What responsibilities does Apple have regarding removing apps according to the desires of governments? Specifically, China.
As we've seen, Apple has shown it's willingness to agree with the Chinese government's wishes several times. First by not allowing users of it's Chinese app store to download VPNs, then taking Skype off the Mainland China app store, as well as handing over control of Chinese iCloud operations to a Chinese firm, and also by removing apps with call kit in them from the Chinese app store.
Now, we should also note that Apple makes quite a bit of money from China. According to Apple's latest earnings call [PDF] for Q1 2018, they made $17.956 billion from China. So, this strategy seems to be working.
Discussion Questions
In what ways are Apple accommodating the Chinese government a necessity?
In this case, or others, when should Apple take into consideration the desires of their customers over their investors?
What problems can be had from accommodating China, but not being so accommodating to other governments?
What can other companies learn from Apple's dealing with the Chinese government?
All of them. Apple's operating in China after all, they are legally required to comply with everything the Chinese government requires them to do. Otherwise, they'd have to remove themselves from doing business in China.
This isn't really a case of investors over customers, it's customers vs government, and unfortunately there isn't really a choice here. They could refuse to comply, but then the government will simply ban Apple products, and the customers won't be very happy either since they no longer have the option to buy Apple products at all. If you are Chinese, and you want to circumvent the authoritarian government, your option is the same as in all other parts; using free and opensource software that can't be easily blocked or forced to comply with the government's demands. Companies are a single point of failure.
The problem is that conceding to one government is seen as a risk that it's willing to concede to even those in freer countries. Personally, I disagree; for all of their faults, Apple has shown a continuing commitment to user's privacy, and they wouldn't be doing this in China if the Chinese government was forcing them. That's the nature of doing business in authoritarian countries, and it's precisely why we need to always keep the pressure on our governments to prevent them from ever moving in that direction.
I don't think there's really much to learn here. If I were a tech company, I'd probably not officially do business in China, and make sure I have no presence in their jurisdiction, but instead sell them in a country very close by and let the black market carry them across the border. The Chinese have shown themselves to be pretty crafty at overcoming the censorship, for a company with as much brand recognition as Apple, there'd definitely be enough demand to sustain a black market, and again, so long as it's not in China, Apple can even negotiate and supply them directly. It would heavily bite into their profit margin vs doing it legitimately though, as black marketers would add their own markups and it would add a hurdle for an ordinary consumer to purchase one.
Sorry, without the context that I deleted from the post, the question didn't mean what I wanted it to. Anyway, I meant to ask should the priorities of the investors (that is to make money) overrule any concerns that customers may have?
Personally, I don't think so. I think that everyone, business or individual, has a duty to serve ethically, and not just make a profit. This used to be the norm in the US 50 years ago, where the expectation of a company was not just to make money, but to provide for their employees and their customers. I think that should be the societal expectation and I personally do my best to do business with companies that behave as ethically as possible. However, it is the norm at the moment at least for a company to pursue maximum profit over everything that isn't blatantly illegal, so from Apple's strategic outlook, they do prioritize their income over anything their customers say. And being fair to Apple, they have a long history of ignoring their customer's critiscms, and it's worked out very well for them sometimes; for example, their decision to omit floppy drives on the original iMac to save space and reduce cost wound up also pushing their software developing community to embrace CDs only. You do kind of sign up for that if you buy an Apple product, and it's not necessarily a bad thing, just depends on your preferences, wallet size, and if the upsides to their product outweigh the downsides to you.
Legally or morally? Different answers. That is to say, legally, it depends on if Apple wants to to do business in China. Morally, businesses have no morals. In my opinion, that why we regulate them.
What do the other markets see when Apple does it's business in China?
So, what happens if a government were to regulate Apple's ability to serve certain markets?