I don't follow how talking about it on earnings calls makes it "rent seeking". The App Store cut has only gone down since it was launched (for subscriptions after a year).

https://didgoogleshutdown.com/

Also can any mods tell me why all my comments are dead?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17719607

I can't get enough of the Apple-Facebook beef. Also kind of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of move from a security perspective.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/qualcomm-suffers-setback-in-ant...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/apple-not-...

Macs could then be cheaper and better than the competition (or significantly more profitable).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18322012

Points: 53

# Comments: 25

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18321400

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Uhhh

It's your prerogative if you want to continue to insist they're being hypocrites. I don't need Tim Cook to be a saint, I'm happy with the practical wins they've managed to maintain.

>Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China?

As much as Apple/Cook may believe privacy is a human right, and have seemingly extracted some important concessions regarding their products, they aren't going to shoot themselves in the head so everyone can feel good about Apple publicly standing up to the CPC. That's a job for governments (the recent efforts by the Trump administration to reset the relationship with China is a good example).

In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1].

From Apple's filing [2]:

>Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5.

and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]:

>Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.

>Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.

>It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.

>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China.

You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have.

So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised.

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook

[2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1...

[3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...

[4] https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244

I thought they might do it when Bud Tribble, Apple's privacy czar, testified in Congress at the hearing about privacy [2]. He was mostly non-committal until about the time when someone asked if California's law should be preempted, and he answered 'yes' but only if the law is strong enough, so I kind of had a feeling that Apple would at least advocate for it in a minor way. Now it makes sense why he was so non-committal, they were saving it for Tim Cook.

This is a full-on endorsement of GDPR in the best possible forum for this, a keynote speech at a conference for data privacy regulators. This is more than I could have hoped for. Crucially, this removes any possibility of a united front as the ad-tech lobbying machine kicks into gear.

I don't know if this was already planned or if it was my email, but I'm ecstatic either way.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

[2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?451963-1/google-apple-amazon-t...

It's a coincidence that John Perry Barlow died at the height of all this, but I think it's extremely symbolic that governments are asserting their power just as technolibertarianism's radical cleric passed away.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285369

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I find it extremely hard to believe that an ad business that depends on scale and a long tail of videos, would ever just limit it to videos produced by big companies.

I'm sure they'll make do even if it passes, because they literally have no choice.

When you go on eBay to buy a used Macbook, you can be reasonably sure that what you're buying has had "complete repairs" with original parts (if it was repaired at all). Buyers can be sure that the computer they bought didn't just have a pin bent back, but has some other unresolved problem that will lead to a failure later on. That increases demand in the used market and gets better prices for sellers.