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."
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.
.... however, you can install apps from outside the Play Store on Android.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
Alliterative Acronyms Are Always Awful, Avoid And Abstain As Appropriate
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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!
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.
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.