8 ms·

Nope. They were taking about Apple cracking down. That’s not the same as being forced to make a software change at the governments demand.

by snoot 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago
That doesn't make it better, though. Plenty of companies have decided not to do business in China on ethical grounds. Hell, even Google pulled out of China way back when, a company I certainly don't think all that highly of. Yes, not doing business in China means less revenue, and unhappy shareholders. This is why capitalism sucks: it more or less requires companies do unethical things, when not doing those things means much less money.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Wait what? How can you claim that capitalism requires a company do unethical things while in the same comment giving an example of a company that chose not to do an unethical things?
- s3p 4y ago
  IMO it does. I would rather have a generally good product with concessions as opposed to no product at all. If apple, google, everyone exits out of protest, what is left? Chinese-developed tech that is 100,000% susceptible to the same government orders. At least with apple they know what they're getting.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  I know it’s in vogue to blame capitalism, like our economic system is a faceless AI that decides things in a perfectly efficient market (It’s not). Behind the curtain there are humans making decisions. They may be hedge funds, investors, board members, etc. There are humans that deliberately want to do business with China and know exactly what is happening with those workers. It wasn’t capitalism that outsourced iPhone production to a sweat shop, it was a group of real people who are morally bankrupt.
  - account42 4y ago
    Capitalism is blamed because it is the system that lets those morally bankrupt people get rich of those decisions without any real consequences.
    - vdqtp3 4y ago
      As opposed to socialism and communism where morally bankrupt leaders are unable to get rich off their decisions with no consequences? Power and corruption are ubiquitous in every system.
thinkmcfly 4y ago
[flagged]
- chihuahua 4y ago
  They were just making a housing change at the government's demand.
  - bb88 4y ago
    Because "genocide" is such a distasteful word.
_jal 4y ago
Whatever "Apple's" feelings (really, the executive team's; a corporation does not have feelings) about it, Apple is the entity that made the change. And it is a weird kind of "force" they face. Apple, over the course of decades, has willingly made a huge investment in a state with an authoritarian government in order to pursue their goals. They did this knowing full-well that China's suppression apparatus would take great interest in Apple's pocket bugs, and that China shows little hesitation about using their leverage. Apple knew they would be asked to make these sorts of concessions. There's no chance they didn't think this over. So when people say they "Apple doesn't have a choice", what they mean is Apple made the choice some time back.
- derefr 4y ago
  > has willingly made a huge investment This is the part you're wrong about: Apple, like any public corporation with effectively-zero internal controlling-share ownership, is constitutionally incapable of doing things that would make its share price drop; and is constitutionally compelled to do things that make its share price rise. Any CEO who attempts to do anything "against" the share price is fired by the board (which consists of external shareholders, not idealists) and replaced by a CEO who will serve the share-price god. "Things that make Apple's share price rise" include "entering the Chinese market", "committing to the Chinese market", and "doing whatever customization to their products is required to stay in the Chinese market." Which is all to say: Apple never made a choice. Free-market capitalism made this choice. If individual Apple employees don't like "the market" being their true boss, they're free to leave and work instead for a private company, or an internally majority-owned company, or a non-profit, or a B Corp. But Apple itself — the aggregate emergent behavior of the organizational entity — is not free to do anything, any more than a train is free to drive off of its rails.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    This is the most wrong, reductionist take on Ford v. Dodge. Companies make decisions all the time that aren’t exactly what shareholders focused on quarterly results want. The quintessential examples are Costco and Amazon. The former pays associates above market wages and benefits, the latter had losses or broke even for years by investing for the long term.

Nope. They were taking about Apple cracking down. That’s not the same as being forced to make a software change at the governments demand.

by snoot 4y ago

Nope. They were taking about Apple cracking down. That’s not the same as being forced to make a software change at the governments demand.

kelnos 4y ago

That doesn't make it better, though. Plenty of companies have decided not to do business in China on ethical grounds. Hell, even Google pulled out of China way back when, a company I certainly don't think all that highly of. Yes, not doing business in China means less revenue, and unhappy shareholders. This is why capitalism sucks: it more or less requires companies do unethical things, when not doing those things means much less money.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
Wait what? How can you claim that capitalism requires a company do unethical things while in the same comment giving an example of a company that chose not to do an unethical things?
s3p 4y ago
IMO it does. I would rather have a generally good product with concessions as opposed to no product at all. If apple, google, everyone exits out of protest, what is left? Chinese-developed tech that is 100,000% susceptible to the same government orders. At least with apple they know what they're getting.
oceanplexian 4y ago
I know it’s in vogue to blame capitalism, like our economic system is a faceless AI that decides things in a perfectly efficient market (It’s not). Behind the curtain there are humans making decisions. They may be hedge funds, investors, board members, etc. There are humans that deliberately want to do business with China and know exactly what is happening with those workers. It wasn’t capitalism that outsourced iPhone production to a sweat shop, it was a group of real people who are morally bankrupt.
- account42 4y ago
  Capitalism is blamed because it is the system that lets those morally bankrupt people get rich of those decisions without any real consequences.
  - vdqtp3 4y ago
    As opposed to socialism and communism where morally bankrupt leaders are unable to get rich off their decisions with no consequences? Power and corruption are ubiquitous in every system.

thinkmcfly 4y ago

[flagged]

chihuahua 4y ago
They were just making a housing change at the government's demand.
- bb88 4y ago
  Because "genocide" is such a distasteful word.

_jal 4y ago

Whatever "Apple's" feelings (really, the executive team's; a corporation does not have feelings) about it, Apple is the entity that made the change. And it is a weird kind of "force" they face. Apple, over the course of decades, has willingly made a huge investment in a state with an authoritarian government in order to pursue their goals. They did this knowing full-well that China's suppression apparatus would take great interest in Apple's pocket bugs, and that China shows little hesitation about using their leverage. Apple knew they would be asked to make these sorts of concessions. There's no chance they didn't think this over. So when people say they "Apple doesn't have a choice", what they mean is Apple made the choice some time back.

derefr 4y ago
> has willingly made a huge investment This is the part you're wrong about: Apple, like any public corporation with effectively-zero internal controlling-share ownership, is constitutionally incapable of doing things that would make its share price drop; and is constitutionally compelled to do things that make its share price rise. Any CEO who attempts to do anything "against" the share price is fired by the board (which consists of external shareholders, not idealists) and replaced by a CEO who will serve the share-price god. "Things that make Apple's share price rise" include "entering the Chinese market", "committing to the Chinese market", and "doing whatever customization to their products is required to stay in the Chinese market." Which is all to say: Apple never made a choice. Free-market capitalism made this choice. If individual Apple employees don't like "the market" being their true boss, they're free to leave and work instead for a private company, or an internally majority-owned company, or a non-profit, or a B Corp. But Apple itself — the aggregate emergent behavior of the organizational entity — is not free to do anything, any more than a train is free to drive off of its rails.
- coredog64 4y ago
  This is the most wrong, reductionist take on Ford v. Dodge. Companies make decisions all the time that aren’t exactly what shareholders focused on quarterly results want. The quintessential examples are Costco and Amazon. The former pays associates above market wages and benefits, the latter had losses or broke even for years by investing for the long term.