buying their products or convincing A LOT of shareholders to stop holding their stock. Public opinion is just a loose proxy for expected revenue - if revenue doesn't at least look like it might begin to significantly suffer, nothing is likely to change.
The workers at Google who protested despite the loss in value of their equity should be commended.
No one is loyal to Google. Apple fanboys have a double standard that I don't understand, maybe its a social club.
1. the ones expressing dissent were caught in internal Apple network and subsequently quietly laid off for whatever official reason, preemptively
2. reporting such news could cost a reporter highly in the future; surely getting no access to latest Apple stuff but other SV companies are watching as well
3. "can do no wrong" culture
Does it count as "encrypted" if the keys have been given to the people spying on you?
Asking "have you audited the source" is such a meaningless question when you're not building from source (and auditing the compiler...), which practically nobody, not even HN users, are doing.
Please read Reflections on trusting trust and rethink what your threat model is, and what you consider "secure". https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p7...
They have to share data:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
> And even though Chinese iPhones will retain the security features that can make it all but impossible for anyone, even Apple, to get access to the phone itself, that will not apply to the iCloud accounts. Any information in the iCloud account could be accessible to Chinese authorities who can present Apple with a legal order.
> Apple said it will only respond to valid legal requests in China, but China’s domestic legal process is very different than that in the U.S., lacking anything quite like an American “warrant” reviewed by an independent court, Chinese legal experts said. Court approval isn’t required under Chinese law and police can issue and execute warrants.
Previous to this, the data was stored on American servers and subject to American legal safeguards.
They will comply with legal orders in China. Nowhere does it say they shared the private keys to the servers.
ref: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
> Messages in iCloud also uses end-to-end encryption. If you have iCloud Backup turned on, your backup includes a copy of the key protecting your Messages. This ensures you can recover your Messages if you lose access to iCloud Keychain and your trusted devices. When you turn off iCloud Backup, a new key is generated on your device to protect future messages and isn't stored by Apple.
If they had a "show censored results" checkbox would that be acceptable? Or is Google search currently blocked entirely and trying to get unblocked is the moral dilemma? I'm just trying to understand the moral difference.
If you are going to deliberately kill someone who you know is going to be murdered by someone else anyway, before they do that, are you a murderer?
I would dare say that most people would say "yes". The law certainly sees it that way.
Who attacked Google in this thread? Who, precisely, is being hypocritical?
"But what about Apple" is a very specific conversational tactic, accurately named: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I understand if someone working variable part time[1] hours for minimum wage cannot afford to lose their job. There isn't any room for sacrifices when you already have to e.g. decide each month if you can afford to pay for both food and utilities, or if you aren't going to have hot water for a while[2]. Yet even though they face far higher risks than the average tech worker, sometimes they still choose to make sacrifices[3].
Yes, you might get fired. You might have to adjust your standard of living. Banding together into larger groups can help to mitigate some of these costs, but regardless, the average tech worker is fortunate enough to be able to make a significant sacrifice.
[ This is why some of us try to warn about growing problems early, when the cost of counteraction is low. Unfortunately, most people decide to ignore the problem because it isn't an obvious, widespread, damaging problem. ~sigh~ ]
[1] different, computer-optimized schedule each week, could be anything that still counts as part time (including 0)
[2] https://medium.com/@sarahkendzior/the-minimum-wage-worker-st...
Because the original definition of FAANG was for the investor crowd, and looked at companies solely from the perspective of their stock performance and "potential growth". Microsoft wasn't supposed to be good at either back when this was coined.
We now use it in very different contexts, though, such as when discussing employment practices and internal work culture of those companies. In that particular context, I think Microsoft does belong there.
I always assumed it was because they're not headquartered in Silicon Valley.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...