back
21 comments
Apple is entirely, completely, totally dependent upon Chinese manufacturing to continue existing as we know it.

They assemble a tiny fraction of iPhones in India and computers in Texas, but the vast, vast majority of Apple's manufacturing is in China, carried out by Chinese citizens, subject to Chinese law (and control, and surveillance).

In a certain sense, Apple is a wholly Chinese operation. Apple's brain organ might be in Cupertino, but its hands and limbs are 100% Chinese.

Essentially, Apple has to do exactly what China wants, at all times, for the entirety of the foreseeable future.

Apple has censored VPN and protest apps in the Chinese App Store. Apple has censored the Taiwanese flag emoji, and cooperates in the censorship for the News app, and maintains their (effectively unencrypted, i.e. non-e2e) iCloud servers for Chinese users inside of China (where the CCP can monitor everything on them - same as they do in the US for US users so that the USG can monitor everything on them via FAA702).

There's nothing they won't do, simply because they have to.

When Apple says they won't compromise user privacy, what they mean is that they won't do it unless you pay them enough.
It's either follow China's rules or get kicked out of China. Even if the CCP is inherently evil, staying in the country gives Apple more leverage. The other option is to completely walk away from the bargaining table and gain zero dollars in profit.
Inherently evil?

We are talking about a nation state. In the context of nation states, exactly what is inherently evil about China?

The cost of globalism, is companies are incentivised to go into different markets and cultures to continue their growth. The alternative to companies following local laws and customs, is colonialism… unless you want to wind back globalism…

I'm not saying the nation of China or even the CCP is inherently evil, I'm just referencing this extreme viewpoint for the sake of making an argument.
The parent was using a rhetorical device, but I'll take the bait all the same.

If your country is committing a genocide, black bagging people for making accusations of sexual assault and cracking down on your free press, you may be a bit mustache twirling level of evil.

How does it give Apple more leverage? What leverage do they have?
By doing business in China they have access to the largest nation in the world. This would give them a leg up on Google and other brands that are unwilling to play the China game.
It looks like this news article goes into more depth: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...
> It looks like this news article goes into more depth: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...

>> Interviews and internal Apple documents provide a behind-the-scenes look at how the company made concessions to Beijing and won key legal exemptions. CEO Tim Cook personally lobbied officials over threats that would have hobbled its devices and services. His interventions paved the way for Apple’s unparalleled success in the country.

Is this related to the similar stuff the NY Times reported on in May?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...:

> Internal Apple documents reviewed by The New York Times, interviews with 17 current and former Apple employees and four security experts, and new filings made in a court case in the United States last week provide rare insight into the compromises Mr. Cook has made to do business in China. They offer an extensive inside look — many aspects of which have never been reported before — at how Apple has given in to escalating demands from the Chinese authorities.

Putting two and two together, it I'm guessing this is a story is about Tim Cook pledging Apple will spend billions to develop the Chinese economy, probably while simultaneously claiming it couldn't spend similar money to develop the US economy or manufacturing capacity.

The Information hard-walls its articles so they're not on topic here, unfortunately.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

While I understand and agree with the rule, it's funny that the banned hard-walled article goes into more depth than the Reuters article that's allowed.
That's what happens when good content is hardwalled.

I wouldn't say the Reuters article is allowed, exactly. At present it contains no information beyond the title, so I've downweighted it. That doesn't mean we're about to ban Reuters.

This version seems to have a bit more information:

https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-china-idCAKBN2IM1HH

> The five-year agreement was made when Cook made visits to China in 2016 to quash a host of regulatory action against the company, the report said, citing interviews and internal Apple documents.

> Cook lobbied Chinese officials, who believed the company was not contributing enough to the local economy, and signed the agreement with a Chinese government agency, making concessions to Beijing and winning key legal exemptions, the report added.

> Some of Apple’s investment in China would go toward building new retail stores, research and development centers and renewable energy projects, the report said, citing the agreement....

> As part of the agreement, Apple promised to use more components from Chinese suppliers in its devices, sign deals with Chinese software firms, collaborate on technology with Chinese universities and directly invest in Chinese tech companies, the Information report said.

It looks like it was published two minutes after the one in the OP.

I've noticed Reuters tends to rush stuff out then issue a new articles when they have new information to report. Sometimes it's just a report that some other outlet reported something. I think they do this because they're tailoring their content to financial terminal subscribers, who'd benefit from a bare bones headline that comes a few minutes early, so they can trade on the news.

I saw that article and decided not to post it as it is completely behind a paywall and I couldn't read it first myself.

The other problem is that The Information is quite a SV insiders PR machine usually posting fluff pieces masquerading as news.

The WSJ usually is one of the few adversarial critical media outlets in SV and has broken stories like Theranos etc.

I’m also a bit skeptical of the timing of the article as this “news” is about a contract that, coincidentally, is about to expire:

> If there were no objections from either side, the deal would be automatically be extended for an additional year until May 2022, according to the agreement.

I would imagine they’re currently in negotiations for whatever the next iteration of this agreement will be. Perhaps Mr. Cook is looking for a bit of leverage?

A whopping 64 words. That's a pretty weak "article".
I used to be anti-Apple for all their walled garden policies but I decided I can't win that fight. Instead I just bought their stock with significant % of my money and now I read all Apple related news with pleasure. This means they are not getting kicked out of China and are sure to make even bigger pile of money in coming years as China becomes richer and more Chinese people can afford luxury electronics.

One thing about Apple news is that it's almost always great for Apple's bottom line.

Now do cryptocurrency.
What a strange title. Did Tim Cook sign a deal?

I am sure Apple signed the deal.

> What a strange title. Did Tim Cook sign a deal?

> I am sure Apple signed the deal.

I'm sure it means Tim Cook signed a deal on behalf of Apple, as opposed to some underling with less authority. Which means they can't backtrack by scapegoating an underling if this causes too much controversy for them.