This whole idea of conflating a closed system like Apple has created with authoritarianism is silly. If anything authoritarianism is the UK trying to force Apple to open up (so they exploit it to monitor their citizens).
Apple created a product, not just the iPhone but a whole ecosystem that’s supposed to help the user feel secure. There’s isn’t the only product out there and as long as they’re not preventing new competitors, everyone needs to back off.
They're not conflating them, they are pointing out that the closedness of the system and the control it gives Apple will be a useful tool to authoritarians who can force Apple to exert their power in certain ways.
Everyone who is not a public service is just "making a product", but when your product is actually half of all endpoints for digital services and communication and you insist on not handing control to the users, then you effectively control half the infrastructure.
>They're not conflating them, they are pointing out that the closedness of the system and the control it gives Apple will be a useful tool to authoritarians who can force Apple to exert their power in certain ways.
Oh well that’s not new. Apple has operated in China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
So the idea that they would be hesitant to dip their feet into complying with less savory governments is… laughable.
The current political landscape really isn’t new whatsoever. It might even be less authoritarianism overall than when Apple started in the 80’s.
Apple does everything in their power (as allowed by governments who want to have that power) to protect their customers: forcing Safari, forcing payments through Apple, etc…
Apple created a product, not just the iPhone but a whole ecosystem that’s supposed to help the user feel secure. There’s isn’t the only product out there and as long as they’re not preventing new competitors, everyone needs to back off.