What are they supposed to say? We would go against the local laws of a country if we think they violate human rights?
They could also commit to not enter markets where local law isn't compatible with human rights and "freedom of information and expression". Although the most relevant such country is China and no way are they leaving that market and in addition their whole supply chain is massively dependent on China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
Open phrasing allows creativity with options without revealing any specific plans to CCP.
For example, is healthcare a right? Is food a right? Is education a right? Is there a "right to development"?
The alternative is saying, "we'll stand for this thing that we refuse to define in even vague terms, and as a result it will be impossible for anyone to evaluate whether or not we're succeeding, or even making progress."
If Apple can't determine even in broad terms what is and isn't a rights violation, then their declaration is meaningless. They don't need to decide for everyone, and not everyone needs to agree with them -- it's fine for other people and companies to come up with their own criteria. But Apple has to at least some internal idea of what they mean when they say they stand for something, otherwise it will be impossible for them to build real policies around the declaration.
And some of this honestly isn't that controversial among scholars. As an analogy, if I commit to avoiding stocking unhealthy products in my store, I don't need to know for certain whether or not coffee is healthy in order to say Cadbury Eggs are not -- pretty much everyone agrees on that. In the same way, we don't really need to debate whether or not healthcare is a human right to understand that forced abortions, forced monitoring and 'reeducation', and concentration camps for Uighurs are violations of their human rights.
Firstly, are you saying anyone who happened to be born in China is complicit in e.g. the crimes committed against Uighur population and thus doesn't deserve to be able to legally buy an Apple phone in their country?
Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer?
In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law.
What's the benefit to be had here?
My belief is it's the opposite and I've outlined why I think Apple’s withdrawal would strengthen the regime in my comment above.
Apple probably came to China to expand their market, had enough lawyers to navigate the muddy bureaucracy, CCP could block them regardless but decided to let them open shops and profit from taxes for now. Many Chinese would buy Apple products overseas in HK or Taiwan anyway; CCP is powerless to stop it and would not mind a share of the sales.
CCP may be blind to Western values brought in by Apple, or discount their influence, or tolerate them for now because it is economically lucrative.
I am not saying everyone in China is complicit in the Chinese government's human rights abuses. Purchasing a specific product from a specific company is not a right.
>Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer?
>In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law.
I don't expect it to improve the situation, nor do I believe it's Apple's job to improve China. Apple's job is to have consistent beliefs about human rights if they're going to pretend to care about them.
>What's the benefit to be had here?
The benefit is Apple puts their money where their mouth is. Saying they care about human rights and then cooperating with a serial abuser renders their policy irrelevant.
What are we supposed to say? They can claim to stand up for human rights and freedom of information and expression while kowtowing to China?
But it's even worse to do that and claim that you are upholding the human rights.
What they should do is either: be honest and say that they comply with local laws of a country even if they think they violate human rights; or don't violate human rights.
Apple's in a tough spot, but the iPhone is one of a few remaining viable choices that isn't dominated by the PRC and why roll Apple for that? What's the plan if Apple pulls out?