[HN Gopher] Apple CEO Tim Cook 'secretly' signed $275B deal with...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple CEO Tim Cook 'secretly' signed $275B deal with China in 2016
Author : baybal2
Score : 385 points
Date : 2021-12-08 08:21 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I personally do not trust China, should we not assume computer
| hardware made there has invisible backdoors? The security state
| for example believe 5G shouldn't be controlled by Chinese
| companies, I'm certainly not sure I really trust what I say on
| this MacBook Pro, is there a way to prove it's not compromised as
| everyone says it's definitely not but I can imagine the Chinese
| suddenly just switching off half the computers in the West in the
| case of a war one day (say the US defending Taiwan).
|
| If I was them looking to become top of the hill I'd be
| instructing people at Foxconn and wherever else to provide me
| with backdoors into most computers sold in the West.
| zerohp wrote:
| Many computer designs can be made by untrusted assemblers as
| long as the silicon fab, fusing, and packaging are trusted.
|
| Most Intel machines are not designed for it.
| drno123 wrote:
| Interestingly, Apple could also cause problems to TSMC. Because
| of Apple-first policy, at least two major chip manufacturers* are
| moving away from TSMC. One is even completely obsoleting a line
| of products that was previously being manufactured at TSMC. At
| the same time, while Apple can get processors from TSMC, their
| iPhone production is lagging behind due to shortage of power
| supply ICs.
|
| * - not sure if this info is already public, I am NDA bound to
| disclose more.
| stevehawk wrote:
| and if TSMC ends up doing nothing but supplying Apple.. then it
| likely means they'll end up being a wholly owned Apple
| subsidiary
| mdasen wrote:
| We've seen articles about Qualcomm and AMD shifting to Samsung
| and away from TSMC. Some of Qualcomm's new processors are
| already moved over to Samsung. The 780G and 888 are already on
| Samsung's 5nm process. I don't think AMD has moved things, but
| we've seen articles about it noting how Apple is getting first-
| access to TSMC's latest processes.
|
| > One is even completely obsoleting a line of products that was
| previously being manufactured at TSMC
|
| That sounds a bit odd. AMD/Qualcomm products basically obsolete
| themselves very quickly. People generally aren't looking to buy
| a Snapdragon 855 from 2019. They'll either be buying the 888 or
| one of Qualcomm's cheaper lines (like the 700 or 600 series).
| It seems weird to prematurely obsolete something given that
| it's likely on a process that you already have enough TSMC
| capacity for. I mean, clearly I could be wrong. Maybe Samsung
| offered them something to do that and move things over faster.
| jollybean wrote:
| There's nothing at all wrong with this unless it involves
| transfer or IP, know-how and of course the bits about privacy
| invasion.
|
| Every country should be concerned that the money flying out to
| megacorps does not result in long term value for the country.
| fossuser wrote:
| Apple's approach to China remains the most disappointing (and
| hypocritical) thing about the company. When privacy really
| matters for the users that need it most, Apple sells them out for
| continued access to the Chinese market.
|
| https://stratechery.com/2021/the-information-on-apple-in-chi...
| polack wrote:
| Just like Google that bent over backwards to please the Chinese
| censorship and their persecution. Then when Google failed in
| China (domestic competitors was better) they tried to exit
| "gracefully" by claiming it's due the Chinese hacking them and
| pretending it's about ethics...
| echelon wrote:
| A Reddit comment [1] on this same article really hit home,
|
| > Mr. Cook has watched China's middle class grow to four
| hundred million while watching the domestic middle class
| shrink. Like GM, which sells more cars in China than the USA,
| Apple knows where the market opportunities reside.
|
| America needs growth again, whether that's immigration,
| childbirth and childcare subsidies, or seeking to merge with
| other democratic nations (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan).
|
| America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals
| and components. Steel. Electronics.
|
| America needs education that is equitable, but it also needs to
| let academically or extracurricularly gifted students advance
| to special placement.
|
| I want America to be #1. Free speech, being critical of
| government, and even having the ability to run for president
| are rights that every person should have.
|
| edit: [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/rb2774/comment/...
| pvarangot wrote:
| > America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical
| chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.
|
| I'm all for countries having local manufacturing
| capabilities. Not just the US. I was also pretty vocal about
| Argentina having them when I lived there and I'd love the US
| to have more accessible local manufacturing now that I'm
| here.
|
| Thing is, as much as I can want that as an engineer with a
| somewhat cozy desk job it's true that on-plant jobs require
| skill and determination that I don't have so I feel a bit of
| like a hypocrite for suggesting that. Are there people in the
| US that want factory jobs? Because when looking for talent in
| California for stuff like manufacturing engineering, supplier
| development... or when trying to find small shops that will
| prototype I kinda feel that no one wants to do that. Salaries
| are kinda okish for those positions, but to actually rebuild
| the talent and the collective energy and willpower to work
| those jobs is going to take a while.
|
| Honestly can't blame the Bay Area for not wanting to work in
| plant considering public transport sucks and everything
| closes early. You need someone at the house or with flexible
| schedule to be able to take a job on plant.
| m4rtink wrote:
| On the other hand interdependence reduces the likelihood of
| conflict somewhat.
| arcticbull wrote:
| > Are there people in the US that want factory jobs?
|
| The only way to make manufacturing at home competitive with
| overseas is full-scale automation. It won't create jobs to
| bring it back onshore - nor should it for exactly the
| reasons you specify. Instead, it would be a strategic
| investment.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Except automation can't change on a dime. It also is bad
| at all kinds of things... just see Musk's commentary on
| why they backed away from so much automation with Model 3
| for humans.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Automation works. It's not perfect but it works.
|
| The biggest impediments are political. China will
| subsidize anything they're not already leading in. To
| counteract that, you either need tariffs or your own
| subsidies. But corporations will fight against tariffs
| (they've already invested in manufacturing in China) and
| labor unions will fight against subsidies for automation,
| so here we are.
| beauzero wrote:
| The rural South wants those jobs.
| krapp wrote:
| The rural South wants a lot of things it probably isn't
| going to get. Most of those jobs will be automated away
| or low wage and low security Amazon warehouse kinds of
| employment.
|
| If they're expecting lifetime security on the assembly
| line with enough money for two cars in the garage and a
| pension with a gold watch at the end, it's not going to
| happen. That's not how the world works anymore.
| arcticbull wrote:
| > ... seeking to merge with other democratic nations
| (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan).
|
| That presumes that other countries want to be part of
| America. I suspect strongly you'll find that's not the case.
| Merger then has a more "1812" feeling to it.
|
| The only folks tripping over their shoelaces to be US states
| are Puerto Rico and DC.
|
| > America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical
| chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.
|
| While these are strategically sensible decisions, that won't
| bring back Apple any time soon. Everyone manufactures in
| China because there's a critical mass of manufacturing in
| China. All your components are made there, by everyone, and
| the best-in-class assembly folks are all there. Supply chain
| and logistics are all there.
|
| China's investments in ports, roads, railways are paying
| dividends. Including their one belt one road initiative
| offering overland rail links to the UK.
|
| It's not sufficient to just say "let's make stuff at home" -
| it requires real, long-term, strategic thinking, huge
| investments and optimizing for the group. These are not
| America's strengths right now.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| > tripping over their shoelaces to be US states are Puerto
| Rico
|
| That's inaccurate, repeated votes for statehood in PR have
| failed.
| nradov wrote:
| No representation without taxation. PR residents don't
| have to pay US federal income tax, and most of them
| aren't willing to pay that price to get the political
| benefits of statehood.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I suspect strongly you'll find that's not the case.
| Merger then has a more "1812" feeling to it.
|
| Ironically, the hardest challenge for the British during
| the war was to keep their soldiers from deserting to the
| US. Since there was no way a young British male could
| legally come to America from the UK, joining the army then
| crossing into America was their only hope.
|
| Ironically today, the countries named by the GP (Australia,
| Korea, Japan, Taiwan) all have a net inflow of people to
| trying to get into the US, mirroring what happened in 1812.
| The political elites might laugh at the idea of a merger
| (considering they have a vested interest in keeping power)
| but it seems to make sense for a lot of their highly
| educated citizens who decided to make it happen here in
| America!
| mullingitover wrote:
| > That presumes that other countries want to be part of
| America.
|
| I feel like if there was a referendum, the UK's population
| would happily dump their monarchy in exchange for US
| statehood. There's a lot of commonality with their
| democracy, language, skepticism of foreign immigration,
| embrace of capitalism, etc.
|
| It would also be a pretty solid strategic move to bring the
| US closer to Europe as a hedge against the Russian
| ambitions laid out in their _Foundations of Geopolitics_
| playbook.
| phist_mcgee wrote:
| I think you misjudge how much the Anglophone world looks
| down on America, and Americans in general. We take great
| pride in Australia of our differences from that place.
| We're much more similar to the British (and them to us)
| than to the Americans.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| ... And yet there's a net brain drain to the US.
| makapuf wrote:
| UK dumped EU, which didn't asked for country dissolution,
| not sure it would agree to join USA...
| mullingitover wrote:
| UK voters (imho) were still stinging from the economic
| decline and austerity measures post-2008, and were led to
| believe that a divorce from the EU would restore their
| greatness. Now that that's been demonstrated to be a
| delusion, and with covid-related economic collapse piling
| on top of Brexit consequences, UK voters might be open to
| a dice roll.
|
| This is obviously my idle speculation, and I think the UK
| voters would never be allowed to vote on such an
| opportunity anyway. Still, I think if it happened it'd be
| great for everyone.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| Way to shoehorn in the gifted students culture war Bs. Also,
| you juxtaposed it with "equitabl," which is ceding the point
| to those that say those types of programs are inequitable. We
| don't need endless growth, we'll capitalism needs it, but we
| don't.
| didibus wrote:
| > I want America to be #1. Free speech, being critical of
| government, and even having the ability to run for president
| are rights that every person should have
|
| In principle I agree with you, but in practicality something
| maybe isn't working as expected? If those things mattered so
| much, why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much
| while the American middle class shrank? (assuming this is
| true, which I'm not sure)
|
| At the end of the day, there's still a hierarchy of needs. If
| one country cannot offer its citizen those needs, reaching
| for higher level ones doesn't matter. Most people would
| rather be able to afford food, clothes, a home, electronic,
| entertainment, etc, than they would the ability to be
| critical.
|
| On some other dimension, the best argument free democracies
| had used to be that the people of those countries were richer
| and had better lives, while totalitarian regimes, religious
| regimes, communist regimes delivered a worse outcome to its
| people. And while this is still mostly true, it seems that
| it's no longer as obvious which one delivers better value to
| its people.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >Most people would rather be able to afford food, clothes,
| a home, electronic, entertainment, etc, than they would the
| ability to be critical.
|
| The Chinese 'middle class' standard of medical care ( on
| average, a lot cheaper but it's also a very basic level of
| care), financial security, air / water / consumer good
| safety, access to meaningful education, and freedom of
| worship / speech / congregation of all types is well under
| what is typical for a middle class citizen in a western
| democracy, even including the united states. At around
| $20,000 USD per year (approx boundary of China's upper
| middle class) you're in the same general territory as
| Russia.
| vkou wrote:
| The difference is that Russia has been stuck in that
| quagmire for 30 years[1], whereas in China, most of those
| people would have been impoverished rural poor, 30 years
| ago.
|
| When you have observed a colossal material improvement in
| your life, and you have hope for the future, you can
| overlook a lot of problems with governance.
|
| [1] Yes, yes, Moscow is not an active disaster zone.
| Russia does not begin and end in Moscow, though.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > When you have observed a colossal material improvement
| in your life, and you have hope for the future, you can
| overlook a lot of problems with governance.
|
| It has been long believed to work the other way: Poor
| people don't have the education or resources to deal with
| governmance; they are trying to survive, working three
| jobs (if they can get them), etc. When the middle class
| expands is typically when democracy blooms.
| vkou wrote:
| Democracy doesn't bloom when the middle class expands.
| Democracy is just one possible outcome of political
| upheaval - and political upheaval happens when the middle
| class feels that their situation is hopeless.
|
| Russia's 'middle class' expanded massively since the
| economic disaster of the 90s, but I would not describe it
| as being more democratic today than it was in 1995.
|
| A rising middle class isn't why communism fell apart in
| the 80s, either. It fell apart because the country lost
| any faith that the system will bring future prosperity.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I didn't say that it happened automatically.
| fossuser wrote:
| > "why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much
| while the American middle class shrank?"
|
| Going through an industrial revolution has impressive
| growth effects that can cover up a lot of bad stuff.
|
| We'll see what happens when that growth starts to slow - I
| don't think it'll be good.
| kelnos wrote:
| It still remains to be seen if these short- and medium-term
| gains for China's middle class will result in prosperity in
| the long term. "Selling" your social/political/religious
| freedom can often be a boon in the short term but come back
| to bite you later.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much
| while the American middle class shrank? (assuming this is
| true, which I'm not sure)
|
| It's not meaningful: Middle class in China would be poor in
| the US, and developing countries can expand their economies
| much more quickly.
|
| I am happy for the middle class people in China.
|
| > the best argument free democracies had used to be that
| the people of those countries were richer and had better
| lives
|
| You skip the main reason they have better lives, which is
| freedom. All those Americans (and others) worked and
| sacrificed for freedom. Wealth is barely mentioned in the
| founding documents; the Gettysburg Address, FDR, MLK, etc.,
| didn't mention it much (though the latter two did address
| poverty).
| jorblumesea wrote:
| iPhones are not a middle class item anymore, or, I've seen
| plenty of "low income" people with iPhones.
|
| Apple dominates the US market, and will continue to do so. So
| why bother to invest more in a market you already own? The US
| domestic market hasn't shrunk for iPhones. I think this is
| reading way too much into this. China is a new growing market
| largely untapped by Apple, and one that is significantly
| larger just due to population sizes. It's as simple as that.
| mempko wrote:
| China simply invested more in their people than USA it seems.
| You now see American business people like Elon Musk promote
| divestment from the USA in his attack on government deficits.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| No, American executives sold middle class souls to mass
| manufacturing in China, directly leading to Trumpism.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >China simply invested more in their people than USA it
| seems.
|
| when you say "invested more in their people"? what do you
| mean?
|
| if we are talking about education. both country offer free
| education to its people. College education are not
| compulsory and free in both countries
| beauzero wrote:
| One culture values a broad band of technical
| education...one values social education. One advances
| technically and one wrestles with social issues.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| that's culture differences. it doesn't support or shown
| China invest more in its people.
|
| I'll argue, you don't need a lot of techies. you need
| people with vision like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma...etc. they
| don't have tech background and yet created giant tech
| company.
| kelnos wrote:
| You need both, and you need a lot more "techies" than
| visionaries. Otherwise those visionaries just sit around
| at home with no one competent enough to execute on their
| vision.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| College education is dirty cheap in China compared to the
| US (income adjusted).
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| this doesn't support "China simply invested more in their
| people than USA it seems.".
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I'm not replying to that. I'm replying to your comment.
|
| And you now changed it to "College education are not
| compulsory and free in both countries" which is even more
| wrong..
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >I'm not replying to that. I'm replying to your comment
|
| thank for clarify
|
| >And you now changed it to "College education are not
| compulsory and free in both countries"
|
| i never change my statement to OP and what's wrong? both
| countries doesn't offer free College education. one is
| cheaper doesn't mean its free.
| echelon wrote:
| > You now see American business people like Elon Musk
| promote divestment from the USA in his attack on government
| deficits.
|
| Source?
|
| If that's true, that's disgusting.
| justinator wrote:
| > China simply invested more in their people than USA it
| seems
|
| So long as you're not Muslim.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Technically, especially Muslims. The per capita amount
| spent on securitization, reeducation, labour transfer
| (jobs programs) for the purpose of sinicizating restive
| muslims population is massive.
| autosharp wrote:
| Those camps didn't build themselves.
| laurent92 wrote:
| France has invested a lot in their Muslims, and only has
| neighborhood violence to show for it. It's the most
| costly people to invest in.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| that this is an extreme oversimplification of the
| Xinjiang issue should be obvious given the fact that
| other Muslim Chinese minorities like the Hui in China
| enjoy relative religious freedom. (in fact the issue is
| assimilation into China's ruling class, not religion per
| se). In fact inter-Muslim wars in China itself have a
| long history between different Islamic groups. Also of
| course the (lack of) response from the Muslim world in
| general to the Uyghur situation should make clear that
| the situation is somewhat more complicated.
| justicezyx wrote:
| What do you mean? China invest heavily in Xinjiang.
| Xinjiang GDP is 19th on the list https://zh.m.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%...
|
| Per capita GDP is similarly ranked.
|
| And there are 56 minorities groups in China, they were
| all have specific aid program, like preferential
| treatment in national college exams.
|
| What's the basis of such a wishwash statement on China
| and the people? Are you suggesting Chinese people are
| practicing racial segregation? Or what exactly are you
| suggesting?
| idiotsecant wrote:
| barbed wire and re-education don't count!
| justicezyx wrote:
| What do you mean?
|
| Are you suggesting Xinjiang _genocide_ , a ridiculous
| propaganda lie https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-
| economy/article/3133228/...
|
| How is an ethnic group increase population 18% annually
| while being genocided?
|
| Or the forced labor in Xinjiang? Another ridiculous lie
| without any substantial evidence? Some random pictures of
| prisoners moving around, and call it forced labor?
| bserge wrote:
| Come in, grab the money, take control and/or leave. Easy
| when it's a western democratic country. Freedom, tolerance
| and diplomacy are core tenets, after all.
|
| Some tried that in China only to realize their government
| aren't a bunch of muppets.
|
| I wonder how long it will take either for corporations to
| tame/destabilize the CCP or the latter to squash them into
| submission.
| zpeti wrote:
| Which subreddit is that from? Seems like rare comment content
| for Reddit.
| [deleted]
| oblio wrote:
| It's in the URL. Technology.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > Free speech, being critical of government, and even having
| the ability to run for president are rights that every person
| should have.
|
| Every person? Including convicted criminals?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t.
| ..
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Ones who have finished their sentence? Absolutely. The
| world is better served if we allow folk who have made
| mistakes are allowed the opportunity to grow and re-enter
| society as full members rather than permanently made a
| second-class.
| ISL wrote:
| Is Stratechery's paywall new? I'm surprised to see one from an
| author who writes in a voice that aspires to reach the world.
| mdekkers wrote:
| I pay for Stratechery. It's absolutely worth it. Top tier
| analysis.
| fossuser wrote:
| Ah I didn't realize this was a daily one (I subscribe) - he
| does a mixture of free and not free. I think the subscription
| is worth it though.
| dcwca wrote:
| Worth the subscription fee for sure
| divbzero wrote:
| Having the financial means to develop and maintain his voice
| seems like a reasonable part of that aspiration. The author
| is fully supported by his work with Stratechery. [1]
|
| [1]: https://stratechery.com/about/
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| every company - from privacy advocates to those cashing in on
| social justice - bow to China. Every, last one of them.
| hereforphone wrote:
| I have a secret to share. Apple and others may virtual signal
| but at the end of the day it's all about profits. If you
| believed otherwise you were mislead. "Think Different" is just
| a commercial slogan.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I assumed it was firstly access to Chinese manufacturing. They
| can probably still make humongous profits without the Chinese
| market, but presumably their global sales rely on first
| manufacturing in China?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Yep, and it's likely that China is the only place they could
| actually manufacture their products. China isn't the cheapest
| place to make things anymore, and it hasn't been in a long
| time - that's been supplanted by Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc.
| It's even within spitting distance to manufacture in the US.
|
| Companies manufacture complex electronics products in China
| because everyone manufactures there. The skills are there,
| factories are there - but most importantly, the supply chains
| are there. You can drive a truck from factory to factory to
| pick up all the pieces you need. Then drop the truck off at
| Foxconn. They'll make the products and you can put them back
| into the truck and drop them off at the port or rail yard.
|
| That's not something you can just replace overnight.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _China is the only place they could actually manufacture
| their products_
|
| And yet, the Apple products I bought for my wife this
| Christmas state "Made in Vietnam" on the box. And other
| electronics I've purchased for her recently were similarly
| not made in China.
|
| China hasn't been the "only" place to manufacture tech for
| several years now. It's an outdated cliche.
| nradov wrote:
| Apple manufactures iPhones in India for local sales.
|
| https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/made-
| in-...
| tooltalk wrote:
| Samsung is the largest smartphone-maker in the world (and
| has been for much of past 10+ years). They ceased all their
| phone-making operation in China and left for Vietnam a
| couple of years ago (also most recently closed their last
| display, shipbuilding operation) -- along with 200+
| suppliers, plus 20+ new domestic suppliers created there
| along the way. Now, most of Samsung phones are made in
| Vietnam and their output there accounts for some 30% of
| Vietnam's export and 20% of their GDP (2019).
|
| I'm very skeptical that China is the only place Apple can
| make their products. Sure, Apple doesn't actually
| "manufacture" anything -- the company outsourced it to
| Taiwnese CM's like Foxconn, Wistron, and others who have
| cleary demonstrated that they have no competence,
| experience, or even desire to build things outside China
| (see Foxconn's misadventures in Brazil, Wisconsin US). But
| that shouldnt' be surprising considering that their
| business model entirely depends on ginormous state
| subsidies and seemingly unlimited supply of young,
| unskilled laborers from rural China. Also consider the fact
| that most critical, high-value components come from not
| China, but South Korea, Japan, the US (some via TSMC in
| Taiwan) -- China still makes less than 5% of all chips
| produced globally (as of 2019 according to US SIA). Of
| course, they are all assembled/packaged there, but China's
| contribution to this whole process still accounts for less
| than 4% of overall value.
|
| I just don't buy the argument that China as the world's
| electronic supply-chain can't be replaced.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >I'm very skeptical that China is the only place Apple
| can make their products
|
| I'm skeptical as well since Foxconn also open a factory
| in India for Apple.
|
| https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Foxconn-set-
| to-m...
| silisili wrote:
| Apple is big enough and rich enough that they don't need
| Chinese manufacturing. It is a nicety, and probably cheaper,
| but they could have probably picked about any country to do
| it and set up shop. As pointed out, Samsung does all their
| mfg in Korea and Vietnam. Oneplus setup shop in India for
| some devices...and Apple is much more powerful than BBK.
| acomjean wrote:
| Their cpus are manufactured in Taiwan, which is kinda
| China. Those bleeding edge components are important to
| excellent performance of their products.
| dublin wrote:
| I'm sure China knows that if they do ever actually invade
| Taiwan, then there will be hundreds of agents, if not
| outright military actions, to destroy or sabotage the
| critical parts of Taiwanese industry rather than let them
| fall into the hands of the CCP. (For instance, I can't
| imagine any of the key ASML machines would survive
| without being quite thoroughly destroyed by thermite to
| keep their secrets from falling into Chinese hands.)
|
| This would nearly completely cripple the world's tech
| economy for a decade, but that is far better then
| becoming vassals to CCP tyranny.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I'm sure China would be quite happy if Taiwan was even
| kinda China.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >their global sales rely on first manufacturing in China?
|
| for the past years but China's wages is increasing and
| Chinese crack down on tech company like Alibaba, Tencent,
| DiDi...etc. would it extend to foreign company? Not to
| mention the rise of Chinese domestic tech company like
| Xiaomi.
|
| it look like Apple is not making their money back in China
| with this deal.
|
| "To placate Beijing, though, some capital may have served
| more like donations to state enterprises and local
| governments. The company generated $249 billion of sales in
| Greater China over the last five years, less than the pledged
| amount."
|
| https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/apples-ugly-china-
| deal...
| [deleted]
| alliao wrote:
| even less when you take out Taiwan's revenue from that
| 249bn
| brandall10 wrote:
| China is their number 1 market to expand. If market cap is to
| go up, China is instrumental there.
|
| If anything, continuing to manufacture in China is likely
| required for that market expansion. Otherwise I feel they
| would have started to diversify to other, less politically
| tenuous markets.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Quizlings
| moogly wrote:
| At what point does something like this become a national security
| issue? I know these modern titans of industry answer to no one,
| but perhaps they should?
| olalonde wrote:
| Whose national security?
| lazyeye wrote:
| The modern titans of industry are certainly answerable to their
| govt in one country at least.
| RustyConsul wrote:
| According to the markets, accountability seems to be a
| liability. When they started axing IPO's, capital fled China
| and the dollar strengthened.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think it became a security issue when Apple bent to China's
| desire to keep iCloud servers in a domestic datacenter. If
| Apple gives up control so willingly for a foreign nation, one
| can only imagine how deeply in bed they are with American
| intelligence agencies.
|
| National security issue, though? The US government has no
| desire to call Apple on security or privacy. Doing so would be
| a pure disadvantage for them.
| questiondev wrote:
| they gotta answer to someone. this is getting ridiculous.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I find it interesting you see Apple a national asset needing
| special scrutiny.
|
| It might as well be true, but then you should also expect other
| countries to start dealing with Apple as a part of the US gov.
| and not a purely private party.
| [deleted]
| titzer wrote:
| > a national asset
|
| Or a threat. An entity with a trillion dollars in reserves
| and devices in billions of people's hands, including hundreds
| of thousands, if not millions, of government employees.
| That's a lot of leverage.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| Lockheed Martin is a private company with all sorts of laws
| on what they can and cannot do with foreign countries. It is
| not weird to create special categories for niche protected
| industries.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >you should also expect other countries to start dealing with
| Apple as a part of the US gov. and not a purely private party
|
| That is exactly what happened and that's why they approached
| Tim Cook.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| Of course it needs special scrutiny. What if in the midst of
| a break down in talks between the US and China, Chinese
| regulators come calling and say that either Apple provides
| the iCloud backup data of a staffer of an America senator or
| else they will be immediately banned from the Chinese market.
| angio wrote:
| Maybe at that point Apple can stop spying on its users,
| that way as an EU citizen I get the US government to stop
| spying on me too (Apple was part of PRISM).
| einpoklum wrote:
| Well, I happen to know that Apple management signed many deals
| with the US, which is just as problematic of a world state as
| China, if not more so.
|
| That is to say - unless you have a planet-wide blind spot, this
| title evokes the same emotional response as, say, "JD.com signed
| RMB 275B deal with US corporations in 2016".
| poutine wrote:
| There is no moral equivalency between the US and China. Stop
| this right away.
| justicezyx wrote:
| What do you mean no moral equivalency? Are you suggesting one
| is obviously superior than the other? Judging the behaviors
| in the 21st century, I think China is morally superior to US?
| Based on the wars invoked by IS, and the poverty elimination
| done by China. Obviously China improved Chinese citizens
| living standard dramatically, while US are doing the opposite
| across the world.
| trasz wrote:
| Sadly, this discussion always goes the same way. You'll see
| accusations of concentration camps, then countered by the
| existence of actual forced labour camps (private prisons),
| then "countered" by being called a weebo. It's a
| fundamental mental difference between many Americans and
| the rest of the western world, the american exceptionalism.
| rscoots wrote:
| >You'll see accusations of concentration camps, then
| countered by the existence of actual forced labour camps
| (private prisons)
|
| Are you implying the Chinese criminal justice system is
| more just than that of the US? Lol!
|
| At least the people in US private prisons were ostensibly
| convicted of crimes by their peers. Unlike the victims of
| the ongoing genocide under the CCP.
|
| Also # of inmates in all prisons in the US has been
| rapidly dropping, and in any case they're far more humane
| than Chinese ones.
|
| Anyways, arguing with CCP apologists I know I'm in the
| backwaters here. Bring on the undeserved downvotes.
| lastbitwritten wrote:
| You are based in the US?
|
| Try posting that 'The US is morally superior to China' in
| China, and you are going to spend a lot of time being re-
| educated as to why that's not true.
|
| But seriously, I just want to privately practice tennis.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| The increase in living standards in China are directly
| caused by US efforts to open up China, to accept investment
| and liberalization of it's economy. And yes one is morally
| superior. One is an ethno-nationalist state that is
| genociding a religious minority while the other is multi
| cultural democracy. The successes or failures of either
| will inform which direction all of humanity will move
| towards in the 21st century.
| justicezyx wrote:
| > The increase in living standards in China are directly
| caused by US efforts to open up China, to accept
| investment and liberalization of it's economy.
|
| Equally, US maintains it's living standard, mostly
| because China did a wonderful job of producing cheap
| goods to sell to US.
|
| > One is an ethno-nationalist state
|
| According to wiki
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism:
|
| """ The central political tenet of ethnic nationalism is
| that ethnic groups are entitled to self-determination."""
|
| This does not have moral assessment. People in an ethnic
| group can decide for themselves. Seems reasonable.
|
| But China is not ethno nationalism because of the
| explicit unified Chinese ethnogroups narrative. https://e
| n.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_China
|
| And Han as an ethnic group, is also not ethnic at all.
| It's like "white" people. Han people are no where close
| to be classic ethnic groups, other than being speaking in
| the same language (with numerous dialects).
|
| > that is genociding a religious minority
|
| I have stated multiple times that muslim or uygur
| genocide in Xinjiang is a laughable propaganda lie.
|
| The population in Xinjiang has been growing faster than
| other ethnic groups, and are growing contiguously.
| https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-
| economy/article/3133228/...
|
| Check your facts.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| >I have stated multiple times that muslim or uygur
| genocide in Xinjiang is a laughable propaganda lie.
|
| That you have stated so does not mean if it is true or
| not. Your Chinese source doesn't change the fact that
| Uyghur birthrates dropped by a 60% between 2015 to 2018
| according to Chinese government statistics. From 2016
| there was a seven-fold increase in sterilization [1].
| There are no natural reasons why that would happen, only
| to Uyghurs, entirely limited within Xinjiang in such a
| short amount of time. It is the textbook definition of
| genocide [2].
|
| [1]: https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-
| international-news-we... [2]:
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
| trasz wrote:
| Birth rates always drop when the quality of life
| improves. You can easily see this in eg migrants from
| Third World countries to Europe.
|
| Also, the whole genocide discussion would look much
| better if the accusing side wasn't directly responsible
| for an actual genocide: killing a million random people
| in Middle East.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| > Birth rates always drop when the quality of life
| improves.
|
| Sure. They do not drop 60% in only a few years, only
| amongst a single ethnic group in a single region. The
| numerous testimonies, plus recently leaked documents
| confirming this is an explicit CCP policy removes any
| doubt.
| trasz wrote:
| Indeed - one of them killed about million innocent people in
| the last two decades, the other was focused on peaceful
| economic growth instead.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| neither country has been focused on peaceful economic
| growth in the last two decades.
|
| but their sins aren't equal, either.
| scottcodie wrote:
| Apple works with the US government too. Apple operates in China
| so it'd be prudent to work with the government for mutual
| benefit. I'm not sure I see why this is being framed as a bad
| thing.
| vmception wrote:
| the comments, lol!
|
| > Maybe one day he should think about resettling to China... just
| saying.
|
| I mean yeah? Maybe? It's really not that hard to understand how
| to maintain high standing in multiple conflicting societies.
| Doing so in China is also not that difficult or bothersome, not
| any harder than maintaining good standing in a private platform
| like Youtube the analogy being that the arbitrary decisions
| follow unspoken rules but you can predict what those rules are
| and still have a great and endearing time. I get that we are
| raised not to respect that a _government_ assumes that kind of
| role while tolerating private institutions that run our day to
| day lives operating the same way, but the assumption that day-to-
| day life is _sooooo_ aggravating in China is just completely
| wrong.
| another_story wrote:
| Day to day life in China is easy if you're in a Tier 1 city,
| able to speak/read Chinese, don't require stable access to non-
| China based internet services, don't mind the pollutuon and are
| not black or Indian.
|
| Even with some of these it's still OK, but it can be
| aggravating quickly. I feel like there is always someone in
| every apartment block constantly renovating and the drills on
| the walls never cease. Also, try transferring money put of the
| country. Spent more time in banks in China than all other
| places I've lived combined. And I speak Chinese, so most things
| are easier.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| Tim Cook should be forced to live there for the rest of his
| life
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China
| uniqueuid wrote:
| The really interesting question is of course:
|
| What conditions are there _outside_ of China?
|
| Has Apple agreed to behave differently in the US, censoring apps
| or content or disadvantaging competitors?
| moneywoes wrote:
| Is it strange google has avoided China for so long?
| [deleted]
| LatteLazy wrote:
| A billion dollar company (and Apple is a trillion dollar company)
| is a political entity. It's decisions have political effects. You
| cannot run a company that size and NOT expect governments of all
| sizes and types to come knocking with "requests".
| literallyaduck wrote:
| When Apple and HP collaborated, HP was forced to cram iTunes on
| its devices for years. China isn't known for respecting IP, not
| sure who is the "good guy" in this collaboration, almost like the
| Borg and Cylons joined forces.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Apple was growing massively in PRC in mid 2010s, should not be
| surprising they got roped into more prosocial and pro-
| establishment (read CCP) obligations. If memory serve this was
| right after Apple started clean energy programs in 2015 and PRC
| regulators shutting down itunes books & movies.
|
| >Cook's negotiations led to the successful signing of the
| multibillion-dollar agreement, quashing a number of regulatory
| actions against the company with exemptions and enabling access
| to the Chinese market, in return for significant investments,
| business deals, and worker training in the country.
|
| Keyword is exemptions and access, aka what you expect from
| trillion dollar company lobbying governments.
| fundad wrote:
| It's not surprising but it's a surprise. All the lobbying for
| the US Tariff exemptions were out in the open, if it was
| revealed as a surprise it would look like bribery.
| jms703 wrote:
| It's the shareholders' company and the shareholders got what they
| wanted, access to more revenue and profits.
| inasio wrote:
| Disregarding the human rights/politics background, this sounds
| like standard operating procedure for Apple: Do whatever it takes
| to have unimpeded access to the best tools/tech needed for their
| mission
| mhoad wrote:
| Except no, you shouldn't just disregard the human rights /
| politics in search of "the best tools" which happens to be low
| waged workers who were famously killings themselves at work in
| such large numbers that their solution was to install nets so
| that they wouldn't die when jumping out the windows anymore,
| inasio wrote:
| I didn't mean to imply that you should disregard human
| rights, only that when you look at it from a strictly
| strategic point of view, it aligns with the strategy that
| Apple follows in many other areas. See for example buying
| full chip lines, entire display supply, even for the gigantic
| windows they use at the Apple stores.
| ipv6ipv4 wrote:
| Daring Fireball [1] has another passage from the article which is
| illuminating with regards to any promises Apple makes about how
| it will resist governmental pressure to compromise its products,
| vis-a-vis Apple's CSAM scanning tool.
|
| "Sometime in 2014 or early 2015, China's State Bureau of
| Surveying and Mapping told members of the Apple Maps team to make
| the Diaoyu Islands, the objects of a long-running territorial
| dispute between China and Japan, appear large even when users
| zoomed out from them. Chinese regulators also threatened to
| withhold approval of the first Apple Watch, scheduled for release
| in 2015, if Apple didn't comply with the unusual request,
| according to internal documents.
|
| Some members of the team back at Apple's headquarters in
| Cupertino, Calif., initially balked at the demand. But the Maps
| app had become a priority for Apple, so eventually the company
| complied. The Diaoyu Islands, when viewed in Apple Maps in
| mainland China, continue to appear on a larger scale than
| surrounding territories."
|
| Apple has, and will, fold to government pressure faster than a
| lawn chair.
|
| 1. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/12/08/the-
| information...
| SN76477 wrote:
| ever get involved in a land war in Asia
| TheTon wrote:
| Apple Maps is operated by AutoNavi (a Chinese company) in China
| [1].
|
| It doesn't really make sense that the Chinese government would
| be pressuring Apple directly to make political changes to the
| map provided by AutoNavi. If they wanted the map drawn
| differently they could just pass a law requiring it or go
| straight to AutoNavi with the request.
|
| Of course the story could still be true (I have no idea), but
| not mentioning AutoNavi kind of strains its credibility.
|
| 1. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-maps/
| ge96 wrote:
| > CSAM
|
| Thinking about this other than things like existing social
| media, satellites... I've recently seen ads where it's like
| "get paid to take pictures of your neighborhood". Was wondering
| about that as a means to export out high res images of
| locations through an app.
| qeternity wrote:
| I totally get that people want companies to act with dignity,
| but the idea that a company, even one as large as Apple, is
| going to make any sort of difference with respect to China's
| oddities is wishful thinking.
|
| Apple has a business to run. They abide by all sorts of
| requests in various countries in which they operate. Of course
| there has to be a line somewhere, I'm just not sure this is it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Apple has a business to run. They abide by all sorts of
| requests in various countries in which they operate.
|
| And then people rightly condemn them for it. Because not
| getting a pass even when the pressure is strong -- especially
| when the pressure is strong -- is the only incentive we can
| give them to even try to resist that pressure.
|
| That sucks for them. It puts them between a rock and a hard
| place.
|
| Too bad.
|
| Because the alternative is that nobody fights against wrong.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It seems fashionable to preach helplessness. Apple can't
| change China by themselves, but they are not by themselves.
| If we all follow that reasoning, then nothing ever happens.
| To surrender and retreat from the field of battle is a sure
| way to lose. Despair is a leading psyops tactic - targeted at
| enemies; let's not help them.
|
| 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?
|
| Apple should not be deceiving people outside China with CCP
| propaganda, which is what the maps are.
| misnome wrote:
| How are they deceiving people outside China when only
| showing the difference inside China?
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > Apple has a business to run.
|
| "Apple" is not some abstract entity. There are people behind
| Apple (the shareholders, the managers, the employees). Real
| people, with real morals and values. I don't think that the
| only thing all of them care about is "running a business" and
| that all of them feel it absolves them from acting humanly.
| It's more complicated than that. (having said that, of
| course, greed is always strong).
| ipv6ipv4 wrote:
| We can have a very long debate about that but I think it's
| beside the point with regards to Apple's CSAM effort. The
| point is that Apple is inventing a tool that is very amenable
| to being wielded as a weapon of mass surveillance, and
| oppression.
|
| The maps analogy is that it's one thing for the Chinese
| government to tell Apple to implement a mapping app from
| scratch so that it can be used to display bogus mapping data.
| It's quite another for the Chinese government to tell Apple
| to modify its existing Maps app data.
|
| In light of the inherent amorality of companies that you are
| pointing out, the people working in these companies should be
| smart enough not to go out of their way to place themselves
| in situations with such moral hazards. Apple shouldn't be
| building weapons.
| fossuser wrote:
| I think these things have a corrupting influence on the
| principles of the company over time:
| https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
|
| It's better to figure out an exit (imo) than continue to
| capitulate on these kinds of things, particularly in a
| country that is hostile to foreign companies and IP (and
| particularly if one of your company values is the privacy of
| your users).
|
| ---
|
| >>Peter Thiel: Well I think, again those aren't the only two
| possibilities, I don't think they created very much, I think
| a lot of it was just handed over from the west so it wasn't
| even stolen.
|
| You know, I criticized Google a few years ago for refusing to
| work on its AI technology on Project Maven with the U.S.
| military, but working with Chinese universities and Chinese
| researchers. And since everything in China is a civilian-
| military fusion, Google was effectively working with the
| Chinese military, not with the American military. And there
| was sort of this question, "Why Google was doing this?" And
| one of the things that I was sort of told by some of the
| insiders at Google was they figured they might as well give
| the technology out through the front door, because if they
| didn't give it - it would get stolen anyway.
|
| >>Peter Thiel: I had a set of conversations with some of the
| Google people in the deep mind AI technology, "is your AI
| being used to run the concentration camps in Xinjiang?" and
| "Well, We don't know and don't ask any questions." You have
| this almost magical thinking that by pretending that
| everything is fine, that's how you engage and have a
| conversation. And you make the world better. And it's some
| combination of wishful thinking. It's useful idiots, you
| know, it's CCP fifth columnist collaborators. So it's some
| super position of all these things. But I think if you think
| of it ideologically or in terms of human rights or something
| like that, I'm tempted to say it's just profoundly racist.
| It's like saying that because they look different, they're
| not white people, they don't have the same rights. It's
| something super wrong. But I don't quite know how you unlock
| that.
|
| https://nixonseminar.com/2021/04/the-nixon-seminar-
| april-6-2...
| kelnos wrote:
| Not disagreeing with what Thiel is saying here, but it's
| pretty hypocritical for him to be criticizing here
| considering he's the co-founder of Palantir, a company that
| feeds some tasty tasty morsels to the surveillance state
| and military-industrial complex.
| fossuser wrote:
| I can't go into it, but this is a misunderstanding of
| what Palantir does.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I can't go into it, but ...
| brandall10 wrote:
| It seems he's drawing a distinction at domestic vs.
| foreign actors. The criticism at Google here is against
| working to enable the US military vs. what is a thin veil
| of enabling the Chinese military hiding behind a veil.
| fossuser wrote:
| It's also about a defense of the west and western
| liberalism over China and the CCP authoritarianism.
|
| It's Google leadership capitulating to the (imo naive)
| politics of its workforce to not work with the USG, while
| continuing to support the governments of adversaries
| (because largely American politics ignores the plight of
| people in places like KSA and China under a weak kind of
| moral relativism).
| philwelch wrote:
| It's only hypocritical if you find the American and
| Chinese governments morally equivalent.
| simonh wrote:
| Thiel seems to genuinely believe the USA, and the west in
| general, is in an existential struggle with forces intent
| on destroying it. I can't speak for him, but maybe
| Islamic fundamentalists, authoritarian autocracies like
| Russia, Chinese communism, etc.
|
| If you genuinely believe that, then putting ever more
| powerful intelligence gathering tools in the hands of
| western governments, even at some risk of threats to
| freedoms in the west, might seem reasonable.
|
| That's especially true if you have good confidence in the
| checks and balances in the free west to prevent the worst
| abuses of such tools, and that the threats are truly
| dire.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy isn't an
| inconsistency. If someone says doing business with a
| military is unacceptable and then proceeds to do business
| with a military, they're a hypocrite. That's still true
| even if the person telling you this does business with a
| military.
| kelnos wrote:
| I know this would never happen, but I wish companies would
| just default to not doing business in China, unless they are
| able to sell their product, uncompromised. I wouldn't mind
| legislation to that effect, though I'm sure that would come
| with a ton of unintended consequences.
|
| If China (and similar repressive regimes) wants these sorts
| of products with onerous restrictions built in, they should
| have to build them themselves.
|
| Of course, I do recognize that this is perhaps somewhat
| hypocritical: the OFAC list in the US comes to mind (which
| makes it illegal for US entities to do business with entities
| in certain "bad" countries). I'm reminded of GitHub's fight
| to allow people from Iran to use GitHub. I get the purpose of
| sanctions on Iran, but hurting regular Iranian citizens with
| these sorts of bans does nothing to punish or put pressure on
| the people who are actually the targets of sanctions.
| vmception wrote:
| When I see state capital or communist societies, I see
| "single whale that _has_ to purchase at inflated prices "
|
| I'll spin up a British Virgin Islands company or buy
| another passport first in response to any legislation aimed
| at preventing business with those whales
|
| Others are already 5 steps ahead of me
| Talanes wrote:
| Nothing hypocritical there at all, in both cases you are
| against a government that is placing itself in the way of
| normal people and unfiltered access to information/tools.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| > Apple has, and will, fold to government pressure faster than
| a lawn chair.
|
| So will any company, when threatened by China. And, btw, so
| will most countries.
|
| Yes, Apple has a lot of money, but they're in no position to
| resist a powerful country. I don't think it's fair to expect
| that of them.
| ipv6ipv4 wrote:
| So Apple shouldn't build a mass surveillance tool that it
| knows it will be coerced to misuse.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| If you know anything about China, then you know they have
| more than an abundant supply of mass surveillance tools. If
| Apple doesn't play ball with the local government, what do
| you think will happen? They'll ban them and the new market
| leader will be some Chinese company that probably copied a
| bunch of their designs and is more than happy to preinstall
| the govt rootkit.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _So will any company, when threatened by China_
|
| Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit,
| Twitch, Dropbox, Medium, Wikipedia, DuckDuckGo?
|
| https://en.greatfire.org/search/alexa-top-1000-domains
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| You are making a very good point. There's no Facebook,
| Google, Twitter, Snapchat etc in China. But there are
| WeChat, Baidu, Weibo, QQ, etc.
|
| China is more than capable to clone and/or make its own
| version of these companies. And these companies will do as
| the government says. So, I think that's an excellent
| example to show that tech "boycotting" China does nothing
| to change them.
|
| Separately, you should also keep in mind that a bunch of
| these companies didn't even have a choice, since they were
| considered a threat to national security by the state.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Whether or not China will clone an app is immaterial to
| question of whether all companies will fold to Chinese
| government pressure.
|
| There are many large examples that just didn't, and they
| exited the market.
|
| There are also many large examples that struck varying
| bargains. I'm sure the CCP didn't get everything they
| wanted from the referenced Apple deal, and there were
| hardliners who were pissed about it.
|
| And then there are probably a ton of examples that don't
| even care to bargain and just say yes to whatever is
| asked.
|
| So, complicated spectrum.
|
| Side note, if I'm doing my quick math right, Apple's
| worldwide revenue is equivalent to 1.6% of China's GDP.
| Which is pretty impressive.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| > Whether or not China will clone an app is immaterial to
| question of whether all companies will fold to Chinese
| government pressure.
|
| It is very material though. If your business is not
| special/unique in some important way, then you don't have
| a lot of bargaining power when the CCP officials come to
| negotiate the terms. Then your choices boil down to --
| accept whatever is offered or exit completely. While some
| exited completely, I very much doubt they did so on
| ethical grounds, as you seem to be implying. Rather, the
| terms were unsatisfiable.
|
| Trying to get some sort of an acceptable to you deal is
| the only thing that makes sense from a business
| perspective. The alternative is losing access the world's
| biggest market and watching the state prop up a powerful
| new competitor that may well compete outside the borders
| of China too.
|
| If you want American companies to be able to resist
| Chinese govt pressure, then you need to have significant
| intervention from the US government and hope that they
| will be able to broker some sort of a deal. Failing that,
| it's a joke to think that any company has any actual
| bargaining power in a negotiation with the Chinese govt.
| matwood wrote:
| This brings up the long debated question about China and
| Russia before them. Is it better to have US/Western
| companies operating with some concessions or better to
| boycott.
|
| I'm still of the opinion it's better to operate with
| concessions because there is a chance of influencing the
| local population over time. Otherwise we end up with a
| completely siloed environment like has happened with
| parts of China's tech scene.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Anyone who has worked in mapping/GIS at a company that sells in
| China has seen this in action. The "display these islands
| larger" requests, the obfuscated coordinate system for geo-
| aligning maps, and other map content regulatory issues[1] all
| need to be dealt with if you want your map product available in
| the country. Not excusing it, but every company with maps there
| is required to do this, not just Apple.
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
| gbasin wrote:
| I compared the same area in apple vs google maps, the islands
| don't even show up in google unless you zoom way in. You sure
| about this?
| nradov wrote:
| It's location dependent. Apple Maps shows some areas with
| different size or labels only when you're inside China.
| topicseed wrote:
| Google Maps is blocked in China, I think.
| tonyhb wrote:
| So, as much as people like to throw shade at Google, we
| can say that they haven't caved on this. That's a plus
| for them.
| ntSean wrote:
| It's not that they didn't cave, Google products are
| unavailable due to sanctions.
|
| Google Search for example was heavily modified for the
| Chinese market.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Google Search for example was heavily modified for the
| Chinese market.
|
| Do you mean something other than Project Dragonfly, which
| was terminated?
| samstave wrote:
| What happens with satellite view?
|
| What happens in Google Earth?
| nradov wrote:
| While these are in no way comparable to China's demands,
| several other countries have also forced satellite imagery
| vendors to blur out certain sensitive areas.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellite_map_images_w.
| ..
| [deleted]
| mitigating wrote:
| They are in no way comparable because if an area in a map
| is blurred I know the information is restricted.
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| It's the complying not the requiring.
| junon wrote:
| This is a mind boggling realization. Is OSM data also
| compromised in the same way?
| ryandrake wrote:
| OpenStreetMap has a page[1] on this. TLDR: Private
| individuals surveying is illegal in China, which seems to
| outlaw the entire OSM project and any participation or
| contribution. I am not a lawyer or expert on Chinese law so
| who knows.
|
| 1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I am curious about this -- is it more complete to say
| that zero surveying is allowed without a permit, if it is
| an individual or company or school or anyone?
| javajosh wrote:
| That is rather chilling, is it not? That a nation would
| prevent its citizens from _looking around_ and measuring
| what they see? I can 't help but wonder how the chickens
| will come home to roost.
| foota wrote:
| That's the chilling thing about Chinese censorship?
| Eelongate wrote:
| > " _the_ chilling thing "
|
| Your comment implies a singular chilling thing, while his
| does not.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Chickens can't find their way home if maps are illegal
| now can they.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| I'm no sympathizer to the CCP, but I don't think this
| argument makes sense in our time.
|
| There's a big gap between a private individual looking
| around, and lots of private individuals coordinating to
| look at everything all the time.
|
| Modern technology is making that gap larger year after
| year.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That argument would be more appropriate if OSM was about
| something other than where the streets went.
| davesque wrote:
| This level of pretense is really mind boggling to me. It
| underscores how certain regimes/people fear objective reality
| more than anything. And it's a very inconvenient position to
| take since objective reality is everywhere.
| tene wrote:
| Does anyone have any insight into the motivation behind making
| the islands appear larger? I haven't been able to come up with
| any plausible guesses about what "make the islands look big"
| would be helpful in achieving.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| It's pretty simple, China claims large parts of the south
| China sea, parts that extend far, far out of their maritime
| bounds and go into other countries' territories. They have a
| variety of justifications, one of which is they they dredge
| some reefs and make them into islands which they then claim.
| This particular instance is not in the south China sea, but
| it's all the same.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Everyone new this back in 2016.
|
| On May 16, 2016 - China blocked Apple iTunes, Movies, etc [0].
|
| On the same date, Apple invested $1B in Didi (Chinese "Uber") [1]
| and magically China unblock Apple.
|
| So what's new in this story?
|
| [0] https://amp.scmp.com/tech/leaders-
| founders/article/1945616/a...
|
| [1] https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN0Y404W
| ksec wrote:
| Since this is finally out, I am hopping they have all the other
| juicy details in supply chain, where Apple _lifted_ suppliers to
| their standard and help them build out / counter balance
| competitors. ( Also interesting this is coming out from The
| Information, which tends to be an Apple shill for many years from
| Apple PR. But I am looking at BOE, YMTC and Luxshare. Should be
| the easiest find and leaks. If they do intend to go deep into it.
| )
| georgeburdell wrote:
| You're not the only one "hoping". Apple is a shameful company
| bell-cot wrote:
| So...local politicians, in a market where Apple was making money
| hand-over-fist, were feeling kinda used. By a huge foreign
| corporation. And the they started getting sticky on all sorts of
| regulatory things that Apple needed. Until Apple's CEO promised
| to do a bunch of "local investing" in their country.
|
| How different is this from the 1980's in the U.S., when Japanese
| auto makers decided that they needed to start building cars in
| America, and otherwise placating American politicians and voters
| with big piles of money?
| musicale wrote:
| > How different is this from the 1980's in the U.S.
|
| Historians generally agree that Martina Navratilova was
| rightfully and lawfully detained for insulting the Republican
| party.
|
| And that it was important for Toyota to comply with US lawful
| interception requirements for any communication in automobiles.
| frozenport wrote:
| 1. was done in secret
|
| 2. traded seemingly unrelated investments aka you can build
| your computers if you invest in our SAAS
|
| 3. technology transfer may be a violation of us export controls
|
| Its really not obvious if the Chinese win because it's an
| extremely opaque way to choose winners and losers.
| pasabagi wrote:
| > 1. was done in secret
|
| Was it? Reading the article, the only 'secret' component was
| the lobbying, which is obviously done behind closed doors.
| Everything else is public commitments and public statements -
| which makes sense, since they were trying to pour oil on
| troubled chinese waters.
|
| FWIW, western media often suggests stuff is 'secret' in
| china, because they can't read chinese, and all those
| orientals are awfully mysterious.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >western media often suggests stuff is 'secret' in china,
| because they can't read chinese, and all those orientals
| are awfully mysterious.
|
| this is stupid.
|
| BBC Chinese (https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp) have many
| Chinese/people who can speak/read/write Chinese.
|
| large Western Media have Chinese staffs just like any large
| Chinese Media in China, HK or Taiwan with people capable of
| speak/read/write English.
| [deleted]
| ohmanjjj wrote:
| Apple paid protection money. Pretty simple, no need to sugar
| coat it
| chrischen wrote:
| That's what all government is: a racket.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Life before nationstates was famously prosperous, safe, and
| enriching.
| cdot2 wrote:
| The agricultural revolution and it's consequences have
| been a disaster for the human race?
| bostonsre wrote:
| Which agricultural revolution? If the earliest, sure more
| food is good, but having to fear being wiped off the
| earth from random raiders or armies kind of sucks.
| cdot2 wrote:
| States require administrators by definition and
| administrators require food surplus or they would starve.
| I know there were some hunter gatherers who had small
| food surpluses but I dont think there was anything that
| could remotely be called a state
|
| This guy edited his comment. He originally asked if there
| were states before agriculture
| cm2012 wrote:
| Contrary to popular internet belief, hunter gatherer life
| sucked way worse.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| There is absolutely no way at all to verify that claim -
| considering 'better/worse' entirely depends on the
| _happiness_ of those individuals. Something we have no
| way of measuring.
| bell-cot wrote:
| That I am aware of, "protection money" clearly implies that
| the payments are to a criminal organization - which is
| separate from, and unauthorized by, the established state.
| The MacRumors story seems very clear that Apple and Mr.
| Cook's deal was with the Chinese government, and the ruling
| Chinese Communist Party.
|
| Do you have information to the contrary? Or is your point
| merely to voice anger at China, the CCP, Apple, and/or Mr.
| Cook?
| tshaddox wrote:
| > That I am aware of, "protection money" clearly implies
| that the payments are to a criminal organization - which is
| separate from, and unauthorized by, the established state.
|
| The phrase is also very commonly used to refer to money
| paid to government officials who are corrupt. One could
| still quibble over whether this is _technically_
| "corruption" since it might very well be totally legal and
| encouraged under Chinese law, but I think the usage of the
| phrase here is quite suitable.
| pupppet wrote:
| This will be the logical conclusion to every major American
| corporation unless someone puts a stop to this. If profit comes
| before everything, then so will China's 1.4B potential market vs
| US's 330M market.
| titzer wrote:
| It's growthism driving this. If you need to grow your revenue
| 20% year-over-year every year for decades, pretty soon you have
| to swallow ungodly amounts of new dollars. You can either
| gobble more of the market (higher market share), grow the
| market, or find new markets. And growthism will mine out every
| one of those possibilities.
| sneak wrote:
| You are forgetting about manufacturing.
|
| While China is indeed an important and huge market for sales...
| approximately 100% of Apple's products are _manufactured_ in
| China (save some tiny fraction that are assembled in India or
| Texas).
|
| Every iPhone sold everywhere worldwide (except the few
| assembled in India) comes from China.
|
| Apple cannot exist without China. Full stop.
| manquer wrote:
| China is not the only cheap manufacturing hub. If Apple
| wanted to, they could be investing their 100's of billions
| (instead of stock buy backs they have been doing for years)
| in alternative locations to build their capability in other
| geographies.
|
| Apple is still doing China because it wants to, not because
| it has to. At their size they have the time and money to
| invest in multiple locations and spread their risks.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| That's completely wrong. How is it that one of their largest
| global competitors, Samsung, exists despite having no
| factories in China for years now? Apple could leave China
| just fine as far as manufacturing is concerned. The question
| is would it be able to still sell to the Chinese market if it
| does.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| It seems to be Apple's standard MO to comply with local
| regulations regardless of market size. They've complied with
| Russian demands[0,1] and it looks like Apple Rus accounts for
| something like 2.6% of Apple's revenue, a fraction that Apple
| could probably do without.
|
| From a recent interview[2] with Tim Cook:
|
| >"World peace through world trade," Cook said, adding that
| operating in foreign countries means Apple has to "acknowledge
| that there are different laws in other markets."
|
| 0: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/apple-and-
| google...
|
| 1: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573069
|
| 2: https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-china-tim-cook-
| respons...
| remarkEon wrote:
| >World peace through world trade
|
| And here I was under the impression that most everyone -
| everyone important enough at least - understood that Fukuyama
| was (very) wrong. Perhaps his definition of "world peace" is
| different.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| I'm not sure where Fukuyama and Friedman agree and
| disagree, but Cook's quote struck me as Friedman-esque. It
| sounds like he sees Apple as a player in Friedman's Dell
| Theory of Conflict Prevention: "No two countries that are
| both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell's, will
| ever fight a war against each other as long as they are
| both part of the same global supply chain".
|
| (Quoting from
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace)
| bt1a wrote:
| I imagine you mean T and B, respectively?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| wnevets wrote:
| Say what you want about Google and Microsoft but at-least they
| have taken _some_ steps to back away from China 's oppressive
| government.
| Kharvok wrote:
| We can't trust multinationals with our data. They will sell us
| all out.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| you can't trust them to protect our freedom of speech, our
| privacy, to save the environment, to care about how social
| media impacts kids, you can't trust them for anything, ever.
| rodneyzeng wrote:
| Yeah, China is taking advantage of US companies, state
| governments, to compete with USA. There are lots of company
| leaders and governors can benefit from secrete negotiations with
| China government. There is only one China, but there are tons of
| American businesses.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-08 23:00 UTC)