Apple to start sales of devices going to Iran after US sanctions lifted

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It was announced on Tuesday that Apple will begin selling products to customers planning on taking the devices into Iran, with the decision being a direct result of a push from the Obama administration to loosen sanctions on the country.

iphone


According to The Wall Street Journal, the lifting of certain electronic device export bans stems from a U.S. initiative to stymie the heavy-handed Iranian government by getting high-tech products to protestors.

As for Apple, a spokeswoman skirted the politics, saying "We?ve been told by the U.S. government that most Apple products are covered by regulatory changes announced by the Treasury Department.? The unnamed representative was referring to the Treasury's decision to lift certain restrictions on communications equipment sales. ?As a result, Apple is no longer banned from selling Macs and iOS devices to customers who plan to bring or send those products to Iran,? she said.

While not specifically cited as an instigator in public protest, Apple's iPhone, iPad and Mac computers may help aid protestors trying to disrupt the Iranian government's attempts to slow the free flow of information in and out of the country.

A senior U.S. government official told the WSJ in May that the easing of device sales restriction was at least in part a response to Iran's crackdown on protestors. With the new rules, U.S. companies can export and sell communications devices to private citizens in Iran, but not the government.

?There?s been an increasing trend in their efforts in new and ever-more-complex and villainous ways to crack down on the free flow of information using sophisticated methods, and this is a response to their efforts,? the official said.

In July of 2012, a report claimed that, despite the sanctions in power at the time, Iranians were able to purchase Apple products being piped in via a vast black market.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Stops the black market of Apple products to Iran, at least. Rather, some of it.


     


    Wait, why'd we lift that, anyway?

  • Reply 2 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    Stops the black market of Apple products to Iran, at least. Rather, some of it.

    Wait, why'd we lift that, anyway?

    Meanwhile, 90 Miles off the coast of Key West ..... :no:
  • Reply 3 of 19
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,193member
    Is this why stock is down $15 today?

  • Reply 4 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Is this why stock is down $15 today?

    Syria ...
  • Reply 5 of 19
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Syria ...


     


    Syria, schmyria. I rather think that if the president had actually meant what he said and done what he meant things might be a touch different. No one wants war, but no one should promise to stop it and then renege.

  • Reply 6 of 19


    So... placing a GPS tracking device in the hand of every protester makes sense because... ??


     


    Does the reach of the Iranian government fall short of their domestic telecoms?

  • Reply 7 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    Sorry on iPad and missed the quote button, this @ Tallest


    It's a no win situation. Whoever the US President was or from whatever party I doubt anyone would have done or said anything diffently. I hope you are right that no one wants war. It seems to me neither side fighting is exactly going to be a good democratic, non sectarian, western friendly entity. Neither pose a threat to the USA in the strictest sence either. So I hope we keep the heck out of it but you can't expect any US leader not to have made warning noises and threats. Had it been Romney he would have and the Dems would be calling him all the names under the sun as the GOP is now. US politics is now a zero sum game.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    I contacted my congress house representative a couple months ago to express my objection to the US getting involved in Syria. I got a nice letter back thanking me for my communication however it was stated that the government cannot stand by and let another 100,000 innocent civilians die so they are considering their options.


     


    I say it is impossible to prevent more casualties of war in that region. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been fighting for at least a 1000 years. What makes the US think they can stop it. Not possible. I say the US should stay out of it, chemical weapons or not, and just let them keep killing each other if that is what they want. If the US gets involved, both opposing sides will turn their attack to the US as well as each other. It is a lose lose proposition. I'm sorry that people are dying but better them than our US soldiers. I really don't care what happens over there . We should just get all our people out and let it implode. Armageddon, here we go.

  • Reply 9 of 19
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    It's a no win situation.


     


    No, you're absolutely right; it is. Really, we should have just stayed out of it entirely. How would we have felt in our own Civil War had the British and/or French helped the CSA? 


     


    … Well, we would have come back and torn them a new one, gaining Canada and St. Pierre & Miquelon in the process, but that's beside the point.






    US politics is now a zero sum game.



     


    Shame.

  • Reply 10 of 19
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,491member


    This doesn't say that Apple will be selling in Iran, only that they can sell to people who are planning to take the devices to or ship to Iran.   So before this change, how did Apple know whether or not someone was going to take the device to Iran?    It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference.


     


    ----


    As for Syria, it's a no-win situation for Obama and it would have been a no-win situation for any Republican president.   The U.S. will be blamed if we don't go in and we'll be blamed if we do.    If we support the rebels (and the rebels don't even support each other), that could lead to an even more radical government that will attack us later, just as happened in Afghanistan.   Did we not learn anything from supplying weapons and training to Bin Laden to fight the Russians?


     


    Having said that, I think we're going to launch a few missiles on Syrian government military operations, but I think that's as far as we'll go.


     


    We're facing the same thing in Egypt.   Both factions are blaming us for the troubles there.


     


    We don't really need much Mideast oil anymore.   We should just get out of the region, except when we're aware of specific terrorism threats.  Sometimes, both choices are evils and there are not lesser evils.   Every battle we fight there creates more potential terrorists. 

  • Reply 11 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    Syria, schmyria. I rather think that if the president had actually meant what he said and done what he meant things might be a touch different. No one wants war, but no one should promise to stop it and then renege.

    No, you're absolutely right; it is. Really, we should have just stayed out of it entirely. How would we have felt in our own Civil War had the British and/or French helped the CSA? 

    … Well, we would have come back and torn them a new one, gaining Canada and St. Pierre 7 Miquelon in the process, but that's beside the point.

    Shame.

    You'd have wanted Canada? ;)

    It really is a shame and the irony is, that in such a game, the supporters of both teams are moving ever wider apart.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    zoetmb wrote: »
    This doesn't say that Apple will be selling in Iran, only that they can sell to people who are planning to take the devices to or ship to Iran.   So before this change, how did Apple know whether or not someone was going to take the device to Iran?    It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference.

    ----
    As for Syria, it's a no-win situation for Obama and it would have been a no-win situation for any Republican president.   The U.S. will be blamed if we don't go in and we'll be blamed if we do.    If we support the rebels (and the rebels don't even support each other), that could lead to an even more radical government that will attack us later, just as happened in Afghanistan.   Did we not learn anything from supplying weapons and training to Bin Laden to fight the Russians?

    Having said that, I think we're going to launch a few missiles on Syrian government military operations, but I think that's as far as we'll go.

    We're facing the same thing in Egypt.   Both factions are blaming us for the troubles there.

    We don't really need much Mideast oil anymore.   We should just get out of the region, except when we're aware of specific terrorism threats.  Sometimes, both choices are evils and there are not lesser evils.   Every battle we fight there creates more potential terrorists. 

    Wise words.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    You'd have wanted Canada? image


     


    Well, sure. Still do; though now not unless a province (or the whole thing) votes democratically to join. Back then it was all moose and tundra.

  • Reply 14 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,454member
    It's changed? Ssshhh ... I'm just baiting my Canadian friends who come to Florida as much they are able.

    Maybe should offer them in! :). Australasia too, in my days there I think close to a majority of Brits would have loved to have become the 51st State rather than join with Europe. That probably changed after Iraq.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    Better than Eric Schmidt going to North Korea and a few months later that country announcing its first "home grown" smartphone, the Arirang, using--you guessed it. Android.

    http://www.fastcompany.com/3015809/fast-feed/north-koreas-home-grown-android-phone-is-incredibly-underwhelming
  • Reply 16 of 19

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Well, sure. Still do; though now not unless a province (or the whole thing) votes democratically to join. Back then it was all moose and tundra.



     


    You forgot to include big brown butt hurt bears and mosquitos with a zest for your blood that no state-side mosquito can hold a candle to...

  • Reply 17 of 19


    Iran's been on the naughty list since November 1979. If it wasn't for the black market the most recent computers they would have would be Apple II computers. 

  • Reply 18 of 19
    dnd0psdnd0ps Posts: 253member


    Great News for Ayatollah Khomeini of course, now he gets his retina MBP quality pr0n, and an iPad for the Comics and Novels if he might be so inclined. (Salman Rushdie is a quite a good author) 

  • Reply 19 of 19
    zoetmb wrote: »
    This doesn't say that Apple will be selling in Iran, only that they can sell to people who are planning to take the devices to or ship to Iran.   So before this change, how did Apple know whether or not someone was going to take the device to Iran?    It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference.

    ----
    As for Syria, it's a no-win situation for Obama and it would have been a no-win situation for any Republican president.   The U.S. will be blamed if we don't go in and we'll be blamed if we do.    If we support the rebels (and the rebels don't even support each other), that could lead to an even more radical government that will attack us later, just as happened in Afghanistan.   Did we not learn anything from supplying weapons and training to Bin Laden to fight the Russians?

    Having said that, I think we're going to launch a few missiles on Syrian government military operations, but I think that's as far as we'll go.

    We're facing the same thing in Egypt.   Both factions are blaming us for the troubles there.

    We don't really need much Mideast oil anymore.   We should just get out of the region, except when we're aware of specific terrorism threats.  Sometimes, both choices are evils and there are not lesser evils.   Every battle we fight there creates more potential terrorists. 

    I guess it comes down to how much we need stable oil prices and how much we want to defend Israel
Sign In or Register to comment.