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."

Comments

I wonder....

[andreas.hummelbrunne]

How much financial pressure did the chinese regime give Apple? (Fines / Bribe / Loss of Market)

Re: I wonder....

[andy_spoo]

Apple are pretty much control freaks at the best of times. But you expect to be controlled one way or another if you buy in to a closed OS. And the US is just as controlling as China when they demand back doors to be included in security products to bypass encryption to spy on your data. If you think your in anyway living in a free country, no matter where you live, , then you must be high on something.

Ai acan't athink aof amore a-words

[Anonymous Coward]

Author's alliterative application attempt an annoying actuality.

Re:Ai acan't athink aof amore a-words

[Sockatume]

Actually aren't all alliterative articles an amazing achievement? After all, adding additional "As" always advances adversity.

Re:Ai acan't athink aof amore a-words

[TWiTfan]

Appreciate, as always, Apple's asshole attitude.

Clickbait

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apple likes censorship

[Wonko the Sane]

Your subject line appears to contain an error. You misspelled, "All US tech companies (except Lavabit) are whores who think nothing of selling out themselves and the users who trust them to every repressive regime on the planet."

Re:Google removed all apps from Google Play China

[IamTheRealMike]

.... however, you can install apps from outside the Play Store on Android.

There you go

[jones_supa]

You can only blame yourself for choosing to be part of the Apple walled garden.

Re:if you don't like it

[nomadic]

"If you don't like that, consider the alternatives. No, let me correct that, the alternative. "NO IPHONE IN CHINA.""

That's a better alternative.

Re:Corporations are not allowed BY LAW to have mor

[Sarten-X]

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.