[simonh]

Indeed, I'm fed up with people criticising Apple because it refuses to instruct it's employees to criminalise themselves. Nobody expects any other companies to do this. It's bizzare to me how distorted a moral framework can be that people blame a company for obeying bad laws, as if breaking laws and criminalising employees was an acceptable and moral way to run a business.

Sure a company can fight governments in court, if that option is available, but if it isn't or if that approach runs out, that's the end of the line. At the end of the day it's the governments and laws that need to change.

[vetinari]

> people criticising Apple because it refuses to instruct it's employees to criminalise themselves.

That's not what they criticize.

They criticize Apple because Apple positioned itself to be the sole actor capable of enforcing such a bad laws. That they do it, surprised nobody.

In this case, if they were not capable of destroying Telegram on iOS platform, their request would have no teeth and even the governments would not ask Apple to do it in the first place.

[simonh]

This really hasn't got anything to do with App Store exclusivity. They have a business model that's widely used and has been perfectly legal and established for many decades before they adopted it. This happens to make them vulnerable to certain forms of regulatory control. That's a government and regulatory issue, not a business issue.

[brink]

This.

After Belarus, I thought Apple would have learned it's lesson and might loosen it's so-called "security" a bit and allow 3rd party apps/app stores on their phones, but nope; they went full steam ahead into their M1 chips with forced code signing in ARM, demonstrating that they learned nothing.

Apple positioning itself as the sole proprietor of what can and cannot run on their machines will only get worse as censorship becomes normalized.