They couldn't compete in China because they're an advertising company. With the many restrictions and access to their information the Chinese government demanded, they'd have no business left.
Tim Cook can't really pressure the Chinese government. To demonstrate that, check out two cities in the iOS 8.1 Clock app: Taipei, the capital of democratic Taiwan, and Lhasa, capital of Chinese-occupied Tibet. Taipei has no country. Lhasa is listed as Chinese. Corporate Apple cares not that repressive China has occupied Tibet and would like to occupy Taiwan, as well as crush what democracy remains in Hong Kong. Apple has no moral high ground on which to stand when it complains about what are probably government-funded intrusions into iCloud-China's security. Apple is a toothless and gutless mouse. It can't intimidate an increasingly aggressive Chinese tiger.
That's a real stretch. That makes as much sense as saying that since I pay federal incomes taxes that I have no moral high ground to complain about NSA spying. And because I don't march into the Oval Office and insist that more be done about it I'm a toothless and gutless mouse. You get that despite being a hugely successful company Apple has far less influence than a multinational like an energy company or a bank, right? Apple needs China much more than China needs Apple. And it's not Cook's job to "fix" China, just to protect the interests of Apple's customers, investors, employees, etc. Call that timidity if you like; I call it pragmatism or just reality.
If you read the article you linked, Google in no way, shape, or form "quit China altogether."
Quote:
After threatening to quit China over cyberattacks and legally required self-censorship, Google announced early Tuesday Beijing time that its Chinese search engine, google.cn, would automatically redirect queries to its service in Hong Kong, where Google is not legally required to censor searches.
The shift did not mean, however, that Chinese were suddenly allowed unfettered access to everything on the Internet. Chinese government Web filters – collectively known as the Great Firewall – automatically weed out anything considered pornographic or politically sensitive. The move, in effect, shifts the responsibility for censoring from Google to the communist government.
and
Quote:
Google's move, however, marks only a partial retreat. It's leaving behind a research and sales division. Its map services and a free, advertiser-supported music portal still have their servers in the mainland, and its Gmail e-mail service remains available too.
I read that as Google relocated some servers as a symbolic or PR gesture that has no practical impact and didn't cost them a dime. On the other hand, Apple relies on China for 90%? of it's manufacturing. There is nothing comparable here. It's hard for me to see any reasonable "Apple should have done what Google did" angle here.
Oh please, don't be so naive. I have been traveling to China for 15 years, and just moved back after living there for over 5 years. Here is no moral compass in China, with the government or people. Just about everyone is trying to game the system and cheat to get ahead. The fact that all the major industries are State Owned Enterprises makes all their activities government sponsored by default.
So, you stayed for 5 years and didn't meet a single person with moral compass? Damn, you've been hanging out with the wrong crowd..
I read that as Google relocated some servers as a symbolic or PR gesture that has no practical impact and didn't cost them a dime. On the other hand, Apple relies on China for 90%? of it's manufacturing. There is nothing comparable here. It's hard for me to see any reasonable "Apple should have done what Google did" angle here.
Google services are frequently blocked in China nowadays, so what may have started as a "partial retreat" has been effectively made into a complete retreat by the gov't censors.
Google services are frequently blocked in China nowadays, so what may have started as a "partial retreat" has been effectively made into a complete retreat by the gov't censors.
I think you want a criticism that the Chinese government does not fully admit. I can not think of any right out of my mind.
I am in US. Because of internet location should not be an issue except in several countries. China does censor a lot of information. This is annoying if I go to China. But I can understand why it does so. China is under a lot of criticism because of the one party system. But Chinese government goal at present is growing GDP. China although the second largest GDP in the world but its per capita GDP is actually below 80th place in the world. As I said yesterday majority of people want a good job. But to grow GDP you need a stable and peaceful society. And to maintain stable and peaceful and fair society is the single responsibility of all governments. Toward this goal, I can understand why Chinese government is doing many things its being criticized for.
A chief philosophical difference between eastern and western worldviews is that eastern cultures value collective good over the individual ("collectivism"), whereas western cultures prioritize the rights and freedom of the individual over society ("classic liberalism"). The goals you applaud the CCP for are aligned with the philosophy of collectivism. In western societies, which value individual rights and liberty, the efforts by the CCP to persecute individuals or minority groups for dissent is looked upon as draconian and vile. But I can understand it in terms of the eastern philosophy of promoting a "peaceful" society. If you want to understand the western view better, read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. You don't have to accept it, but you should at least understand it, rather than go on a rhetorical rant against the western press.
A chief philosophical difference between eastern and western worldviews is that eastern cultures value collective good over the individual ("collectivism"), whereas western cultures prioritize the rights and freedom of the individual over society ("classic liberalism"). The goals you applaud the CCP for are aligned with the philosophy of collectivism. In western societies, which value individual rights and liberty, the efforts by the CCP to persecute individuals or minority groups for dissent is looked upon as draconian and vile. But I can understand it in terms of the eastern philosophy of promoting a "peaceful" society. If you want to understand the western view better, read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. You don't have to accept it, but you should at least understand it, rather than go on a rhetorical rant against the western press.
Your observation of collectivism is correct. Your reason of philosophy is superficial. The real reason is the difference between Asians and Europeans. The Chinese is a weak race due to smaller statue. In the beginning of Chinese civilization, the land is sparsely populated. There are far more wild animals than human beings. Many Chinese are simply too small to fight with tigers and wolves. So they live together and follow a few leaders that are above normal sizes. After Chinese civilizations are established, they encounter foreigners in the north that are stronger. The Middle Kingdom fell repeatedly to foreigners.
The Europeans are bigger. Many Europeans can kill another person by hand easily. The Kings are aware of this. Thus European kings do not kill their people easily as old Chinese kings always do. Therefore when western civilization start to develop individualism are customarily praised.
Do you notice that in Hong Kong police do not carry heavy weapons while in US police do? Because in US many police have been killer by the outlaws pretty easily.
Modern civilization may have changed this a little. Still an Asian playing tennis, soccer, basketball, etc are still far more disadvantageous than the Whites.
I think those Hong Kong protesters are too young that they don't understand this difference between the west and east. So they blindly pursue western democracy.
Interestingly, in iOS highlighting and the pressing the "Speak" button will yield spoken Chinese... Would be neat if there was also a "Translate and Speak" button...
I may be pretty good on Mac but I am lame at using iOS ... so please explain how to do that. I sent myself an email with the same Chinese text and cannot figure how to do that on my iPad. The only speak button seems to asks me to dictate it doesn't read.
Your observation of collectivism is correct. Your reason of philosophy is superficial. The real reason is the difference between Asians and Europeans. The Chinese is a weak race due to smaller statue. In the beginning of Chinese civilization, the land is sparsely populated. There are far more wild animals than human beings. Many Chinese are simply too small to fight with tigers and wolves. So they live together and follow a few leaders that are above normal sizes. After Chinese civilizations are established, they encounter foreigners in the north that are stronger. The Middle Kingdom fell repeatedly to foreigners.
The Europeans are bigger. Many Europeans can kill another person by hand easily. The Kings are aware of this. Thus European kings do not kill their people easily as old Chinese kings always do. Therefore when western civilization start to develop individualism are customarily praised.
Do you notice that in Hong Kong police do not carry heavy weapons while in US police do? Because in US many police have been killer by the outlaws pretty easily.
Modern civilization may have changed this a little. Still an Asian playing tennis, soccer, basketball, etc are still far more disadvantageous than the Whites.
I think those Hong Kong protesters are too young that they don't understand this difference between the west and east. So they blindly pursue western democracy.
FWIW Microsoft's own Bing was also ignoring user settings for "Do Not Track". Earlier this year Yahoo rannouncedthey will ignore it from now on. Do Not track is not mandated by law and is widely ignored by thousands of advertisers, websites and data trackers. If they aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request? For show.
"Nadim Kobeissi, security researcher, describes the Do Not Track standard of the W3C as dangerous. 'In fact, Google's search engine, as well as Microsoft's (Bing), both ignore the Do Not Track header even though both companies helped implement this feature into their web browsers. Yahoo Search also ignored Do Not Track requests. Some websites will politely inform you, however, of the fact that your Do Not Track request has been ignored, and explain that this has been done in order to preserve their advertising revenue. But not all websites, by a long shot, do this"
FWIW it doesn't make it right when user settings are ignored but it is what it is.
FWIW Microsoft's own Bing was also ignoring user settings for "Do Not Track". Yahoo recently said they will ignore it from now on. Do Not track is not mandated by law and is widely ignored by thousands of advertisers, websites and data trackers. If they aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request? For show.
I think this was before do not track. Why fine them then ($17 million)? I think they circumvented "block third party" users settings without the knowledge of the user but I'm pretty sure you knew this already. Why would Google pay 17 million for not doing anything that was wrong?
I think this was before do not track. Why fine them then?
The fine was not for bypassing settings. that was OK. They got dinged for improperly stating that Safari users didn't need to do anything else to avoid tracking which the FTC deemed misleading. So how did the FTC arrive at that conclusion? Because it was misleading. Less charitable readers might call it dishonest.
But bypassing settings in and of itself wasn't an issue for enforcement agencies. There was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to respect the user wishes, unfortunately in my opinion.
The fine was not for bypassing settings. that was OK. They got dinged for improperly stating that Safari users didn't need to do anything else to avoid tracking which the FTC deemed misleading. So how did the FTC arrive at that conclusion? Because it was misleading. Less charitable readers might call it dishonest.
But bypassing settings in and of itself wasn't an issue for enforcement agencies.
The first paragraph of the story:
Google was recently caught bypassing user privacy settings on Apple's browser, Safari, and also on Microsoft's Internet Explorer. But Google claims that it was just trying to get its +1 buttons to work on Safari, and that Internet Explorer's cookie policy was "widely non-operational."
The first paragraph of the story: Google was recently caught bypassing user privacy settings on Apple's browser, Safari, and also on Microsoft's Internet Explorer. But Google claims that it was just trying to get its +1 buttons to work on Safari, and that Internet Explorer's cookie policy was "widely non-operational."
Look at the FTC ruling itself. Ignoring user settings had nothing to do with the fine. That came because Google offered faulty advice on how to avoid ad tracking for Safari users Because of sloppy reporting and click-bait headlines a lot of readers here and elsewhere got bad info.
Look at the FTC ruling itself. Ignoring user settings had nothing to do with the fine. Because of sloppy reporting and click-bait headlines a lot of readers here and elsewhere got bad info.
Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain. Because of the particular operation of the Safari browser, that initial temporary cookie opened the door to all cookies from the DoubleClick domain, including the Google advertising tracking cookie that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers.
The FTC charged that Google’s misrepresentations violated a settlement it reached with the agency in October 2011, which barred Google from – among other things – misrepresenting the extent to which consumers can exercise control over the collection of their information.
Comments
Are we talking about the same Google?
They couldn't compete in China because they're an advertising company. With the many restrictions and access to their information the Chinese government demanded, they'd have no business left.
Try harder. Maybe make something up.
How much gold can one person carry?
Tim Cook can't really pressure the Chinese government. To demonstrate that, check out two cities in the iOS 8.1 Clock app: Taipei, the capital of democratic Taiwan, and Lhasa, capital of Chinese-occupied Tibet. Taipei has no country. Lhasa is listed as Chinese. Corporate Apple cares not that repressive China has occupied Tibet and would like to occupy Taiwan, as well as crush what democracy remains in Hong Kong. Apple has no moral high ground on which to stand when it complains about what are probably government-funded intrusions into iCloud-China's security. Apple is a toothless and gutless mouse. It can't intimidate an increasingly aggressive Chinese tiger.
That's a real stretch. That makes as much sense as saying that since I pay federal incomes taxes that I have no moral high ground to complain about NSA spying. And because I don't march into the Oval Office and insist that more be done about it I'm a toothless and gutless mouse. You get that despite being a hugely successful company Apple has far less influence than a multinational like an energy company or a bank, right? Apple needs China much more than China needs Apple. And it's not Cook's job to "fix" China, just to protect the interests of Apple's customers, investors, employees, etc. Call that timidity if you like; I call it pragmatism or just reality.
Google quit China altogether a few years ago after some hacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/google-china-news-googles_n_509550.html
If you read the article you linked, Google in no way, shape, or form "quit China altogether."
After threatening to quit China over cyberattacks and legally required self-censorship, Google announced early Tuesday Beijing time that its Chinese search engine, google.cn, would automatically redirect queries to its service in Hong Kong, where Google is not legally required to censor searches.
The shift did not mean, however, that Chinese were suddenly allowed unfettered access to everything on the Internet. Chinese government Web filters – collectively known as the Great Firewall – automatically weed out anything considered pornographic or politically sensitive. The move, in effect, shifts the responsibility for censoring from Google to the communist government.
and
I read that as Google relocated some servers as a symbolic or PR gesture that has no practical impact and didn't cost them a dime. On the other hand, Apple relies on China for 90%? of it's manufacturing. There is nothing comparable here. It's hard for me to see any reasonable "Apple should have done what Google did" angle here.
Oh please, don't be so naive. I have been traveling to China for 15 years, and just moved back after living there for over 5 years. Here is no moral compass in China, with the government or people. Just about everyone is trying to game the system and cheat to get ahead. The fact that all the major industries are State Owned Enterprises makes all their activities government sponsored by default.
I read that as Google relocated some servers as a symbolic or PR gesture that has no practical impact and didn't cost them a dime. On the other hand, Apple relies on China for 90%? of it's manufacturing. There is nothing comparable here. It's hard for me to see any reasonable "Apple should have done what Google did" angle here.
Google services are frequently blocked in China nowadays, so what may have started as a "partial retreat" has been effectively made into a complete retreat by the gov't censors.
Google services are frequently blocked in China nowadays, so what may have started as a "partial retreat" has been effectively made into a complete retreat by the gov't censors.
Fair enough, but that wasn't Google's intent.
A chief philosophical difference between eastern and western worldviews is that eastern cultures value collective good over the individual ("collectivism"), whereas western cultures prioritize the rights and freedom of the individual over society ("classic liberalism"). The goals you applaud the CCP for are aligned with the philosophy of collectivism. In western societies, which value individual rights and liberty, the efforts by the CCP to persecute individuals or minority groups for dissent is looked upon as draconian and vile. But I can understand it in terms of the eastern philosophy of promoting a "peaceful" society. If you want to understand the western view better, read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. You don't have to accept it, but you should at least understand it, rather than go on a rhetorical rant against the western press.
A chief philosophical difference between eastern and western worldviews is that eastern cultures value collective good over the individual ("collectivism"), whereas western cultures prioritize the rights and freedom of the individual over society ("classic liberalism"). The goals you applaud the CCP for are aligned with the philosophy of collectivism. In western societies, which value individual rights and liberty, the efforts by the CCP to persecute individuals or minority groups for dissent is looked upon as draconian and vile. But I can understand it in terms of the eastern philosophy of promoting a "peaceful" society. If you want to understand the western view better, read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. You don't have to accept it, but you should at least understand it, rather than go on a rhetorical rant against the western press.
Your observation of collectivism is correct. Your reason of philosophy is superficial. The real reason is the difference between Asians and Europeans. The Chinese is a weak race due to smaller statue. In the beginning of Chinese civilization, the land is sparsely populated. There are far more wild animals than human beings. Many Chinese are simply too small to fight with tigers and wolves. So they live together and follow a few leaders that are above normal sizes. After Chinese civilizations are established, they encounter foreigners in the north that are stronger. The Middle Kingdom fell repeatedly to foreigners.
The Europeans are bigger. Many Europeans can kill another person by hand easily. The Kings are aware of this. Thus European kings do not kill their people easily as old Chinese kings always do. Therefore when western civilization start to develop individualism are customarily praised.
Do you notice that in Hong Kong police do not carry heavy weapons while in US police do? Because in US many police have been killer by the outlaws pretty easily.
Modern civilization may have changed this a little. Still an Asian playing tennis, soccer, basketball, etc are still far more disadvantageous than the Whites.
I think those Hong Kong protesters are too young that they don't understand this difference between the west and east. So they blindly pursue western democracy.
I may be pretty good on Mac but I am lame at using iOS ... so please explain how to do that. I sent myself an email with the same Chinese text and cannot figure how to do that on my iPad. The only speak button seems to asks me to dictate it doesn't read.
Are you smoking something?
Try harder. Maybe make something up.
How about this for your "ethical" company.
http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Caught+Bypassing+Safari+Internet+Explorer+Privacy+Setting+Claims+It+Did+Nothing+Wrong/article24048.htm
FWIW Microsoft's own Bing was also ignoring user settings for "Do Not Track". Earlier this year Yahoo rannouncedthey will ignore it from now on. Do Not track is not mandated by law and is widely ignored by thousands of advertisers, websites and data trackers. If they aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request? For show.
"Nadim Kobeissi, security researcher, describes the Do Not Track standard of the W3C as dangerous. 'In fact, Google's search engine, as well as Microsoft's (Bing), both ignore the Do Not Track header even though both companies helped implement this feature into their web browsers. Yahoo Search also ignored Do Not Track requests. Some websites will politely inform you, however, of the fact that your Do Not Track request has been ignored, and explain that this has been done in order to preserve their advertising revenue. But not all websites, by a long shot, do this"
FWIW it doesn't make it right when user settings are ignored but it is what it is.
FWIW Microsoft's own Bing was also ignoring user settings for "Do Not Track". Yahoo recently said they will ignore it from now on. Do Not track is not mandated by law and is widely ignored by thousands of advertisers, websites and data trackers. If they aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request? For show.
I think this was before do not track. Why fine them then ($17 million)? I think they circumvented "block third party" users settings without the knowledge of the user but I'm pretty sure you knew this already. Why would Google pay 17 million for not doing anything that was wrong?
The fine was not for bypassing settings. that was OK. They got dinged for improperly stating that Safari users didn't need to do anything else to avoid tracking which the FTC deemed misleading. So how did the FTC arrive at that conclusion? Because it was misleading. Less charitable readers might call it dishonest.
But bypassing settings in and of itself wasn't an issue for enforcement agencies. There was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to respect the user wishes, unfortunately in my opinion.
The fine was not for bypassing settings. that was OK. They got dinged for improperly stating that Safari users didn't need to do anything else to avoid tracking which the FTC deemed misleading. So how did the FTC arrive at that conclusion? Because it was misleading. Less charitable readers might call it dishonest.
But bypassing settings in and of itself wasn't an issue for enforcement agencies.
The first paragraph of the story:
Google was recently caught bypassing user privacy settings on Apple's browser, Safari, and also on Microsoft's Internet Explorer. But Google claims that it was just trying to get its +1 buttons to work on Safari, and that Internet Explorer's cookie policy was "widely non-operational."
Look at the FTC ruling itself. Ignoring user settings had nothing to do with the fine. That came because Google offered faulty advice on how to avoid ad tracking for Safari users Because of sloppy reporting and click-bait headlines a lot of readers here and elsewhere got bad info.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented
Look at the FTC ruling itself. Ignoring user settings had nothing to do with the fine. Because of sloppy reporting and click-bait headlines a lot of readers here and elsewhere got bad info.
Nope wrong again. (from FTC.gov) (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented) it was $22.5 million Google paid.
Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain. Because of the particular operation of the Safari browser, that initial temporary cookie opened the door to all cookies from the DoubleClick domain, including the Google advertising tracking cookie that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers.
The FTC charged that Google’s misrepresentations violated a settlement it reached with the agency in October 2011, which barred Google from – among other things – misrepresenting the extent to which consumers can exercise control over the collection of their information.