Apple Adopts Tighter Chinese App Store Rules, Closing Foreign App Loophole

[centauratlas]

That’s what’s great about EU. We have 27 countries who don’t want their citizens being spied by others. Especially USA or China.

No back door is required to allow side loading. It’s just freedom of the citizens trumping corporate interests

Yes, the EU wants to retain the ability to spy for themselves - not realizing that once it is available, other countries will use it. And as far as side loading, backdoors are not required, but what I was referring to was the backdoors the EU has proposed for messaging (and much else) see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/...ld-undermine-encryption-and-scan-our-messages

My real point is: governments the world over want power and shouldn't be trusted no matter which one it is.

 

[twolf2919]

Ah yes. Apple defending user and human rights against their respective governments.*

*Unless government money are too lucrative to refuse.

Apple is simply following the laws in a country it does business in. It's not its responsibility to change the laws or defend anything. That's the responsibility of people and governments.

 

[unrigestered]

Free as long as the EU governments have backdoor access to the phones or other devices. For their own good of course. Free to use crypto as long as everything is completely accessible by the state. Free as long as you are not anonymous. No, no censorship at all. No, no plans to be able to impose censorship at will.

Let's face it, there are no (or nearly no) governments worldwide who don't want to control their citizens, spy on their citizens and limit their citizen's freedoms as they see fit. Just ask Snowden, Assange et al.

true... and maybe the guys and gals inside the UK just know a bit more and all they want is just another key for themself too, other than the one the NSA or who knows what other entities already have anyway?

personally, i honestly wouldn't be surprised too much if that was the case, as Apple (along with most other big tech companies) supposedly have been involved in the Prism thingie and the "backlash" from the FBI wasn't truly as energetic as one could expect if they truly lost that much of surveilling power when Apple announced that their online services are completely end to end encrypted

 

[slyronit]

Again, technically wrong. You never needed a VPN to download the apps themselves, just to use them.

 

[unclemax]

You can of course use a browser to do all that outside China.

Don’t worry, the next step is to recommend all users in China to only use “approved” browsers, with censorship built in ofc. Look at how all CCP apologists always say something to the tune of “everyone can use a VPN if they want to”, which begs the question why censorship is needed in the first place if everyone allegedly can circumvent it. The truth is, most people will be too lazy to look for other ways and will just stick with default settings (censorship ON)

 

[twolf2919]

🤪Oh look at that…. If only Apple users had the ability to circumvent the AppStore to install apps. But the AppStore is so secure and safe from any government censorship. Apple would only remove things breaking their terms of service. Pinky promise 🤪

Imagine if side loading was possible how the government would use it to prevent freedom somehow 🤪

How naive. If the government can force a company to eliminate unregistered apps, what makes you think it couldn't force it to also disallow side loading? Besides, Apple never claimed that its AppStore would be safe from government censorship.

 

[klasma]

Yes, the EU wants to retain the ability to spy for themselves - not realizing that once it is available, other countries will use it. And as far as side loading, backdoors are not required, but what I was referring to was the backdoors the EU has proposed for messaging (and much else) see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/...ld-undermine-encryption-and-scan-our-messages

The difference to China is that whether such proposals go through is subject to a democratic process and subject to independent constitutional courts. Plus at the same time, there are also many pushes for privacy-protecting legislation that in contrast forbids such spying.

 

[klasma]

Apple is simply following the laws in a country it does business in. It's not its responsibility to change the laws or defend anything. That's the responsibility of people and governments.

Why shouldn’t companies be held to social and ethical responsibility?

 

[twolf2919]

It wouldn’t be something they could prevent. Just how android phones, macOS,windows, Ubuntu etc etc are fundamentally able to install applications outside of a store or official sources.

They have zero responsibility to shareholders. There’s no law requiring this.

Shareholders are just glorified loan givers.

Sadly, I don't think you're joking - of course China could prevent side-loading! Even side-loading requires two machines with operating systems. And at least one of those machines will be inside of China, so the government can dictate to the maker of that machine and/or operating system what they can/cannot allow on it.

 

[unrigestered]

Why shouldn’t companies be held to social and ethical responsibility?

when you've reached a certain threshold, mundane things like these do not apply to you anymore in any form

 

[avz]

Let's face it, there are no (or nearly no) governments worldwide who don't want to control their citizens, spy on their citizens and limit their citizen's freedoms as they see fit. Just ask Snowden, Assange et al.

You are making it sound like there is a choice involved. There is a reason why there is a difference between a state and a territory(run by whoever is not lazy). Digital sovereignty is an unfortunate extra burden of our current times that one must add to the rest of his statesmanship competencies.

 

[applepotato666]

Free as long as the EU governments have backdoor access to the phones or other devices. For their own good of course. Free to use crypto as long as everything is completely accessible by the state. Free as long as you are not anonymous. No, no censorship at all. No, no plans to be able to impose censorship at will.

Let's face it, there are no (or nearly no) governments worldwide who don't want to control their citizens, spy on their citizens and limit their citizen's freedoms as they see fit. Just ask Snowden, Assange et al.

I’m not saying that isn’t the case, all governments do. I’m saying that as far as recent Apple and EU news are concerned, it’s not about giving customers less control but the opposite. The right to repair and digital markets acts that got passed will give the customer more control.

As far as spying and censorship overall, all governments are wanting to do that and it’s obvious.

 

[twolf2919]

Why shouldn’t companies be held to social and ethical responsibility?

Because it would lead to chaos. Right now, companies exist for one very objective reason: to make a profit. Once subjective things like 'social and ethical responsibility' come into the picture, an international company can't really operate effectively since those norms/views differ from country to country. Even human rights aren't universal - they're really just an evolving viewpoint by citizens based on the stage of their country's development.

 

[applepotato666]

true... and maybe the guys and gals inside the UK just know a bit more and all they want is just another key for themself too, other than the one the NSA or who knows what other entities already have anyway?

personally, i honestly wouldn't be surprised too much if that was the case, as Apple (along with most other big tech companies) supposedly have been involved in the Prism thingie and the "backlash" from the FBI wasn't truly as energetic as one could expect if they truly lost that much of surveilling power when Apple announced that their online services are completely end to end encrypted

It was always fishy and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was always the case.

 

[hagar]

The EU could very well be following suit, given all recent directions they are moving to.

You clearly have no idea what drives the EU. We hate how uptight American companies censor nudity, we look in disbelief how US schools install massive book bans, …

In many EU countries it’s actually illegal to censor stuff (you know, freedom of speech). So, if the EU would impose rules on the App Store it will be because of monopoly and commercial reasons, not censorship.

 

[sw1tcher]

China already blocks the websites of many popular western social media apps....

Apple was said to have been told that the new rules are needed to crack down on online scams, pornography, and the circulation of information that violates China's censorship rules.

Most foreign app operators are unlikely to register with the Chinese government, because doing so would force them to comply with data transfer and censorship requirements.

Time to let iDevice users sideload install apps downloaded off the web like you can on a traditional (Mac, Windows, Linux, etc) computer.

Of course this won't happen because Apple's profits and 78% App Store margins are way more important.

 

[transmaster]

You all need to watch the Youtube Channel China Observer. This is a source of verifiable news and information out of China. You will see that foreign companies are caught between a rock and a hard place. The CCP is holding in country managers hostage over these issues. The new security laws gives a legal framework invented by the CCP to arrest and charge foreign employees with spying, they can jail them for as long as they want with no trial, or access by their companies. Apple and the other of shore companies have pulled all of their offshore company executives out of China. This is one of the reasons why Apple is pulling out of China. They are moving to Vietnam, and India. They are also exploring moving production to Brazil. The CCP can seize their assets, arrest employees, take over manufacturing plants without any warning or appeal. Foxconn is moving out of China, They are very large so it is going to take awhile but they have already put 320,000 people out of work, both directly at Foxconn, and the smaller companies that supply Foxconn with parts and services.

 

[transmaster]

One of the things to check if you want to setup a VPN is check the locations of the VPN's servers. If they have any in China or Hong Kong walk away.

 

[Naraxus]

Such a good boy you are Comrade Cook

 

[klasma]

Because it would lead to chaos. Right now, companies exist for one very objective reason: to make a profit.

I disagree. Companies exist to provide products and services. Of course they should break even or better, but making a profit is not their primary purpose. That’s like saying the purpose of a computer is to draw power. Of course it needs to draw power in order to operate, but drawing power is not its purpose.

Once subjective things like 'social and ethical responsibility' come into the picture, an international company can't really operate effectively since those norms/views differ from country to country. Even human rights aren't universal - they're really just an evolving viewpoint by citizens based on the stage of their country's development.

I don’t see how that implies that we as citizens and as societies still shouldn’t hold companies responsible for their ethical or unethical behavior. A company can certainly decide to value ethics and to act according to ethical principles.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In the US where Apple is incorporated, the Board of Directors of a company most definitely have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. These duties that a BoD owes to shareholders are specified in the statutes of the state that they are organized. And shareholders are most definitely NOT glorified loan givers - they are owners of the company.

There are lots of laws specifying the duty of the board to shareholders and since the board hires and fires management, management has the same duty. In Apple's case, that would be California.

Can you point to any such law?

Section 309 is a provision of the California Corporations Code that states the duties and responsibilities of directors of corporations.

It says that directors must act in good faith, in a manner they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. It also says that directors may be held liable for their actions or omissions that violate these duties, unless they can show that they acted with reasonable care and in good faith, or that they relied on information or advice from qualified experts or officers.

Section 309 implies that directors have to balance the interests of various stakeholders, such as shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, regulators, and the public, who may affect or be affected by the corporation’s activities. However, Section 309 does not specify how directors should balance or prioritize these interests, or what criteria or standards they should use to make such judgments. Therefore, directors may have some discretion and flexibility to exercise their business judgment and to align their decisions and actions with the corporation’s purpose, mission, values, and goals, as well as with the legal, ethical, and social norms and expectations of the society in which they operate.

assuming such as no breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, omission, breach of contract, inadequate consideration, or lack of disclosure. and they never signed any contract that overruled corporate interests.

Good luck finding a lawsuit where shareholders suing the company for not going against their core values, principles and ethics when it was in the shareholders interest.

examples of cases where shareholders have sued corporations for pursuing actions or policies that the shareholders disagreed with or opposed, either on ethical, social, or environmental grounds. Some of these cases are:

• In 2017, a group of shareholders sued Exxon Mobil Corporation for allegedly misleading investors and the public about the risks and impacts of climate change, and for failing to account for the potential costs and liabilities of its fossil fuel operations. The shareholders claimed that Exxon’s actions violated federal securities laws and harmed the company’s long-term value and reputation1.
• In 2016, a shareholder sued Tyson Foods, Inc. for allegedly engaging in animal cruelty and violating federal and state laws and regulations regarding the treatment of chickens. The shareholder claimed that Tyson’s actions exposed the company to legal, regulatory, and reputational risks, and that the board of directors breached its fiduciary duty by failing to oversee and monitor the company’s animal welfare practices2.
• In 2015, a shareholder sued SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. for allegedly deceiving investors and the public about the effects of the documentary film Blackfish on the company’s business and reputation. The film exposed the mistreatment and exploitation of orcas and other marine animals at SeaWorld’s parks. The shareholder claimed that SeaWorld’s actions violated federal securities laws and caused the company’s stock price to drop significantly3.

 

[laptech]

lol @ the comments section. China is not the USA. Their house - their rules. Don’t like it? Don’t do business with them. Period.

Interesting you say that. Trump tried to do that with China over steel imports, Tiktok and Huawie, our house our rules and what did China do? go complaining to anyone that would listen that China is being treated unfairly.

 

[charlesdayton]

🤪Oh look at that…. If only Apple users had the ability to circumvent the AppStore to install apps. But the AppStore is so secure and safe from any government censorship. Apple would only remove things breaking their terms of service. Pinky promise 🤪

Imagine if side loading was possible how the government would use it to prevent freedom somehow 🤪

The websites themselves are blocked at the IP level. So, not much use if the apps were downloaded from somewhere else.

 

[cthompson94]

lol @ the comments section. China is not the USA. Their house - their rules. Don’t like it? Don’t do business with them. Period.

This!! People in this comments section acting like Apple is doing something that no other tech giant doesn't do in the country that they are in. Apple is already slowly moving manufacturing out of China while trying to keep quality control similar which takes time. Apple makes their announcements/features/security in the U.S.A. and obviously in countries that have much more strict rules/laws will obviously not even have these announcements aired or maybe certain parts skipped (not sure as I live in the U.S.). Of course Apple will do what China wants since they want to sell iPhones in China go figure..just like all the people in this forums that want the EU to add the ability to sideload would that not be "bending over backwards to the EU"? what about the universal messenger that is ultimately wanted which would probably mean having a backdoor key..is this not bending the knee? Companies comply across the board to the countries they are in and I don't know why so many are surprised.

 

[JamesHolden]

So is it best to pull out of the country or remain there and be part of the process working towards improving human rights?

Lol. The idea that more economic engagement with an anti-democratic, totalitarian regime is going to improve human rights is total nonsense. Big corporations have been selling this ridiculous and patently false idea for decades...so why is China more authoritarian than ever? By engaging economically with China, the only thing the western world has done is strengthen a country that does not share our values and has no interest in human rights.

Apple (and every other tech company that makes all of their products in China) isn't improving anything. They're just taking advantage of cheap labor while they talk out both sides of their mouth. I get that Apple is a business, but they need to stop pretending they have values and care about human rights issues...when they'll roll over for anyone and use the cop out that they "obey local laws." They're blatant hypocrites. I used to really like them as a company, in addition to liking their products, but I find their hypocritical prattling about rights and values nauseating at this point.

Finally, this is yet another clear example of why the App Store monopoly needs to die. What happens when the US passes some draconian law that violates the rights and privacy of US citizens? We don't need gatekeepers who can be strong-armed by governments into doing their dirty work for them. Just because it hasn't happened (yet) in the US, doesn't mean that it won't. We need only look to China and their relationship with these tech companies to see the obvious problems with allowing one massive corporation to have total control over what users do on their platform. That model is a gift to authoritarian governments and politicians and completely anti-freedom.