Slashdot Mirror
Activists Angry After Apple Axes Anti-Firewall App
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that Chinese web users are criticizing Apple after the company pulled a free iPhone app called OpenDoor, which enables users to bypass firewalls and access restricted internet sites. The developers of OpenDoor — who wish to remain anonymous — told Radio Netherlands that Apple removed the app because it 'includes content that is illegal in China.' 'It is unclear to us how a simple browser app could include illegal contents, since it's the user's own choosing of what websites to view,' say the developers. 'Using the same definition, wouldn't all browser apps, including Apple's own Safari and Google's Chrome, include illegal contents?' Chinese internet users were disappointed by the move by Apple. Zhou Shuguang, a prominent Chinese blogger and citizen journalist, told U.S.-based Radio Free Asia that Apple had taken away one of the tools which internet users in China relied on to circumvent the country's great firewall. 'Apple is determined to have a share of the huge cake which is the Chinese internet market. Without strict self-censorship, it cannot enter the Chinese market,' says one Chinese user disappointed by the move by Apple."
How much financial pressure did the chinese regime give Apple? (Fines / Bribe / Loss of Market)
Author's alliterative application attempt an annoying actuality.
But we already knew that
So, Apple removed an app that allows users to bypass the Chinese walled garden from their devices, that are restricted to Apple's walled garden?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
So there.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
They could just put it in another market or sideload it, oh wait.
First, the app doesn't vanish from people's phones. If you have it, you still have it.
Second, it's illegal because China has laws that make circumventing their country's firewall illegal. Thus, illegal.
Third, blame China. Apple is respecting the laws of a nation. You don't like those laws - fine - but it's not Apple's fault for respecting those laws. Further, you knew they would respect those laws because their developer guidelines are crystal clear and readily available to anyone who wants to develop for the platform. You knew what was going on when you went into the project.
I know blaming Apple helps generate page views and gets your story in front of people where just blaming China won't but, sorry - clickbait is clickbait. Apple enforced rules that they've had in place for a long while and you knew they would. Deal with it.
Apple is trying to comply with the laws of China. They have censorship this not a surprise. What business is it of non-Chinese?
This does not concern you or your rights. It's a Chinese issue, so mind your own business and stay out of China's internal affairs.
This is what appens when you trust apps for anything more than silly things like Candy Crush Saga.
You end up getting apped.
The jackbooted thugs in charge declared it illegal.
Also, the Chinese government.
For what your country obliges them to do!
As app store only can lead to anit trust issues as well a MASS move to Linux.
Unless "outrage" threatens revenue as much as the Chinese gov's displeasure with the app, it's not worth considering to them.
'It is unclear to us how a simple browser app could include illegal contents, since it's the user's own choosing of what websites to view,' say the developers. 'Using the same definition, wouldn't all browser apps, including Apple's own Safari and Google's Chrome, include illegal contents?'
By that same logic, wouldn't any object be considered a deadly weapon since you can kill someone with just about anything? I wonder how many of the illogical idiots would want to live in a world where everything was held up to their own standards. They can't be that stupid as to not understand the concept of intent. Maybe they are. If that's the case than it's just all the more reason to ignore them.
You can only blame yourself for choosing to be part of the Apple walled garden.
the only reason China allows the iPhone in at all is that Apple has agreed to pull apps from that market that the government doesn't like. Bypassing The Great Firewall of China lands dead-center in that description. When doing business in China, you don't negotiate terms with Beijing. You take note of their terms, and you follow them, or you GTFO.
If you don't like that, consider the alternatives. No, let me correct that, the alternative. "NO IPHONE IN CHINA."
either way, you're not getting that app. At least this way you can still get the iPhone. (and Apple can still sell it there) It's a win-win. (Apple and the users in China) Some want it to be a win-win-win, but there's simply no way for those users to "win" in that way. Suggesting that Apple should fight this and get the iPhone pulled out of China is a cross between short-sighted and selfish. Apple is understandably going to say "no" when you try to take their ball and go home.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If they weren't angry they wouldn't be much of an activist group, would they?
Apple obeys Chinese law by not allowing their citizens to bypass censorship , and it obeys US law by providing private information on the Chinese users to the US authorities :)
This is not a signature.
I'll have some of whatever your smoking.
to sell in it. They're not a monopoly so they don't need to excuse their decisions to not offer a product.
If you disagree with their policies, don't buy Apple.
Saying China's draconian laws are Apple's fault is really reaching hard for some Apple hate click bait.
Apple can't make value judgements on Chinese internet laws because that would lead to fewer sales. Corporations do not have morals. The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law. A corporation can thus not make moral judgements that act against maximizing shareholder value, any CEO who allowed that is opening themselves up to a huge class action lawsuit.
Even companies that do things that might seem non-self-serving (say, Starbucks and their fair trade coffee and/or climate change pro-activeness), have to actually in fact be doing so out of self interest (example again, Starbucks CEO Howard Shutlz has gone on the record many times saying that Starbucks actions on the environment are not out of charity; in fact it is because the long-term view of the company is that climate change will damage coffee crops worldwide and this hurt their bottom line significantly).
This is the plain honest truth. If you don't like it, *then get the system changed*. Don't blame Apple or Tim Cook, they actually are not allowed to operate any other way.
Just sayin.. If they bought an iphone and expected to be able to circumvent crap on their device... c'mon. This is why people who want more control over their stuff use something else.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
May I assume than it can be downloaded from somewhere and installed on a jail broken phone? Or is Apple's DRM that good?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Shouldn't these people be directing their ire at their own repressive government?
OMG Apple is now entirely responsible for all the bad stuff in China! IN THE WORLD!
Corporations are not allowed BY LAW to have morals
That's not really true... it all depends on their charter. The Red Cross is a corporation created by congress under Title 36, for example. However, as a practical matter most publicly held C corporations do prioritize stockholder value. The fact is the people who control a corporation can do whatever they want with it, so long as they do not defraud anyone.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
http://youtu.be/2zfqw8nhUwA
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Corporations are an excuse for individual people to behave badly; it's a way for them to do thing they would be ashamed of (except for the sociopaths who are incapable of shame) and defend it via the, "I was just following orders" defense.
Sure, a C corporation can in the end do whatever they want. But again, not without opening themselves up to shareholder class action lawsuits.
Actually, you are wrong. Completely wrong. Understandable, it's a common misconception.
The rebuttal is an extremely famous one: Henry Ford. He paid his employees too well, the shareholders of Ford Motor Corp. were upset and sued him since it was eating into dividends, it went through the courts, and HE (Ford, the man) WON in spectacular fashion.
'Illegal' means someone or some entity decided you should not be allowed to. In this case, the government of China has decided their citizens may not access certain sites. Apple has no doubt been told they cannot permit apps to be provided that bypass those restrictions, or they will be punished for doing so.
Predictable.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Apple is trying to comply with the laws of China. They have censorship this not a surprise. What business is it of non-Chinese?
This does not concern you or your rights. It's a Chinese issue, so mind your own business and stay out of China's internal affairs.
Tyranny and caving in to tyranny and doing business with tyrants IS my business because I make it so. The diminishment of the human rights of one (let alone 1+ billion) diminishes all.
Don't like it? Get stuffed.
The reason Henry Ford paid his people better was so that they would have the money to buy his cars, thus increasing sales, thus higher value. That was his argument and it's why the lawsuit was defeated in the first place.
The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law.
No, it isn't, and no, they're not, and you're getting the terms mixed up, anyway.
Starting with terminology, "shareholder value" is a different concept from "shareholder profit". While profit is monetary, value includes progress toward long-term goals, market share, and industry stability (as in Starbucks' case), as well as profit... sometimes. Companies can be incorporated in many different ways, and though the most common is certainly for-profit, there are certainly a good many companies that are non-profit. In the case of nonprofits, their "shareholder value" is more often measured by progress toward their mission.
Over the past few decades, "maximizing shareholder value" has become a general guideline for how to run a business, but it is not law. Rather, the generally-applicable laws only require that companies be managed according to their charter. There is also no stipulation (except a judgement after a lawsuit by angry shareholders) as to how closely the charter must be followed. If a for-profit company's CEO decides, for instance, to protest China's firewall by not selling there, and the shareholders agree, then that's perfectly fine. If a for-profit CEO decides to support charities, and some shareholders do sue over it, a judge may very well still side with the CEO, since charities make for very good advertising.
Generally speaking, for-profit corporations operate for profits, but not always, and not all companies are for-profit. The idea that all corporations must maximize profits is simply incorrect.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Well... a CEO might resign and go somewhere else instead of doing something s/he doesn't like. They didn't so they preferred the alternative.
Recently Lavabit shutdown instead of doing something they didn't like. I don't know anything about US corporate law but maybe even public companies, even Apple, can decide to shutdown at any time for any reason. It could be as easy as buying back the company and closing it. Stockholders get their money back and don't have anything to complain about. Is there any expert out there?
That said, would I expect any CEO of world class corporations to pay attention to morals? I don't. They won't be there, stabbed in the back by some competing manager long time ago.
There is no law that says a corporation or its CEO must maximise shareholder value / profits. Stop repeating this falsehood, or post the releveant law.
"this supposed imperative to “maximize” a company’s share price has no foundation in history or in law. Nor is there any empirical evidence that it makes the economy or the society better off. What began in the 1970s and ’80s as a useful corrective to self-satisfied managerial mediocrity has become a corrupting, self-interested dogma peddled by finance professors, money managers and over-compensated corporate executives."
"There are no statutes that put the shareholder at the top of the corporate priority list. In most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Cornell University law professor Lynn Stout has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share price. She hasn’t found one.
Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders. The fiduciary duty, in fact, is owed simply to the corporation, which is owned by no one, just as you and I are owned by no one — we are all “persons” in the eyes of the law. Shareholders, however, have a contractual claim to the “residual value” of the corporation once all its other obligations have been satisfied — and even then directors are given wide latitude to make whatever use of that residual value they choose, as long they’re not stealing it for themselves." [1]
TL;DR: You're wrong, and so is everyone else who spouts the same non-sense.
[1]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders (2nd answer)
Content that is legal in USA, may very well be illegal in Russia (Apple does business in both countries). What now?
Any reason will do, as long as its plausibility is proportional to how far it lies outside the charter.
The reason $COMPANY funded $CHARITY was for improving public relations, increasing sales.
The reason $COMPANY didn't pay a dividend was to increase investment in $SECTOR, increasing $QUALITY and therefore profits.
The reason $COMPANY hired extra employees during the recession was to take advantage of lower acceptable wages during training, reducing overall expenses.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That was a brutally honest post. If you don't like the law, deal with the lawmakers, not with people obeying the laws.
With itself and others. Anything for money nothing else really matters.
Alliterative Acronyms Are Always Awful, Avoid And Abstain As Appropriate
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Does China make it illegal to sell or possess a device that will let the user "sideload" apps? Apple may have been told by China to take the app of the store (we can only speculate), but by making themselves the gate keepers of what apps a user can install, they give China a one stop shop to dictate the apps a large number of their citizens can use. Apple is not blameless, and while they might not censor so much on speech grounds, them making themselves the gatekeeper of apps is very China-like.
And this is precisely one of the reasons why I cringe when anyone says the government should be run more like a corporation...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Yes! Everyone move to Mint! I mean Ubuntu! No, Xubuntu is best! We only support Red Hat! No way, SUSE is the superior platform! Bullshit, Debian is way better! You all are complete idiots, Gentoo is the only way to live.
As app store only can lead to anit trust issues as well a MASS move to Linux.
Awww, man. They'll seriously be in for it then! Especially when Apple... um... continues to enjoy absurd profit margins as evidenced by the fact that they're still alive despite Android taking chunks out of their business! Then, Apple will REALLY suffer when the super-turbo-hyper-ultra nerd factions out there get a rude awakening to the real world, a world where they're a pathetically small minority and most people just don't really care about their petty issues! That's some serious shit Apple's going to be in THEN!
This never made much sense to me. They're just shareholders, if they don't like what the company is doing they should just divest themselves from it and go somewhere else. Having them exert control over the company seems like a colossally bad idea--they're not the ones who know how the day to day workings of the company are going, why do they get to decide how it is run?
I read the internet for the articles.
The company shouldn't have sold shares if it can't accept direct democracy, they should get investments in other ways. Shares are a special kind of tool for investing in companies. Its a special kind of investment as you do gain some power in the company by purchasing shares.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Apple can't make value judgements on Chinese internet laws because that would lead to fewer sales. Corporations do not have morals. The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law. A corporation can thus not make moral judgements that act against maximizing shareholder value, any CEO who allowed that is opening themselves up to a huge class action lawsuit.
A corporation can do anything, with the right justification. They can do lots of things by pointing out that these things might make money in the short term, but lose money long term - for example immoral behaviour will lose you customers; treating employees badly will lose you good employees, and so on. If the shareholders want to increase profits in the next quarter, the company can just point out that they prefer good profits for the next two decades.
LavaBit wasn't a publicly traded company. THEY can shutdown whenever the investors/owner decides.
Apple can not shut down if the majority of the shareholders disagree with their actions.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Corporations have no morals. But then it is the responsibility of us, the customer, to reward (with our wallet) corporations/CEOs that are noble, and punish the ones that are evil. For these actions to be successful a great number of customers must behave this way. To get many behaving this way we need to announce/advertise these kind of actions taken by corporations. This is the main purpose of articles like this. So, if by saying that Tim Cook is "evil", we will help, in the long run, to make corporations more charitable and decent, then I am very fine with that
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Stockholder lawsuits are about as effective as shooting ping pong balls at CEOs' armored limos.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/01/do-securities-lawsuits-help-shareholders.html
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
How did they get their signing certificate and developer account if they're anonymous?
Illegal in China = against what the regime wants to allow Apple to run their business in that country. Which part if this is not clear?
As always, an attempt to annihilate all anarchistic apps, and arrogantly administer all an appliance's activities, affirms Apple's antediluvian and authoritarian attitude. Advocating the adoption of Apple apparatus is astoundingly anachronistic.
As much as I don't like to reference pop culture, South Park is an exception. Their recent NSA episode sums this up well. People who knowingly purchase their products have no reason to complain. This especially includes the Chinese, of whom none of contract-signing age should have any doubt the nefarious uses of technology.
I think you'll find that most class action lawsuits involve claims of fraud - mostly in the form of deliberately withholding or manipulating information to artificially boost stock prices. It is very hard to prove that someone was not acting in the best interests of stockholders unless they were stealing or something. An example someone else used her is Starbucks. When the Starbucks CEO is asked to defend the "good" but expensive things that they do, he replies that those actions are in the best interest of the stockholders because it makes the brand more valuable. That is an extremely hard thing to prove or disprove.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Use & Misuse
OpenDoor is designed solely for users to be able to enjoy better stability, security and anonymity while web browsing on their mobile devices. By using OpenDoor, you agree that your use of this application comply with all legal requirements in the location where it is accessed from, and that you will not view any "Prohibited Content" as defined by the local laws. It is the user's obligation to understand and conform to all local laws."
So they were violating their own T&Cs.
Other ways? Like what? Private investors??? Like they don't want to exert even more control than public investors? Once you're big enough your options are pretty limited. Shareholders are typically used to elect the board, which is fine. That's exactly the sort of control a public investor should have, power to choose the proper stewardship for the company so they don't have to personally concern themselves with daily operations at the company. It's when shareholders try to directly tell the CEO what the company should do that I know there is a problem.
I read the internet for the articles.
Thanks. I, too, I'm tired of the line about profit motivations being required by law. It's a bunch of malarkey designed to make greedy, selfish corporations feel justified in screwing over their employees, customers, and citizens of the countries they operate in.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Oh, How I'm looking forward to seeing the further development of State/Corporate relationships. It's so heartening to know the Corporate/State machine is looking after indivdiuals a nd protecting them form themselves. Just think how confused the individual would be. Educating themselves, making choices (some not working and doleing out lessons) What a wondereful future is being provided by the Corporate/State relationship. Get your head out of your clacker people!! Your kids don't have time for you to bugger around!!
Stop buying Apple crap. Problem solved.
The Chinese government is actually slightly less evil than Apple, anyway.
Anytime one of these companies chooses business over freedom, they are just as bad as the governments they help. Their employees should be targeted as the same, in all places on Earth.
I'm pretty sure both of your alternatives are against the developer terms and conditions. The terms and conditions only allow you to load on devices owned and operated by users with a developer account.
How does opendoor works? The home page is a facebook page loaded with garbage contributions, no real information there.
The whole "profit required by law" shtick is but one of the canards continually bruited by certain interests; it's a ploy straight from Goebbels' playbook. Getting enough people to buy in to a false "truth" is a great way to have the people do to themselves what power alone cannot.
Thanks for the good posts.
People who are suprised by this behavior from Apple in 2013 deserve what happens to them.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
As always, Apple is Evil. Because, you know, I'm sure the /. american population wouldn't want international corps to have to bow to US laws regarding things like privacy for US citizens, amiright?
In China, using encryption is illegal unless you give the government the keys.
Now, I don't think that'a a good law. I think it's a horrible law, and a horrible situation, but at the end of the day, Apple can't have apps that violate laws of the countries the iTunes accounts originate in.
Corporations do not have morals.
Incorporating does not give either the employees or the share holders a morality get-out-of-jail-free card. They are every bit as morally responsible as an individual.
Broken corporate law does protect shareholders financially but that's separate issue; it causes broken incentives when shareholders are given reduced risk. The risk doesn't go away; it's just transferred to others the company deals with.
When I want more, that's called ambition. When the other guy wants more, that's greed.
The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law.
In the USA, any law to this effect is of course subject to rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, or reserved to the people under the 10th. I suspect most people would assert rights here asserting a corporate responsibility a) with respect to the communities in which corporations operate, b) with respect to not committing fraud or misusing the legal system (particularly relevant to those misusing the broken patent system), and c) with respect to their employees and retires.