Apple is arbitrarily vulnerable to the CCP who can essentially shut down most of Apple’s worldwide manufacturing if it comes to that.

Until Apple has a redundant supply and manufacturing chain, it’s absurd to expect them to resist the CCP.

I hope they are building it.

How are they deceiving people outside China when only showing the difference inside China?

Well, for one thing because we outside China would automatically assume they are showing the same thing inside China as we see. Now we know that is not true. That is deceptive.

... And a a shareholder, I was also kept in the dark -- Which is actually also pretty problematic and deceptive.

That just means you don’t know about China and the CCP. Anyone who did would never ‘automatically’ assume such a thing.

As for being a shareholder kept in the dark, that’s absurd. I am a shareholder too, and almost no operational details about apple are available to us, which is totally normal.

I wouldn't assume that because anyone who knows anything about different politics in different countries would know that companies there have to cooperate and comply with local laws and all that implies.

They don't have to do anything. If local law said Apple had to share all its technology with the CCP, I bet they'd find a way not to do it. It's a matter of priority and choice.

LOL. So as a shareholder you get to see Iphone 14 model months before launch?

> Well, for one thing because we outside China would automatically assume they are showing the same thing inside China as we see. Now we know that is not true. That is deceptive.

Would you expect a big pop "WARNING: THIS CONTENT IS SHOWN DIFFERENTLY IN MAINLAND CHINA DUE TO REGULATIONS!"? Also, this will mostly yield a well-duh response. The only "appropriate" option in scale would be to put it somewhere in the fine print (IMO), but this is so close to not mentioning it at all that they might as well not.

Also, I don't think there's a general expectation for website to be the same everywhere. If you open google.com from Germany, would you be suprised to see Google in German? Project Gutenberg also was unavailable in Germany for quite some time; I don't think they informed every non-German reader about it.

> ... And a[s] a shareholder, I was also kept in the dark -- Which is actually also pretty problematic and deceptive.

I'm pretty sure they don't inform shareholders over standard legal requests. They probably didn't ping you about FCC restricted radio frequencies either.

It's not that I generally agree with censoring, but I don't think Apple acted unreasonably here.

> How are they deceiving people outside China when only showing the difference inside China?

I must have misunderstood. Thanks for pointing that out.

We can find other examples, however. For example, Apple avoiding movies, etc. on Apple TV that challenge the CCP.

Well, everyone could start by avoid buying "made-in-china" as much as possible, yet I see exactly the opposite.

Lots of moral on the Internet, but then when it touches getting the next gadget, or saving some bucks...

Imagine getting an email from Apple telling you that you're laid off because you job is less important than sending a stern message to China. Apple then loses billions of dollars of revenue to Huawei and Xiaomi, but can you really place a price on feeling warm and fuzzy on the inside?

If you want to control what maps Apple shows in China, then ask the government to do it. Assuming you can convince Congress to do anything at all, they still wouldn't take any meaningful action against China because they aren't going to voluntarily widen our trade deficit. We barely have enough economic leverage to pressure them to be slightly better at enforcing IP. We aren't going to spare any for meaningless virtue signaling.

> It would be interesting to talk about what organizations like Apple can and cannot do; what is effective and what isn't. Is there any research?

It took extreme sanctions and the most sophisticated cyberattack in history to get Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program (until Trump decided to reject the agreement). China has a much stronger economy and more allies.

> Imagine getting an email from Apple telling you that you're laid off

Isn't that exactly what Apple did by moving factories to China?

Congress and the US government take many aggressive actions against China. Recently, members of Congress personally visited Taiwan to express support for them. A current bill imposes sanctions on China for Xinjing human rights abuses, and President Biden imposed a 'diplomatic boycott' of the upcoming Olympics for the same reason. The Pentagon is openly focusing its efforts on China, including providing nuclear submarine technology to Australia - a historic first besides the UK.

A diplomatic boycott at the Olympics during a pandemic and sanction of a dozen or so people are meaningless virtue signals. The other actions align with American geopolitical interests. What is suggested upthread is that Apple ought to sacrifice interests in order to fight China.

I was responding to this claim:

> Assuming you can convince Congress to do anything at all, they still wouldn't take any meaningful action against China because they aren't going to voluntarily widen our trade deficit.

Clearly Congress (and the Executive Branch, which is responsible for foreign policy) does plenty that is meaningful.

By doing something meaningful, I mean doing good for the sake of doing good at the cost of something you care about. People are arguing that Apple should sacrifice their revenue just to uphold their principles. The government would never do the equivalent thing, e.g. sacrifice geopolitical leverage in exchange for advancing humanitarian causes.

Have you noticed just how sensitive the CCP leadership is about its image? Every perceived slight is a black eye to them.

That is just their own brand of virtue signaling. I doubt they actually care. China doesn't give up anything they don't particularly care about in the first place. They'll call for a boycott of Nike, which conveniently helps domestic companies. Manufacturers are still encouraged to offer their services to Nike though because they wouldn't want to their citizens to lose their jobs.

Its not reasonable for us "we the people" to expect a profit seeking company to turn its back on profit. If we want it to behave a particular way we need to make rules for it to follow. Companies are no people with feeling and morals. They are machines for making money.

> Companies are no people with feeling and morals. They are machines for making money.

Companies do moral things all the time, being run by people and being, like people, tied to a community that they care about (often, to a degree) and which greatly affects the company. Without enlightened self-interest, and some broader self-interest, the society that provides customers, investors, employees, roads, security, markets, etc. - it collapses. The Middle Ages weren't good for business.

It's funny that people quickly forget the meaning of the word "company": it's a "group of people" (companions).

There are some additional rules for public companies, but in general, businesses can have whatever purpose "members of the company" (it's actually a legal term in many jurisdictions) agree on.

Machines run by people who should damn well know better.