Hong Kong protest safety app banned from iOS store
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
So HK police are required to wave a blue flag so that the general public is aware the police have declared a particular gathering at a particular location illegal. Thus, HK law literally wants the location of the gathering made known, publicly drawing attention to it and the location. I assume this is to inform those gathering about their status and to let others nearby know also, as a warning, perhaps. And also nearby officers. Okay.
So consider an app that shared only this publicly visible information on a map. i.e. "police have raised the blue flag on this gathering, right here", without commentary or calls to action.
Less functional and informative than the existing app, but it may still serve a useful purpose for HK residents and demonstrators and perhaps even police (according to HK law) and then Apple may plausibly allow the app because it doesn't get into choosing sides or facilitating illegal calls to action.
We shouldn't be ridiculing people who demand companies support human rights. It's the apologists who should be marginalized.
Why is that so strange?
Looks like the devs were smart enough to make it a web app, so it can still be used.
"4.2 Minimum Functionality - Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website."
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
The point is that having a webapp allows them to continue to serve users if their actual app is removed from app stores. It has no bearing on how their native app functions, whether it is in native code or a web wrapper etc.
just tell mobile users to bookmark the page, on iOS that can make an icon on your home screen
There is nothing more I can say here without getting downvoted. Most people here will not believe me. I advice you to read things for yourself and draw your own conclusions: go to https://quora.com and search for Hong Kong questions. Many Hong Kongers reply there, as well as other groups that are closer to HK such as Singaporeans and even mainland Chinese. Their view on things will fascinate you.
To expand on whoevercares' comment, recently someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To close this loophole and prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents taking refuge in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have shrewdly painted a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
(EDIT: spelling, wording)
There is only that far technology can go.
The human rights abuses by the Chinese government are insanely bad: religious and ethnic persecution, forced abortions, murder of political dissidents, no habeas corpus for many, abuse of prisoners (torture, forced labor camps, harvesting and selling prisoners’ organs), to name a few.
Unfortunately, too many in the West, including Apple, have become heavily economically dependent on China. I think that dependence strongly clouds moral judgment when it comes to decisions like this. Furthermore, it requires far more moral courage to call out evil in the present than it does to identify evil in the past.
To Apple and everyone else: don’t become complicit! Take a stand. History will vindicate you.
If Apple ups the ante on China, then China comes down and bans the App Store or tariffs Apple devices a ton as retribution - resulting in Apple getting itself into a similar situation Huawei is in with the US. If (this is all hypothetical, btw) that were to happen with Apple, then I would wager Xiaomi or Huawei would only see more investment to become the "Apple of China" and further develop a replica in-house app store.
By their own choices and strategy of centralizing power they decided to become a fascist enabler.
With the app store you're still vulnerable to state actors and zero day vulns. And on Android you're vulnerable to permissions scope creep. The app stores contain malware.
You're never truly safe.
You can't point to the old days of Windows in the 90s and early 2000s as a case for app stores, either. Installers and downloaded executables were great, but Windows had a broken, unsandboxed model that made it easy to break. History would have played out much better if Windows itself weren't so permissible and was more hermetic back then.
If we invested the same billions of research and development dollars that Apple and Google did into their walled garden platforms, an open web with truly cross platform native wasm apps would work just as well or better than anything on the app stores, and it'd be just as "secure". And cross platform. And couldn't be shut down by Apple, Google, or an angry government.
Imagine going to Netflix.com and getting the native app experience. On any mobile device. Windows Phone. Ubuntu Phone. That's how it should have worked.
Walled gardens must die.
No.
As a user, I am grateful for "walled gardens" like the App Store, Steam, etc.
Because I remember the chaos that was before them, with developers/publishers preying on users all the time, which they still try to do by working around App Store restrictions and so on. I'm grateful for curated marketplaces putting the foot down on them.
Android lets you install applications without having to jailbreak your phone or do any other trickery. This should be a prerequisite for any OS (with all the necessary warnings).
The concept of a wild west free speech utopia sounds great (and I would still like to see that), but it's filled with repetitive white nationalist bullshit. That's the early adopter group.
Because of that early group, it's a horrible experience for anyone else.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I'm not sure about iOS, but Android still allows installing unsigned APKs (F-Droid and similar platforms work because of this), and what has already been installed stays on the phone until the user removes it.
What does it even mean? I am pretty sure that you don't mean someone is 100% free to murder someone else. So you clearly believe in some restrictions.
I can already imagine the counter argument: "Well, 100% freedom unless your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom!"
Ok, but what does it mean to infringe on someone else's freedom? Murder is the easy case; what about polluting a river? I think we would all agree dumping enough chemicals to kill all life in a river would be infringing on other's freedoms, so lets prevent that... but where do you draw the line? It will take judgement, consensus, and compromise to find out where that line is.
So suddenly we are back to needing rules around curtailing freedoms that some people aren't going to like.
So, on one hand, android gives me freedom to install any app I want and to install a firewall like netguard, on the other hand, it destroys my privacy.
I'm really looking for a guide about how to properly secure and prevent data leaking an android phone beyond the basics that I've seen online but without that I'm leaning toward Apple despite finding it abhorrent that I cannot install what I want on my own device (I can obviously side load by using my dev certificate but that's still not something I'm happy with)
The kind of "freedom" you're talking about generally has a high cost. At times, that cost is, well, "freedom".
Frustrating actually. There is no platform out there that delivers on the promise of getting you security and freedom. Certainly none that get you privacy. Right now it's all marketing and fanboys, but where the rubber meets the road, there's just no grip.
That is not a trade off at all, if you believe that you have already fallen for the propaganda. Security in and of itself has no value that you could trade off against freedom, only the freedom part of that pair is valuable. Security is a means to the end of freedom: You may need a certain kind and/or amount of security to gain and maintain freedom. But security is also a means to authoritarianism if you do it wrong. Which means: Security is only valuable in so far as it causes a net increase in freedom. If you are actually giving up freedom to make space for more security, that is, you are trading off freedom against security, you have failed.
Gab was removed for hate speech, not free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
Gab is not a "free speech app". In fact, the term "free speech app" is itself laughable.
I programme .NET on Windows. Have done for years. Never owned an Apple device until I took my wife's old iPhone 6S at the start of the year.
I switched from Android to Apple for a few reasons:
1. Constant spying and data-gathering for profit by Android 2. Ethics 3. I only use a handful of apps so the platform wasn't that important
Apple's public stance is that they take privacy seriously. Like incredibly seriously. Above all things and stuff. And as another commenter pointed out, they told the FBI to go fish when they wanted access to a phone. That resonated with me. That told me they are a company that (appears to) genuinely believe in something other than just profit at all costs. That they may just have my interests fairly high up their agenda.
This latest episode has made me rethink that. From the ground up.
I understand they need to follow the law but so do the law enforcers: Have Apple been watching the footage from HK?
I thought that Apple, with all the power they have, could perhaps say to the Chinese gov... "No, the app stays!"
My faith in Apple has been shattered.
As an aside... Apart from Librem, there isn't really any choice now.
I feel like a dad here... I'm disappointed in Apple.
The ethic ends where the money-loss (or missing profit) begins. I don't understand why so many people are surprised when Apple (or whatever) pulls something like this.
I don't mean to be rude (I don't know you, where you're from, what's your age), but I though at this point in life people would be already aware that ethics doesn't fit very much into corporatism culture.
In simple words, they will (at very least) plainly lie to you in order to make you buy their products. Every one of them.
Or have you ever heard a company saying "Yes, our product is inferior to the competition", "Yes, we will sell your data", "Yes, if avoiding it gives us much problem, we will side with higher powers against you" or "Yes, we're burning forests to give you cheaper burgers"?
They'll picture them as nice and responsible, but at the end of the day what matter most is dollars. They'll never lose.
That being said...
I suppose I let my guard down a bit and got slightly starry-eyed about Apple but I genuinely believed they saw profit in NOT being assholes like Google. That being different and taking a stand was going to make them vast sums of money.
Plus, Google does not align with my vision at all and there was an Apple phone going free so I made the leap.
Clearly it's all marketing and they are no different to any other mega-corp and if there is profit to be made in feeding people through a woodchipper then they'll do it... like the rest of them.
*takes rose-tinted glasses off
China and Apple and (with all the power), the power discrepancies are so far in China favor that - China would just block Apple entirely and not blink.
W/o China's blessing Apple won't produce a single phone...
About being disappointed - Apples holds one of the most abhorable practices when it comes to repair and maintainability. For instance I still don't understand how their laptops don't have conformal coating.
Vote with your wallet.
You do not understand because lots of apple users clearly have different usage requirements for their phones.
I tinker with stuff 8+ hours per day for a paycheck; when I'm using my phone, I don't want to tinker with it, I want it to just work, and my iPhone does exactly that. Someone has made a bunch of intelligent design decisions about the way things work— much better than with android phones— and I agree with them often enough that I don't care that I can't change them. My brain is busy; the fact that I don't have to think about changing them is great. It's an appliance to me. I don't try to reprogram any of my electronic kitchen appliances either, and I'm a software developer that used to be a chef. I'd much rather spend my time concentrating on the output than the tools. I get that it's not everybody's workflow— you do you.
I also really don't care if I can't install apps that aren't available through the app store. I use a teeny, tiny fraction of what is available through the app store... the chance of app store availability being a limiting factor in my phone usage is pretty much non-existent. I use a computer for everything I can't use my phone for, and it's usually better for those tasks, anyway.
So you consider an iPhone works so much better and its design is so much better than Android phones that you allow Apple to choose what you can install? I hope you never end in a situation like in Hong Kong where freedom matters more than design.
Yeah. Lots of people do. Giving up control means a lot, I get it. However I give up control with loads of devices, appliances and services every day. In exchange I expect my iPhone, my gmail account and my Samsung TV to make my life easier. They (hopefully) can’t read my mind, so my choices will always lie on a spectrum between: Taking all control, but having to do all the work myself vs. giving up control (and risk being betrayed) but not having to do the work.
> I hope you never end in a situation like in Hong Kong where freedom matters more than design.
Absolutely, but I wouldn’t trust most alternatives out there either. I honestly don’t know what I’d do in that case.
Unlike literally 100% of iPhone owners, who can upgrade the second a new OS is available (if they’ve had a phone made in the last 5 years or so)
This is especially ridiculous considering the adverse security environment we currently inhabit.
About Android - don't be crazy to buy Huawei/Xiaomi/etc.
mobile computing market size >> desktop computing market size
free of malicious software, without virus/malware/Trojan/bot/worm/etc., free of endless searching for the right app to do the job, free of complicated procedures and user interfaces, etc.
And if these mean that the company (Apple in this case) must impose certain limitations on their software (and hardware), then so be it. People are always free to choose which product they want to purchase and for the majority of Apple's users, it seems Apple's definition of freedom has been more appealing than that of the others. It's not like people are not aware that buying an iPhone brings with it some "quirks" (remember you couldn't send/receive files by Bluetooth on iPhone, or in the beginning, third-party apps were not even allowed on iOS, ...).
Disclaimer: I'm not defending Apple here. Just saying that I understand their reasons.
If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.
Who ever owns the phone owns the person and their speech, this is why the complaint over who actually owns the phone and what that means is so important.
> Or just buy a different phone.
The complaint goes beyond Apple and iPhone, Android does a better job of pretending you own the phone but all that really means is Google owns you instead of Apple. The problem is political not technological, all the common person can do is bitch and moan about it.
Mobile phones are like 3D printers: the technology isn't new, but within the last decade the price of 3D printer components dropped, and the availability of open source software to drive them rose, and an equilibrium was found where they entered the domain of non-professional tinker types, at which point we saw an explosion of creativity in that space. The only difference is that that equilibrium hasn't happened for mobile phones yet.
But people are working on it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2103809433/wiphone-a-ph...
It's gonna take a while, but once the DIY approach is a viable alternative, even for just the tech savviest 1% of the population, Apple and Google will have something else to be compared against, and that will effect their choices in a nice way. Or at least I hope so.
Isn't the answer to that just buy an easily rootable phone and flash an OS without spyware? There's a few manufacturers out there with official unlock tools and presumably supporting that practice would only lead to more adoption. (although, admittedly, this does require the hardware to not have spyware or backdoors built into it)
Also, you haven't made clear how giving users the freedom to install apps of their choice contributes to a negative user experience.
As to a negative user experience, console gaming won largely due to the lack of software issues. There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them.
Now, modern smart phones are considered as general-purpose computing devices. And because they are placed in this category (and rightly so for their capability in both hardware and OS), a lot of people are going to expect freeform app distribution.
> If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.
You see, sometimes it's not just about the end-users. Developers cannot distribute apps to the general public on iOS without going through the App Store. Yes App Store adds friction to the app distribution process and that can prevent some malicious apps, but that's about it. Does it really lead to higher quality apps? Well no, just look at all the garbage apps on there. Quality of the store is always a balancing act; it has nothing to do with being a monolithic walled garden.
And all this comes with severe limitations. Localized developers are forced to conform to a suite of rules and guidelines placed by Apple for a global audience. Developers are forced to use monetization models (and has no say in the revenue split) provided by Apple. If devs can distribute apps freely or choose another app store just like they can on Android devices, I can't say for sure whether the end-user experience or security will be higher or lower, but developers will certainly have more freedom and enjoy it more.
Banning a "safety app" has entirely different consequences than not being able to play Halo. I don't understand why you think these are the same.
Well, for starters, I hear it's preventing Hong Kong residents from avoiding dangerous protest hotspots...
That's why there are options (mind you, very few in this case, but that's kinda beside the point).
Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software.
That said, I buy Android because I can side-load if I choose to.
Okay, I have seen this false choice enough times over several years and at this point it annoys me so much that I must speak up. No, Windows is (was? I have not used it for more than a decade) not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. The choice is not between anything goes and a walled garden, there is the middle ground of providing a solid source of approved software (frankly, I think Google has largely failed with this given the state of their Play store) and still allow side loading for cases such as the one mentioned in this very article. Heck, this was one of the amazing things I experienced when moving to Linux in 2005. You had 98% of your software approved and receiving updates through your OS, and then a game or two, oddball VPN, etc. installed in your home directory – it was endlessly refreshing.
With proper permission control and isolated storage for apps, installing anything does not equal cesspit of virus-laden software.
I completely disagree.
In particular, if there is a paid version in a store, then users will seek a free version outside of the store, and then receive a free bouquet of viruses. Or they seek a free movie or VPN, and Google suggests an application that isn't in the store: more free flowers installed.
Android has an approved store, and yet I have read articles lambasting the security of Apps, where the underlying reason was that users had gone side-loading. Fear damaging the brand.
or perhaps just make a massive group text in an existing tool like discord or whatsapp?
This is a massive advantage which arguably outweighs the disadvantage.
The argument I typically see goes something like:
"I don't want to have to worry about whether I should trust an app or not, so I prefer everything be vetted by Apple. If we allow users to install their own software, then bypassing the app store will become commonplace."
I personally disagree with this notion. In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store".
I think the fears of everybody sideloading malware apps are a little overblown. Many Android phones can have apps sideloaded (and are even rootable), but how many people actually do it?
How did we go from Microsoft getting sued over internet explorer to the situation we're currently in?
this is a great example of a superfluous law we don't need. if you want sideloading, get an Android phone. having no option to get a feature you care about is a problem. not being able to have your dream set of features on a particular phone is not.
The issue I have is that phones and tablets are slowly replacing general purpose computers for the majority of people (at least for day to day use), and there's a fundamental difference in how they operate when it comes to software freedom.
Apple can't be considered a monopoly because there's still a choice of Android, but what happens in the future if the ability to sideload applications on Android phones is removed?
We end up in a scenario where every application must be funneled through an app store where the hardware manufacturer can take a cut of the sales, and I'm not okay with that.
Also, government mills mill slowly. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...), where laws and jurisprudence existed, it already took 6 years from (first FTC investigation started in 1992, anti-trust lawsuit started in 1998)
I don’t think it is a matter of oversight getting weak; it just takes time. Certainly, the EU is willing to take action.
In the drive to close up security holes, Apple created a new one that can't be conceivably fixed by the user.
The user is ostensibly prevented from installing apps outside of the Apple Store to protect the data from malicious access, theft or destruction. The thorough app vetting process gives high assurances of that.
However there's a 4th aspect of security: security against service denial. Apple, by being the sole guardian and steward of the iPhone app ecosystem, made all their users vulnerable to service denial (in form of app removal). If there were alternative mechanisms available - ex competing iPhone app stores - the vulnerability would be negligible.
However presently the vulnerability is glaring: all it takes is single legal action - or even just enough of pressure from government on a key market - and the users are denied use of certain apps.
If you really wanted me to believe that you were serious about this Apple, you would do what Google has done and completely remove yourself from China until issues of blatant censorship and oppression like these improve. Of course, this will never happen, because too much money comes from the revenue stream that Chinese citizens represent.
It's harder to have principles when it could cost you a lot of money, like in China.
I use iPhone, but never for a second believed in Apple PR BS how they're better than other companies. Never believe salesman who works on a commission.
Which I don't really have a problem with, except that they market themselves as doing everything for the user, and have cultivated a cult-like image supporting that.
If that means they need to sacrifice some people (especially outside US) - they will do it.
The problem is that Tim Cook is a bean counter, not a technologist. He talks a good game in scripted keynotes, but he's really in it for the money, like most other CEOs.
That said, Apple is the least of all available evils. When something better comes along, I'll leave. If that thing already exists, please let me know so I can begin the process.
This is chicken and egg problem. Companies that develop privacy-oriented devices have to sell very experimental devices for premium price because they neither have production batches large enough to bring price down nor they have enough money to invest into UX. So they can never appeal to mass market.
There is already a company selling desktop hardware that is closest to being backdoor-free [1], there is a phone with isolated baseband [2] and even some experiments with ARM-based laptops [3]. And actually many more examples can be found around internet, but they not going to magically release Apple-grade product.
[1] Talos: https://raptorcs.com/
[2] Librem 5: https://news.ycombinator.com/
[3] Pine64: https://pine64.org/
When has the Apple CEO not done that? Apple is the king of marketing spin.
What do you mean by "better?" More privacy-oriented? You cannot sideload applications and you don't control the iPhone in the least.
The decision to leave mainland China occurred in 2010 after Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary. [0]
This is the true face of the techno-feudalism future we've built. Throw your lot in with one of the tech giants, and you'll have fashionable and functional technology - but at the cost of freedom. When push comes to shove - when it matters the most - your rights can and will be revoked.
Don't be a serf. Reject techno-feudalism. Use free software.
Seems to me that free software community is lacking UI/UX Designers and so looks and feels considerably less "cool" than commercial counterparts. What do you think?
However, human factors is undervalued. There's a cultural issue in free software wherein good UI is rejected as being for sissies and not worth the effort. Hacking is a social activity, and hackers naturally like to make stuff for other hackers. Hackers tend to be the kind of person who has a lot of patience for tedious bullshit, or they would have thrown up their hands in despair long before becoming a hacker. And so you often hear people defend poor UI with talk of "investing in tools" and "if <UI annoyance> is enough to stop you, you don't have the patience for <activity> anyway". Which is possibly true! But it's a gatekeeping self-fulfilling prophecy.
The trouble is, by the time you're expert enough to write software, you've long since forgotten what good UI even looks like:
"I liken starting one's computing career with Unix, say as a undergraduate, to being born in East Africa. It is intolerably hot, your body is covered with lice and flies, you are malnourished and you suffer from numerous curable diseases. But, as far as young East Africans can tell, this is simply the natural condition and they live within it. By the time they find out differently, it is too late. They already think that the writing of shell scripts is a natural act." — Ken Pier, Xerox PARC
"you'll have fashionable and functional technology - but at the cost of freedom"
We have to accept that if users only choose something "that just works" or it works better than the Free alternative then they are not choosing Freedom.
Of course reading the above doesn't in any way mean that Free software shouldn't try to have good design, UI and UX, just that Free software will always lose if that's the main criteria to choose from. And there's a danger of knowing that this war could never be won that it might not be worth fighting. This also needs to be accepted and acknowledged - we have to fight the war but change the terms.
Simply look at any HN thread about Free software or alternative services and you will find the majority of users right here basically saying "well I support Freedom in theory but this non free thing is simply nicer to use".
Free software gives people freedom to have what they want but figuring out what you want and setting it up takes effort. Many people are like dogs they don't think freedom is worth the effort if they can be kept by a master that feeds them regularly.
I don’t think tacking “cool stuff” onto free software is the answer, I would argue education is.
Much like how we educate kids on the dangers of false advertising we should educate them on the dangers of non-free software.
I keep reading this argument here. Does no one here use Windows 10? What kind of drugs would you have to be smoking to believe that Windows 8 or 10 looks "cool"? Sure, MacOSX looks "cool", I'll give it that (it doesn't work that great though), but Windows is far and away more widely-used than MacOSX, and is basically the standard-bearer for "commercial software" when we're talking about UI/UX, and it's really ugly.
Don't be fooled - those systems do not recognize you as ultimate master.
The only part in all this which is a problem is Apple.
So it is about Apple.
"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos!" --Homer Simpson
*but not so differently that it challenges an authoritarian government who is scared by ideas
That didn’t exactly last. And China is a much more important market now than it was then. I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for a bunch of gazillion dollar companies to decide to favor principles over revenue anytime soon.
These companies are, at the minimum, complicit in literal child slavery in the production of their chocolate. [1] This gets a piece run in the mainstream news once every couple of years or so. People express shock and awe, vow to boycott the companies, come up with some neat slogans or hashtags and all that. A few days after the next outrageous news piece comes up, it's a distant memory. And that's over something that's like comic book villain black and white bad, or in other words that there is going to be nothing but quite strong derision for that situation.
Hershey and Nestle are showing record breaking stock prices. Mars is private, but it's safe to assume the same.
The same is true of most topics now a days. The vast majority of activism is not driven by individual initiative, but by media attention. That means when the media spotlight fades, so does interest in the topic. In this particular case, the revelation of PRISM [2] (of which Apple, Google, and all major US tech providers are a part of) reshaped my entire perspective of the world and of these companies. Ask yourself why these companies would participate in such a program. For many, it's now just a distant memory - and you even have people now arguing that PRISM couldn't have been that bad. After all, the media isn't even talking about it anymore.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...
Sure you can, any company that doesn't have dictatorial control of what software runs on devices they manufacture would not be in this situation in the first place.
The app is banned from being on the Apple App Store but it never actually made it to the App Store and so was not actually removed from users. Users couldn't have used it before.
Their application has been rejected (a few times it appears?). The latest rejection carried that notice
Wait...doesn't Waze do this too?
I’m going to wait for judgement on Apple’s actions here until I have more information.
Apple could still have a regulated app store to protect the masses (who will never venture outside of the app store), but still allow users to install their own software if they really need it.
At least no one can deny that the inability to prevent users from loading their own software causes a lack of freedom. If someone wants to accept authoritarianism in the name of making it harder for clueless people to install malware then that's a trade-off they can make, but they shouldn't pretend to be pro-freedom/pro-user/pro-privacy.
Is that good cause to create a separate brand or subsidiary so the reputation damage of having to comply with this stuff (you know they got nudged) doesn't hit home on the US brand?
Just seems like you're going to have a rough time if you're attempting to service both markets under the same brand...
When Google first acquiesced to China they made a mistake and set a bad precedent. They should have rather focused their China business on building search engine and tools that would work around China's firewall. I don't think there is an obligated to adhere to laws when those laws conflict with human rights.
From a practical perspective, however, that would cede what little voice the American companies have in the process to the Chinese government who would replace them with local lapdogs controlled by political allies.
The result would be software where censorship wasn't a bug, it is a feature...
Making it a walled garden was his idea.
At least their 1984 commercial was cool, too bad they don't grasp what it meant anymore.
It looks like they were asked by US regulators to sell it off due to privacy concerns: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grindr-m-a-beijingkunlun/...
It should NOT be up to apple to decide stuff like this.
I for one like my fire department and police.
Sure, the government fucks up a lot of times, but at least in a democratic society I get to vote while in a "small government" society the power which would be wielded by government (and thus by the people, at least in theory) will be wielded completely by unelected powerful entities not accountable to the people, aka corporations and a few of the rich.
You may be a bit young to remember this but it was once possible to install any software on hardware you owned without permission from the manufacturer.
I hope they will enjoy all their rich Chinese customers.
It's not on F-Droid, but it has a perfectly usable webapp. https://hkmap.live/
Having a central authority that dictates what software you can and can't use is bad for user freedom.
And Apple has completely shit the bed in this regard. Google has handled it so much more beautifully.
Mods: title is misleading. The article explicitly says that they don't know if there was Chinese pressure to remove the app.
Edit: title is now fixed.
Your comment would be far more useful to the discussion if you would provide some evidence to back this or at least evidence to support the claim that the CCP does this generally to tech companies or foreign companies.
Acting like a revolutionary, counter culture company is one thing. Actually sticking it's neck out and doing something important is something completely different.
Part of the reason I can't stand apple. At least Microsoft acts like a lame computer company without sloughing on layers of pretentious BS.
This may be more a reflection on the what flex the residing government provides for a company in a given country rather than the companies appetite to stand up for their opinion though.
How likely is it that everything Apple sells in China is backdoored as mandated by the CCP?
- Tim Cooke
yes?
Whats genuinely harmful is shoulder shrugging "not my problem" attitudes.
That said, these single-vendor proprietary mobile platforms are all dumpster fires so it may be time to start developing a free software alternative.
iMessage is end-to-end encrypted.
No, you'd put the app dev on the hook. Validating the truth of all statements in every app is not Apple's job and never was.