Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law.
The only stand Apple could take here is:
- Stop selling in China
- Have executives go to jail
Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
Its hypocritical of Apple to suggest they truly care about privacy other than as a means to simply differentiate themselves to sell some more shiny objects - which might well be a common cutthroat business tactic.
Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)
Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? If so, on what evidence about Apple in particular?
Sure, I would agree that if the outcome is good, then the intention is not relevant. Apple might have a positive effect in China despite compromising on privacy.
>Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)
I'm saying recognize the hypocrisy instead of constructing weird arguments to justify it.
>Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? (And if so, on what evidence?
Certainly not. I said its a common business tactic.
People with different priors on whether Apple's managers (or managers in general, or managers of large corporations in general) are likely to be hypocrites, will probably have opposite judgements about which explanation is a “weird argument”. So I don't think framing it in these terms will resolve any disagreement, unless there's some non-circular criterion (maybe you have one and I haven't seen it or am not understanding it) for judging an argument “weird”.
Their purchases directly fund a regime opposed to their moral positions, either through taxes and duties or payments to the many thousands of firms (like COSCO) that are controlled wholly or in part by the Chinese government or military.
The hypocritical-ness doesn’t go away because corporations are larger than individuals, the transaction is in a different direction, or because the moral position is privately-held.
If you take Apple out of the argument for a second, thats quite a complex case. I think you can have two positions "we don't compromise on privacy" and "were trying to improve the situation the best way we know how". Under #2, you could make the argument that buying a general purpose tool such as a computer made in china, and using it to promote privacy is a net benefit, than not having the tool to promote your cause.
You will have to be extremely particular and thorough to get rid of all chibese products.
A foreign country has passed laws disagreeing with your value judgement. In any case, Apple is a business. As a consumer, I care first and foremost about my privacy and the privacy of those in my country. That is not impinged upon by China forcing Apple's hand in their own country. Perfect is the enemy of good.
How is that necessarily any better for humanity than simply obeying the local laws, going along to get along, while making it clear to your Chinese customers that their counterparts in more enlightened countries enjoy more privacy, more features, and an overall better experience?
I spoke with some people at a certain well-known company working on satellite Internet service a while back, and I asked them the same question. "What are you going to do when the Chinese try to shut you down for providing uncensored Internet service?" It was hard to argue with their response. They feel it is possible to make money and be a positive influence in various closed totalitarian societies including China. I think that's basically Apple's take on it as well.
Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
>Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale.
To be sure, it is never a good option. People have tried to sue the Chinese government, unsuccessfully so far. Nobody is denying that the chinese government has a horrible human rights record too.
>It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal..
--
No, I switched contexts to the satellite Internet service developer I mentioned. They are on track to deploy a significant LEO constellation over the next few years. If they succeed, they will effectively be the Internet for a large chunk of the world. So if they don't make arrangements to accommodate various countries' censorship regulations, then citizens of places like China, Iran or North Korea who are caught with their receivers will be in a great deal of trouble, and the company's executives will not be able to travel to those regions without fearing arrest.
Following your logic, every single company in the US is either ethically aligned with US law or horrible, awful hypocrites. Apparently there are no other possibilities.
-
Personally, I think it is totally cool to have location-dependent core beliefs. I just think it is a total fan-boism not to acknowledge it.
Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important.
This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars.
Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
That's a reductive and inaccurate trope which also seems at odds with and unrelated to the rest of your comment.
Do you think if Apple could be privacy oriented in China, it wouldn't? It simply doesn't have the power to do it in China. Don't equate it to Google, FB and numerous others who despite having a chance to be privacy oriented in US, won't.
This is like Cantor's infinities. Sure they are all infinities. But they aren't the same.
Now, apple's desire to sell devices in china that comply with chinese laws (which potentially compromise user privacy) is a separate issue altogether. Business wise, I don't think they can afford to avoid china altogether. So maybe they can simply say that "they're doing the best they can" and take the PR hit.
That we live in an area of the world where you can choose to make the decisions they do without serious repercussions should make you pause and think about how important the checks we have are, because in China there aren't many ways to get around the problem above besides ignoring the largest developing market in the world.
If you honestly believed that to be true, how could you justify withdrawing from that market on ethical grounds?