> So, Apple will just give in to whoever is in power?

This is definitionally why a country is sovereign and a company isn't.

> They were not this soft in the San Bernardino case when FBI asked them to unlock a phone.

FBI has to follow the laws of the USA.

The UK writes the laws of the UK, which Apple (if they want to operate in the UK) has to follow.

The FBI doesn’t create laws. If Congress had passed a law then you would have a good analogy.

Yes Apple follows the laws of every country it operates in just like any other company.

There is an easy way to avoid having to follow laws of a country. Don't operate in that country.

If you don't want to be sued by activist investors, you need a good reason for that, and to be able to tell those investors what else you tried first before escalating that far if you eventually do pull out of a market.

Apple absolutely does not follow the laws of every country it operates in, else TikTok wouldn't be back on the App Store.

If only I had thought about that, I might have mentioned it.

Oh wait

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43128684

> Now going back on Twitter to get in the good graces of President Musk and bringing TikTok back to the AppStore even though it is clearly against the law is different.

Then why subsequently say that they follow the laws of every country they operate in? They don't, so whether the FBI makes the laws is not relevant.

The UK made the law years ago and someone in authority said they were going to start enforcing it.

In the case of TikTok, the law was passed a year ago and the executive branch said they wouldn’t enforce it.