Try distributing gambling apps in Europe or apps selling alcohol (when the state has a alcohol monopoly) and you'll see how much freedom there is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Adopts Tighter Chinese App Store Rules, Closing Foreign App Loophole
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Try distributing gambling apps in Europe or apps selling alcohol (when the state has a alcohol monopoly) and you'll see how much freedom there is.
And pirate contes have been tried to be banned on the Ip level by everyone. This is something you can’t enforce.
As long as the technical ability to install unverified and unsigned software exists you can’t stop it.
But as long as the company isn’t actively pours resources to prevent jailbreaking or using of unauthorised apps it will never be stopped.
Just how the ccp will never prevent Windows computers from installing unauthorised software.
Not at all, just how piracy is impossible to remove.
If windows, Mac and android was designed like iOS then yes it would be close to impossible to do anything.
You can bypass China's great IP blocking firewall with a VPN
Gambling apps and selling alcohol is completely legal, so why do you try and make **** up?
Gambling apps=18+
LeoVegas: Online Casino
Du har ett fantastiskt urval slots, live casino-spel och sport i LeoVegas app, hämta appen idag för att börja spela! Gör som miljoner andra spelare, ladda hem den prisbelönade LeoVegas appen. Njut av några spins i våra slots, slå dig ner vid ett bord med live dealers, eller upplev spänningen...
apps.apple.com
Vivino: Buy the Right Wine
Med 65 miljoner användare är Vivino världens största app och marknadsplats för vin, som ger människor överallt möjlighet att njuta av vin till fullo. Vivino ger vinkonsumenter tillgång till opartisk information om vin från en gemenskap av miljontals användare. Hur det fungerar • Ta ett foto...
apps.apple.com
Mustiga middagar
Köp Vinlåda: Mustiga middagar online hos Vinoteket. Kvalitetsviner från hela världen till bra pris med snabb hemleverans. Alltid Nöjd kund-garanti.
vinoteket.se
Or are you saying where you live companies can freely distribute apps targeting kids to purchase alcohol, weed, cigarettes with zero consequences?
P.s I live in Sweden with a state monopoly on alcohol and I can order wine online as shown in the links/pictures.
Back door access is not required, but handing over data is required if a warrant is provided.
This is the same as the founding of the United States. You have privacy unless the courts have a warrant.
Warrants are designed to provide a check and balance on police. But as things move more and more encrypted, laws inherently become harder to enforce.
The EU has some of the strictest “open platform”, “no favoritism”, and privacy protections in the world. In fact, they’re considered the gold standard by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
This is the same as the founding of the United States. You have privacy unless the courts have a warrant.
Warrants are designed to provide a check and balance on police. But as things move more and more encrypted, laws inherently become harder to enforce.
The EU has some of the strictest “open platform”, “no favoritism”, and privacy protections in the world. In fact, they’re considered the gold standard by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Nice suggestion. US and EU and Australia UK should implement licenses that only Chinese companies can’t legally obtain, counter banning those popular Chinese apps out of US app stores and such. They did those to us. Why we can’t just return the favor? It’s not like we don’t know who those Chinese are already.
Those Chinese who knows what they are doing can definitely download those apps, but do they even care? Remember there are services today to help overseas Chinese to essentially vpn BACK TO CHINA to use their so-called “copyrighted” contents.
And anyone believing so is just delusional and blind. I stopped trusting apples claims on those issues a couple years ago.
Reminds me of when Google blocked search results inside China regarding the Tiananmen Square protests, and someone then took Google's slogan "Don't Be Evil" and rearranged it into "Bend To Evil".
I think it’s simply an extension of the fact that governments have the absolute power. Power comes from the ability to lay hands on people and take their stuff, up to and including their lives. That’s why they require executives to be in country in order to have operations there. They want someone to lay their hands on so that their rules are taken seriously regardless of whether they are legal in the US or not.
Legal demands the US makes on Apple have to be complied with as well. It’s just in this case the law sucks and completely exiting China just isn’t an option, especially right now.
So to answer your question, no I don’t think Apple has any more bargaining power with China than anyone else. If Apple starts trying to interfere with Chinese corporate policy, China can interfere more with Apple at every level from manufacturing to apps, as we see here. They just have no leverage.
As for my nickname it’s just a reference to the fact that there is so frequently an analogy to cars when explaining computers. I kind of just slapped it in there when creating an account and didn’t expect to be posting as much as it turns out I do.
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.
While the proposal you mention exists, support for it among the various State Members of the EU varies wildly exactly for that reason.
As example, apparently Spain would be in favour of outright banning any form of e2e encryption, while e.g. Germany considers e2e encryption essential and wants explicit wording in the proposal that the proposal itself would not disrupt e2e encryption technologies.
IMHO it is unlikely that the proposal will receive enough support in its current form, but only time will tell.
While governments shouldn't be trusted in general, it's not true that all of them want power and are willing to sacrifice their citizens' privacy for it.
Are there? Please name some. The fiduciary responsibility to shareholders over customers and workers has been taunted as an urban myth, but I am no lawyer.
Apple is a Delaware corp just like over half of all US companies are. Delaware corporate law states corporations are required to serve the interests of the shareholders because all company executives are "employed" by the shareholders.
Social Responsibility and Enlightened Shareholder Primacy: Views From the Courtroom and Boardroom | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
There is an ongoing debate about the role that publicly traded for-profit business corporations should play in addressing a broad range of environmental, social and/or governance-related concerns.
Outside of Delaware, where the law is explicit, there are case law precedents to establish this hierarchy too such as the famous Dodge vs. Ford Motors case of 1919. The Dodge brothers (yes, THAT Dodge, they were large shareholders in Ford), on behalf of themselves and minority shareholders, sued Henry Ford because he wanted to end shareholder dividends in favor of reinvesting the money back into building more factories and increasing employee pay. Keep in mind Henry Ford was the majority shareholder at the time. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Ford had to keep the shareholder dividend because "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders."
The interesting word in that ruling is "profit" because that's no longer the model for large US corporations. That case is old and things have moved on but the essence of that lawsuit remains true. "Profit for profit's sake" is a typical anti capitalist slogan that gets thrown around but it's no longer accurate, the goal of large corps now is to establish state backed monopoly that stands in perpetuity (e.g Walmart and McDonalds relying on their employees to use government issued food stamps in order to eat in lieu of fair payment). This is essentially a form of socialism. Ironic.
There's no realistic circumstance where a lawsuit between company leadership and the key shareholders results in a win for the company leadership. There are many legal precedents and explicit laws to prove this.
Now close the TikTok loop hole. Just ban it from the App Store, with all the other Meta apps while we’re at it.
This isn’t true or even the legal case.Apple is a Delaware corp just like over half of all US companies are. Delaware corporate law states corporations are required to serve the interests of the shareholders because all company executives are "employed" by the shareholders.
Social Responsibility and Enlightened Shareholder Primacy: Views From the Courtroom and Boardroom | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
There is an ongoing debate about the role that publicly traded for-profit business corporations should play in addressing a broad range of environmental, social and/or governance-related concerns.www.skadden.com
Outside of Delaware, where the law is explicit, there are case law precedents to establish this hierarchy too such as the famous Dodge vs. Ford Motors case of 1919. The Dodge brothers (yes, THAT Dodge, they were large shareholders in Ford), on behalf of themselves and minority shareholders, sued Henry Ford because he wanted to end shareholder dividends in favor of reinvesting the money back into building more factories and increasing employee pay. Keep in mind Henry Ford was the majority shareholder at the time. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Ford had to keep the shareholder dividend because "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders."
The interesting word in that ruling is "profit" because that's no longer the model for large US corporations. That case is old and things have moved on but the essence of that lawsuit remains true. "Profit for profit's sake" is a typical anti capitalist slogan that gets thrown around but it's no longer accurate, the goal of large corps now is to establish state backed monopoly that stands in perpetuity (e.g Walmart and McDonalds relying on their employees to use government issued food stamps in order to eat in lieu of fair payment). This is essentially a form of socialism. Ironic.
There's no realistic circumstance where a lawsuit between company leadership and the key shareholders results in a win for the company leadership. There are many legal precedents and explicit laws to prove this.
Multiple legal cases exist when the shareholders have sued and won BECAUSE they went against the company ethics, goals and mission statement. But close to zero when they are polar opposite because the shareholders don’t like the company goals.
You just need to think for two seconds to show the ludicrous implications and non existent of lawsuits supporting it.
We have a the fictional Apple meat maker company. One day out of pure chance all the shareholders of Apple becomes vegans and strongly adhere to the ideals of PETA.
Apple can argue that the shareholders’ interest is not paramount or superior to the company’s interest, and that the company has the right and the duty to balance the interests of various stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, regulators, and the public.
It is actually happening. Foxconn is moving out. there are pictures of production equipment being loaded on trucks headed for Vietnam. It is going to be a slow process because they have to maintain production. Samsung has moved to Vietnam, as has Canon. There is a long list of companies that has left China they are going the Taiwan, Japan, India, South Korea, and others. What is so bad is in China there is no such thing as unemployment insurance. If you lose your job you are out on the street. So many of these workers are from the countryside and they are forced to return home to the farm where they will be lucky to make $20 dollars a month. Xi Jinping who fancies himself as the new Chairman Mao Zedong is destroying the Chinese economy.
You’re challenging naivety with cynicism, but they’re two sides to the same coin of over-simplification. Caring about issues and running a profitable business isn’t binary, all one or all the other.
The internet doesn’t like nuance, but the world is full of it.
Not sure what you're trying to say in the first part in all honesty. Can you clarify? It sounds like you're saying shareholders have sued the company and won to counteract decisions made by the executive team (CEO, leadership, whatever). If so, that's what I wrote in my first post so I'm not sure what you're getting it. My point is that if a company does something for customers and employees that is to the detriment of shareholder value, the shareholders have a legal precedent to sue and win. In the case of Delaware, this is explicit. You can see many examples of investors booting founders out of startup executive roles when the investors no longer feel like the the founder is maximizing shareholder value -- even if the founder has (on paper) the most number of individual shares.
If you're talking about whether or not this power is absolute, well of course it isn't, which is why corporate law talks about "good faith" dealings and "balancing of stakeholder [not shareholder] interest". If Ford have to deal with a labor union (like they're doing right now with UAW) and negotiate better pay for their workers, is this an example of a corporation doing something outside the interest of majority shareholders? No, because no labor means no cars, no business, and no value for shareholders whatsoever.
As for the Apple meat company example, that's a fictional scenario like you said. On the other hand we have hundreds of real examples of shareholders pressuring companies into decisions that are detrimental to customers and employees but maximize shareholder value. The public company model itself depends on maximizing shareholder value in order to sustain itself. Where are you getting those quotes from? Are there any real examples of what you're suggesting?
Last edited:
I’m summarising Californian law in regards to corporations legal duty towards shareholders.
Maximising shareholder value is a subjective concept and not legally required. Maximising shareholder values in the long therm? Short term? 1 year 100 years?