All they'd really have to do is announce that they are considering it. Just write up an analysis and stick it on their website. The world will notice, immediately. How many hours do you think it would take before it was a major news story everywhere?
Well, they can. You can do a lot when you're a trillion dollar company. It's just grossly inefficient and ugly and they'll try to avoid it if they can, sharing as much as possible when they can't, the same way everyone deals with multiple possible configurations they have to support. I too hope they put their foot down, though.
I'd hate to think of what a special iPhone would cost just for the Australian market, which is relatively small, should Apple (and others) decide to not foist this on everyone else world-wide. Just come out with different hardware that's easier to hack just for Australia - only to be sold in Australia, and charge appropriately. Make them pay more to be less secure. It would be justifiable if the hardware was different for a smaller market. It's no different than if they came up with their own cellular system that was incompatible with international standards. It would cost more to build for it because it's a small market with unique requirements.
Disclosure: I work for Apple.
Values are useful, but not as useful as an attractive stock-price.
These new voyuer laws in Australia are obviously much more severe, but there is precedent for a company to customise phones by jurisdiction.
Since Apple sold iPhones only through carriers initially, they complied with this agreement.
A better example of this would be Apple disabling FaceTime on phones sold in the UAE, which is the result of a law, and the feature stays disabled even if the region is changed from/the phone is removed from the UAE.
One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances.
The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances.
I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.
A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything.
> just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings
As long as it is configurable, sure.
The golden times for the internet are over anyway. It went from an optimistic dream of free expression of information to a platform for delivering ads.
The Internet serves people all-over the world and must respect local laws, because it serves the local people.
Also, free expression is stronger than ever before. You can now even claim your opinion is a fact.
Someone needs to. With EU laws, Australian laws, US laws, and more and more every day, the internet is rapidly becoming a tool of the least common denominator. In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension. Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis.
Of course though, there will always be hackers skating on top relatively free. We're becoming a two-tiered internet. The relatively few who know how to get around the restrictions, and everybody else.
All Apple has to do is float the possibility they may not sell their products in Australia anymore, and point out why. The rest would take care of itself.