It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.
If Apple weakens crypto for the UK, it affects people in other countries as well. iMessage is not exactly popular in the UK, so it is disproportionately used for transatlantic communication compared to WhatsApp. If Apple complies with the law, they are violating the privacy of users in the US as well.
You say they are not comparable, and then compare them in a way that backs up the point you're trying to argue against. It _is_ two-faced of Apple to give China a pass here, undoubtably in large part due to the massive loss of sales were they not to comply and be removed by the Chinese regime.
> China is a totalitarian regime where even an imperfect freedom is preferable to no freedom at all.
If the Chinese gov't has the keys to unlock "private" conversations, how is this "imperfect freedom" in any way different from WeChat or other state-sanctioned messaging systems?
> The UK is a democratic country which should be upholding the right to privacy.
I mean sure, but Chinese people should have the same rights of privacy as anyone else. It's not suddenly less-bad because their government is totalitarian.
> If Apple weakens crypto for the UK, it affects people in other countries as well. iMessage is not exactly popular in the UK, so it is disproportionately used for transatlantic communication compared to WhatsApp. If Apple complies with the law, they are violating the privacy of users in the US as well.
How is this any different than what Apple currently does when an iMessage user outside China messages someone inside China? My understanding is that it acts precisely as you describe, but I could be wrong. And likewise, from what I understand iMessage is likewise unpopular in China so cross-country communications would potentially be a major source of iMessage activity as well? ( I don't see any statistics on this)
The extent to which Chinese people oppose the government being able to read anyone's conversations is quite different vs. the UK. Unfortunately, it's not likely that this or the Chinese government's behaviour will change any time soon. But in the UK it is an active political question that is still undecided.
And as you said, the size of the market -> how much money they get probably has an influence on Apple's decision to operate in China, even with all the caveats. But it's also not the only factor. If it was, Apple wouldn't consider blocking iMessage/etc for UK customers.
Why does Apple even care about how bad the government is? Either they care about user privacy over money, or they value money over privacy. It is fine if they value any of those as I frankly believe it's not Apple's job to moral police governments.
> If Apple complies with the law, they are violating the privacy of users in the US as well.
As is the case now with US-China communication?
A massive company in a foreign country affecting the laws of your own is anti-democratic.
Democracy doesn't mean privacy.
Democracy is a bit more than just rule of the majority (or sub-majority due to the peculiarities of the UK voting system).
nit: they arent. India is.
China: already a lost cause (before iPhones and messaging existed, in fact).
The UK: a leading western nation.
Let's try to have western countries not be like China? The UK could be a domino... if it falls the authoritarians in other western countries may be emboldened to follow.
The calculation is going to be different in each country, but there is no hypocrisy here.
The Chinese government messing with Chinese servers affect the Chinese market, which makes a lot of money so there is a strong incentive to remain in it. The UK backdooring FaceTime compromises it for the rest of the world and would actually put Apple in jeopardy in other jurisdictions with stronger privacy and data protection laws, for a comparatively minor market. It’d be more significant if the issue was with the EU or the US (both scenarios can realistically happen in the next few years, unfortunately). All they are saying is that they will comply if the regulations are put in place. Also, the British government is known for making noises along these lines before quietly dropping the whole project when it turns out that it’s actually not that simple. Different countries will lead to different risk assessments.
So yeah, there is no inconsistency, it’s just a matter of how you stay on the clear side of the law.
> It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.
A company is not sentient, it does not have a stance. Its policies have no value except when they are decided and enforced by people. It’s dangerous to talk of corporations in terms of ideology, because these things can change and often cash trumps good intentions. In the end all that matters is how much the company and our interests align. The best way to have a company behave over the long term is if it makes sense for it to do so from a business point of view.
Ecosystem features like those are huge contributors to platform retention. And if the cynic in you doesn't believe that, just ask yourself why they burn the money to keep staffing development and maintenance teams for iMessage and FaceTime - they aren't doing it out of kindness right?
In the UK, Facetime maybe. But iMessage isn't used to the level as it is in US. I can't imagine Apple's UK share would take a significant hit due to no iMessage when everyone already uses cross-platform Whatsapp.