Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcone | Hacker News Reader

> Apple isn't a vessel for anyone's foreign policy objectives and it isn't a substitute for the state.

You're absolutely right, and you should follow this to its logical conclusion. Apple only does what's in its best interests. The company consistently acts to strengthen its brand whenever possible to make more money.

It's irrational to expect a corporation, whether it's Apple or any other entity, to act ethically. Every decision they make, from sponsoring LGBT events to pushing back against the FBI, is made carefully with their brand in mind. Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now.

The real question is this: What would you expect Apple to do as a shareholder?

View on HN

>Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now.

They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a business.

The public at large wouldn't have cared just like they don't care when Apple complies with lawful orders for information as they do now [1].

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin...

> They absolutely would not have.

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.

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.

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-...

> They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a business.

People are always saying things like this, but we never really have any good data on what the alternative would have been. Just because you're in the black doesn't mean you haven't lost billions of dollars in additional profits.

Apple had the first mover advantage with the iPhone. There is a fair argument that they would still have the bulk of the market if they had been more open, instead of conceding the majority share to Android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com