Apple Articles - NY Times

Discuss world issues and news. Please keep it civil!

Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby highlander » Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:14 pm

Many mostly negative articles (and comments) on Apple and it's manufacturing in China lately in the NY Times. Not in the manufacturing industry but I would assume that Apple's factories in general still much better then the average and if there is better opportunities for workers they can always leave and work else where. Also if conditions/wages gets too high then the factories will just move somewhere else or just automate the plants to cut out the need for so many workers. I think never been a better (or cheaper) time to be a consumer of most products (especially in the US since low tariffs) but the downside is that it's also at least recently has not ever been easier as an average worker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busin ... class.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/busin ... na.html?hp

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... -ieconomy/
User avatar
highlander
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:06 pm

Three comments:

1. iPhone screens are far from scratch-proof. Carry an unprotected iPhone in your pocket with a few quarters for a day or so, and you'll have little scratches on the screen. This "perfect screen" after carrying it in a pocket with keys is BS and hype.

2. The scale of the modern market provides an advantage to countries like China that have low wages, hordes of available workers, and low labour, environmental and safety standards.

3. Every mass-produced product has "blood" built into the costs. There are no perfectly safe factories, anywhere. Apple is particularly vulnerable because of the scale of its production - with ~ 200 million iPhones in the world, there are a lot of factories involved in producing the components and assembling them.

How far should companies like Apple, Nokia, Ericsson, Dell, HP, Intel, etc. go to ensure their suppliers are obeying the laws in their countries? Whose responsibility is it to police employers in China? The answer is quite simple - it is the Chinese government's responsibility. And that's why it isn't happening.
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tylerdurden » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:09 pm

rickettyrabbit wrote:How far should companies like Apple, Nokia, Ericsson, Dell, HP, Intel, etc. go to ensure their suppliers are obeying the laws in their countries? Whose responsibility is it to police employers in China? The answer is quite simple - it is the Chinese government's responsibility. And that's why it isn't happening.


Which, in turn, is one of the reasons manufacturing is so cheap here.
"yea shanghai is a sh*thole but a massive sprawling epic clusterf*ck of a sh*thole that is fun while it lasts.." (ultimatekrang)
User avatar
tylerdurden

Ground Zero

Board Royalty
Board Royalty
 
Posts: 6587
Mood: Happy
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby the_librarian » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:38 pm

rickettyrabbit wrote:How far should companies like Apple, Nokia, Ericsson, Dell, HP, Intel, etc. go to ensure their suppliers are obeying the laws in their countries? Whose responsibility is it to police employers in China? The answer is quite simple - it is the Chinese government's responsibility. And that's why it isn't happening.


International companies like Apple may not be obligated by law but surely they should have accountability for choosing to do business only with suppliers who can adhere to their code of conduct. Maybe I'm being too idealistic but more companies are braving to do business the right way even at the cost of great profit loss in the beginning. If they have not acted even after audit reports of violations, it's because they're too greedy to give up cheap labor. It's shortsightedness in a way. Companies that invest in responsible and ethical ways of doing business get people's trust and build good reputation which lead to long term, sustained returns. Why can't Apple invest on that instead of trying to come up with lame additions to the iphone/ipad every year?
the_librarian
Lurker
Lurker
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby ATP » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:09 pm

We are frequently informed by various commentators that much of industry is driven by the need to make quick returns for stockholders, investors--this is the nature of large, publicly owned companies.

It would likely shock you that the great contemporary push to be seen to be "green" is greatly driven by the desire to make money. It is only by the nature of force or forces that compel & impose their will on industry does it respond. Being "green" is only undertaken for either money or PR purposes. Ethical investment? Ethical investors? Despite the media push, they were marginal when the movement began, and are still so today. Just many more capitalist have changed their spots, and seemingly "talk the talk". It has always been this way.
"Going to Mcdonald's for a salad is like going to a prostitute for a hug."

(reader comment to article illustrating the food giant's "clever PR tactics" that "out-manoeuvre" its critics).
ATP
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:18 am

the_librarian wrote:
rickettyrabbit wrote:How far should companies like Apple, Nokia, Ericsson, Dell, HP, Intel, etc. go to ensure their suppliers are obeying the laws in their countries? Whose responsibility is it to police employers in China? The answer is quite simple - it is the Chinese government's responsibility. And that's why it isn't happening.


International companies like Apple may not be obligated by law but surely they should have accountability for choosing to do business only with suppliers who can adhere to their code of conduct. Maybe I'm being too idealistic but more companies are braving to do business the right way even at the cost of great profit loss in the beginning. If they have not acted even after audit reports of violations, it's because they're too greedy to give up cheap labor. It's shortsightedness in a way. Companies that invest in responsible and ethical ways of doing business get people's trust and build good reputation which lead to long term, sustained returns. Why can't Apple invest on that instead of trying to come up with lame additions to the iphone/ipad every year?


First, every corporation in the US (never mind China) has violations of safety, environmental and labour standards in its US operations. Every one. It is virtually impossible to operate without them. Look closely enough and you'll always find them. And that undoubtedly included Apple's plants when they manufactured in the US.

This is also true of Apple's US suppliers, before and after they moved so much manufacturing offshore.

A company has limited ability to police the operations of its suppliers. Imagine the size of the Apple workforce that would be required if the company were to inspect its suppliers operations to "ensure" compliance with all the requirements of its contracts. It isn't done in the US with American suppliers. If you have a supplier, you have to let them operate their own plants. If you don't, you'll have to replace all the managers with Apple managers. Then where are you?

Shortsighted? Maybe not. The articles suggest that any company gearing up to provide product into a global market hungry for innovation MUST have a supplier like Foxconn so it can mobilize a huge workforce quickly to gear up and down for demand. Without it, companies won't be able to meet demand, and more agile competitors will step in and take the market.

It all comes down to who is really responsible, and whether they're doing their job. The party responsible is, well, the Par-Tee . . . and therein lies the problem.

Business is relentlessly Darwinian. Models that are better adapted to their times and challenges survive and thrive: ones that aren't, wither and die. The real tragedy is that the Chinese way of doing business appears to be better adapted to a world in which people want new-new-new and cheap-cheap-cheap, and they want it now-now-now! This model has taken over the marketplace.

To be self-policing to a higher standard than competitors is to cut one's own throat. That isn't the role of corporations. It is the role of government. If governments won't do it, only labour unions and customers stand between the workers and their exploiters. Customer-driven movements have a history of abject failure, and the unions in China are, like everything else, captive to the Par-Tee.

In the end, either the workers will have to stand up for themselves, or their governments will have to stand up for them. Apple or any other corporation can't do it and still survive.
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby the_librarian » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:10 pm

I wouldn't call self-policing to a higher standard than competitors cutting one's own throat.How about being the leader in the industry?I agree with you that the government is responsible.I'm just saying they're both accountable.The companies can't say that because "they don't know" exactly what's going on they're not responsible.The workers standing up for themselves,I just don't see it happening. They're not empowered and this is not a democracy. What about you and I, the customers. We know better and what are we doing about it? I say we stop using apple. Wait I better check if my BB is made in China too. Hold on, what about my laptop? The clothes on my back? They're all bound to be made by cheap labour and under poor working conditions.I know I have moral obligation to do something but it's too damn incovenient. Just like the company finds it too inconvenient. This is what I hate about discussing current events, I always end up feeling like a hypocrite. :) If I have to think about who should make a change, I have to look at who has the most to gain in this "catch 22" situation.
the_librarian
Lurker
Lurker
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby btb » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:27 pm

flee market takes care of itself

all is well
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
User avatar
btb
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8935
Mood: Cool
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:22 am
Location: JingAn

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby jzzzzzzz » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:32 pm

Offshoring also gives an element of plausable deniability and the ability to share the blame. If employees of the third-party manufacturer start jumping off buildings you can comment that you are pushing the supplier to improve conditions while reminding the public that this supplier also manufacture for most of your competitors.

As an aside, Apple generally get absurdly positive press and it's sometimes hard not to be bemused at the treatment their ex-CEO got compared to many other successful but despised business leaders.
User avatar
jzzzzzzz

Board Royalty
Board Royalty
 
Posts: 6910
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:34 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tihZ_hO » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:17 am

jzzzzzzz wrote:As an aside, Apple generally get absurdly positive press and it's sometimes hard not to be bemused at the treatment their ex-CEO got compared to many other successful but despised business leaders.


haha :lol:

Yup!

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed a further $750m (£479m) to a global fund to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16738888


Meanwhile at Foxconn...

:lol:
Image





You know who you are
User avatar
tihZ_hO

happy

Board Deity
 
Posts: 16206
Mood: Cool
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:43 am

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:16 am

the_librarian wrote:I wouldn't call self-policing to a higher standard than competitors cutting one's own throat.How about being the leader in the industry?


Ha, ha, ha! And how much more would you pay to know that your iPhone was made by a "leader in the industry"? (That's the metaphorical "you", not you personally. I know some people put their money where their mouths are, but depressingly few. Most talk a great line, but in the end, price and bling do the real talking.)

There's also the matter of speed. Apple could control working conditions more effectively if it manufactured in the US in its own plants. But it would have lost the plot a long time ago if it made that decision. One of the advantages of manufacturing in a country with low labour, environmental and safety standards is speed/flexibility. I'm assuming you read the article?

the_librarian wrote:I agree with you that the government is responsible.I'm just saying they're both accountable.The companies can't say that because "they don't know" exactly what's going on they're not responsible.The workers standing up for themselves,I just don't see it happening. They're not empowered and this is not a democracy.


Face it. Apple/HP/Dell/Sony etc. aren't in charge at Foxconn, either. Their influence is limited. They are hiring a CONTRACTOR to do the manufacturing for them. Never hire a dog and then do the barking for it.

the_librarian wrote:What about you and I, the customers. We know better and what are we doing about it? I say we stop using apple. Wait I better check if my BB is made in China too. Hold on, what about my laptop? The clothes on my back? They're all bound to be made by cheap labour and under poor working conditions.I know I have moral obligation to do something but it's too damn incovenient. Just like the company finds it too inconvenient. This is what I hate about discussing current events, I always end up feeling like a hypocrite. :) If I have to think about who should make a change, I have to look at who has the most to gain in this "catch 22" situation.


In the end, if there's no audience, there ain't no show. But I guarantee you that people won't stop buying this stuff simply because somebody died in China. Hell, the Chinese won't stop buying it, either.

There's also the issue of whether Chinese workers really want their global customers saying "we won't buy from China because the conditions don't meet American standards". I personally asked workers in Guangdong at a Chinese factory, through my own (not the company's) interpreter, what they thought about their jobs. They said it was the best job they've ever had, with the best pay and working conditions. The response I got wasn't much different from "please don't kill our golden goose - we prefer this to no jobs at all".

I'm one of the first to flag bad working conditions in Chinese factories, and to try to talk the managers into doing something about it. I tried to sell the owners of one company on letting me redesign their production line because I could see it was dangerous and inefficient. I told them they could get by with only 2/3rds of the workers, produce faster, for less money and with fewer quality problems. It fell on deaf ears even though I spent 30 minutes walking through the plant and describing what I would change, where, to eliminate double handling, redundant steps, redundant labour and safety hazards. It's a very hard sell in China. Many of the managers and even the owners just don't get it. I can see why Apple/HP etc. would have difficulty changing anything. They'd get answers like "OK, we'll fix this", then nothing would be done. There are a million ways to say "NO" in China, and most of them sound like "yes" to western ears.

Check out this article in today's ZD NET.

Apple's supply chain flap: It's really about us
By Larry Dignan | January 27, 2012, 3:04am PST

Summary: Apple is under fire for its supply chain labor, but every tech item—and thing you own—goes through the same manufacturing paces.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has responded to a New York Times report about the working conditions at its Foxconn contract manufacturer as false and offensive.

In a long letter to employees published by 9to5Mac, Cook outlined how Apple cares about workers in its supply chain and takes steps to audit how they are treated. The response comes after a New York Times went into detail about how Apple’s China manufacturing efforts are a) necessary due to U.S. inability to be nimble and b) the cost advantages of making your electronics abroad.


Credit: Associated Press

Apple was the main target of the story, but the Times made a passing mention that there was a tech industry problem. It didn’t go much deeper on the subject. Apple is a much better storyline. I’ve been relatively silent on this Apple supply chain argument because I think the company is being targeted because it’s the big dog on the tech block. In fact, the Apple-Foxconn tale isn’t really just a tech problem. It’s a U.S. problem and it’s a consumer problem that goes well beyond tech.

In other words, Cook has every right to be miffed about the Times report. His company is being singled out.

A few thoughts at a high level:

Apple may be the poster child for manufacturing abroad, but HP also uses Foxconn heavily. Analysts estimate that Apple will be roughly 40 percent of Foxconn’s revenue in 2012. HP is about 25 percent, according to Fubon Research. No one is writing about HP though even though its supply chain report reads just like Apple’s. Every electronic you have on you right now goes through China. The data center that powers the cloud behind those devices were also made by folks stacked in tech dorms in China. The minerals in the battery were mined somewhere. Deep down do you really give a rat’s ass about the working conditions that created those relatively inexpensive devices? Of course not, you’re from a Western economy. And from what I can tell you’re still buying as much tech gear as you can.

This chart from Fubon Research gives you a rough sketch of Hon Hai’s revenue breakdown. Hon Hai is the parent of Foxconn.


See remainder at link.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-su ... ag=nl.e539

Interesting that Apple is being singled out even though many other tech companies have their stuff manufactured by Foxconn. Typical "tall poppy syndrome". And when you look deeper, you're right. It's not just tech products. It's damned near everything. Clothing, cosmetics, appliances, car parts, even food products. Ask Whole Foods, which got into a messy court case last year after it was sued in Florida for misrepresentation of food products that were grown in China using prison labour on polluted land. This story is about a hell of a lot more than Apple, and those pointing at Apple are hypocrites if they aren't acting in accordance with their stated standards.
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby ATP » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:27 am

Let's face it--it is really about the foundation of the capitalist system. Marx talked about this many, many years ago, and we in the present day accept the "march of technological development" as part of the "natural order".

Essentially, & rather simply, the aim is to maximise profits and minimise costs. Generally speaking, with labor representing up to 50% or more of costs, FMCG firms are relentless in efforts to reduce this, and maximise returns. Globalisation, and China's opening up, has simply given them a chance to push this line even further.

These firms have the scale & resources to do this, and will do it out of necessity in the face of competition. We, the lowly consumer, might benefit in a product with a lower price. The alternative is to simply retain production in the home country, with its higher standard of living and costs to match. This would be "doing the right thing", and avoid all the nasty things we read about, but generally it sure as hell would send them to eventual bankruptcy.

Interestingly, one reads of China now losing its competitive advantage, and manufacturing returning to the US. We don't know the full dimensions of this, whether it is but analyst hype or not. But, when it comes to news, good news just ain't as sexy as "bad" news now, is it??-especially when you've got an icon like Apple in your sights, & garnering attention...
"Going to Mcdonald's for a salad is like going to a prostitute for a hug."

(reader comment to article illustrating the food giant's "clever PR tactics" that "out-manoeuvre" its critics).
ATP
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby Shinbone » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:36 pm

Maybe Apple should share its snacks.
“I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics class. Now I don’t.”
“Sounds like the class helped.”
“Well, maybe.”
User avatar
Shinbone
Veejay
Veejay
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:04 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby the_librarian » Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:37 pm

rickettyrabbit wrote:
the_librarian wrote:I wouldn't call self-policing to a higher standard than competitors cutting one's own throat.How about being the leader in the industry?


Ha, ha, ha! And how much more would you pay to know that your iPhone was made by a "leader in the industry"? (That's the metaphorical "you", not you personally. I know some people put their money where their mouths are, but depressingly few. Most talk a great line, but in the end, price and bling do the real talking.)


Well I don't know wabbit, you'll have to tell me first what is the real/actual cost of producing a single apple gadget versus it's selling price. Did prices drop when they moved manufacturing to China? I don't wish to get into a pointless discussion about why it's not going to be the most profit-generating decision etc., I know you're right there. As ATP said it's all about maximizing profit at the least cost possible.
But when I suggest Apple can be the leader in the industry (in the context of doing more than its competitors), I believe it's only a matter of time before their competitors will be pressured to follow and do the same thing. Then that would sort of even out the playing field wouldn't it? As you said there are higher expectations of a tall poppy like Apple, and maybe that's not so bad because such a company can effect a higher degree of influence if they choose to act. Surely if those darn factory managers and owners will be pressured to listen to you if all their foreign clients are demanding the same thing? They wouldn't want to lose their biggest clients.

Oh and they would probably say yes quicker if the companies offered to pay for the improvements proposed. If speedy and diligent laborers are so important then it's a good investment yeah? :wink:
the_librarian
Lurker
Lurker
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tylerdurden » Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:45 pm

iGadget A and iGadget B are functionally identical, but iGadget A, which costs 5% more, is made by a company who actively ensures that every single employee worldwide has working conditions which meet or exceed strict quality criteria.

Which gadget will do better in the world marketplace?

My money is on gadget B.
"yea shanghai is a sh*thole but a massive sprawling epic clusterf*ck of a sh*thole that is fun while it lasts.." (ultimatekrang)
User avatar
tylerdurden

Ground Zero

Board Royalty
Board Royalty
 
Posts: 6587
Mood: Happy
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby the_librarian » Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:55 pm

^El Cheapo. What is 5% compared to human life saved. 8)
the_librarian
Lurker
Lurker
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby minyanville » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:07 pm

the_librarian wrote:
rickettyrabbit wrote:
the_librarian wrote:I wouldn't call self-policing to a higher standard than competitors cutting one's own throat.How about being the leader in the industry?


Ha, ha, ha! And how much more would you pay to know that your iPhone was made by a "leader in the industry"? (That's the metaphorical "you", not you personally. I know some people put their money where their mouths are, but depressingly few. Most talk a great line, but in the end, price and bling do the real talking.)


Well I don't know wabbit, you'll have to tell me first what is the real/actual cost of producing a single apple gadget versus it's selling price. Did prices drop when they moved manufacturing to China? I don't wish to get into a pointless discussion about why it's not going to be the most profit-generating decision etc., I know you're right there. As ATP said it's all about maximizing profit at the least cost possible.
But when I suggest Apple can be the leader in the industry (in the context of doing more than its competitors), I believe it's only a matter of time before their competitors will be pressured to follow and do the same thing. Then that would sort of even out the playing field wouldn't it? As you said there are higher expectations of a tall poppy like Apple, and maybe that's not so bad because such a company can effect a higher degree of influence if they choose to act. Surely if those darn factory managers and owners will be pressured to listen to you if all their foreign clients are demanding the same thing? They wouldn't want to lose their biggest clients.

Oh and they would probably say yes quicker if the companies offered to pay for the improvements proposed. If speedy and diligent laborers are so important then it's a good investment yeah? :wink:



You obviously didn't read the articles...

in one of them, it is estimated that the price of the iphone would increase by about 65 usd. That's in the states. I think it would increase by 700-1000 rmb in China.
"Apple leading PC maker in Q4 2011, if you count iPads"
"And McDonalds is the leading PC maker if you count hamburgers"
User avatar
minyanville
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2920
Mood: Tired
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:50 am

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby the_librarian » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:19 pm

Huh? And you obviously didn't get the question/point, which was can a company like Apple afford to be a little less rich and not pass on the burden to its customers.
the_librarian
Lurker
Lurker
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby minyanville » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:12 pm

the_librarian wrote:Huh? And you obviously didn't get the question/point, which was can a company like Apple afford to be a little less rich and not pass on the burden to its customers.

no, it can't.

Apple is not a one person show. It needs to "deliver" to it's shareholders by "delivering" good product at competitive prices.

In apple's case, the prices are not as competitive as others, however, "competitive" enough to generate 13bn in profit last quarter.
"Apple leading PC maker in Q4 2011, if you count iPads"
"And McDonalds is the leading PC maker if you count hamburgers"
User avatar
minyanville
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2920
Mood: Tired
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:50 am

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tihZ_hO » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:44 pm

minyanville wrote:
the_librarian wrote:Huh? And you obviously didn't get the question/point, which was can a company like Apple afford to be a little less rich and not pass on the burden to its customers.

no, it can't.

Apple is not a one person show. It needs to "deliver" to it's shareholders by "delivering" good product at competitive prices.

In apple's case, the prices are not as competitive as others, however, "competitive" enough to generate 13bn in profit last quarter.


And yet somehow Bill Gates pledged another 750 million dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has given $26 billion to fund health, development and education projects. Hard to imagine Bill Gates and Microsoft as the evil empire, is it?

Muuaahahahahaha
Image





You know who you are
User avatar
tihZ_hO

happy

Board Deity
 
Posts: 16206
Mood: Cool
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:43 am

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby Bugaga » Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:42 pm

tihZ_hO wrote:And yet somehow Bill Gates pledged another 750 million dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has given $26 billion to fund health, development and education projects. Hard to imagine Bill Gates and Microsoft as the evil empire, is it?

Muuaahahahahaha


You may try to Google about : gates foundation vaccines depopulation - gives 73000 results.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=p ... 72&bih=573
Of cource it's all only Truthers BS.

But, for your eductaion:

Gates Foundation partner forces vaccines on Malawian children at gunpoint, arrests parents
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033119_vacci ... z1kqYRSqQa


Out of a population of 15.4 million, almost one million people in Malawi are living with HIV.1 2 AIDS is the leading cause of death amongst adults in Malawi, and is a major factor in the country’s low life expectancy of just 54.2 years.3
http://www.avert.org/aids-malawi.htm


^So, probably Medicine from the AIDS does EXIST, but it's used ONLY IN AFRICA :wink: :wink:
Bugaga
Barker
Barker
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:26 am

tihZ_hO wrote:
minyanville wrote:
the_librarian wrote:Huh? And you obviously didn't get the question/point, which was can a company like Apple afford to be a little less rich and not pass on the burden to its customers.

no, it can't.

Apple is not a one person show. It needs to "deliver" to it's shareholders by "delivering" good product at competitive prices.

In apple's case, the prices are not as competitive as others, however, "competitive" enough to generate 13bn in profit last quarter.


And yet somehow Bill Gates pledged another 750 million dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has given $26 billion to fund health, development and education projects. Hard to imagine Bill Gates and Microsoft as the evil empire, is it?

Muuaahahahahaha


I wish they'd keep 5% for quality assurance. The 2008 version of Microsoft Office still has the bugs that first surfaced in Office 97. Yes, that's right. They STILL haven't been fixed. But what the hell - 11 years goes by in the blink of an eye.
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:36 am

the_librarian wrote:
rickettyrabbit wrote:
the_librarian wrote:I wouldn't call self-policing to a higher standard than competitors cutting one's own throat.How about being the leader in the industry?


Ha, ha, ha! And how much more would you pay to know that your iPhone was made by a "leader in the industry"? (That's the metaphorical "you", not you personally. I know some people put their money where their mouths are, but depressingly few. Most talk a great line, but in the end, price and bling do the real talking.)


Well I don't know wabbit, you'll have to tell me first what is the real/actual cost of producing a single apple gadget versus it's selling price. Did prices drop when they moved manufacturing to China? I don't wish to get into a pointless discussion about why it's not going to be the most profit-generating decision etc., I know you're right there. As ATP said it's all about maximizing profit at the least cost possible.


You've missed the point, madame librarian. :wink:

Apple would not likely have been able to innovate as quickly in the US because the capacity to adjust the manufacturing process quickly does not exist in the USA. Add $65 to the cost of an iPhone 4S and you'd sell fewer units, and it would probably still be a market leader. But cut many of the innovations out of it and it would be a paperweight at that price. The key to Apple's success has been creating what its customers consider to be VALUE. Not price. VALUE. And that value is heavily dependent on continuing to be first with many innovations. The more responsive its supply chain, the more quickly it can innovate. I think it's fair to say that a responsive supply chain is likely to be a shitty one in which to work. Pressure, pressure, pressure.

the_librarian wrote:But when I suggest Apple can be the leader in the industry (in the context of doing more than its competitors), I believe it's only a matter of time before their competitors will be pressured to follow and do the same thing. Then that would sort of even out the playing field wouldn't it? As you said there are higher expectations of a tall poppy like Apple, and maybe that's not so bad because such a company can effect a higher degree of influence if they choose to act. Surely if those darn factory managers and owners will be pressured to listen to you if all their foreign clients are demanding the same thing? They wouldn't want to lose their biggest clients.

Oh and they would probably say yes quicker if the companies offered to pay for the improvements proposed. If speedy and diligent laborers are so important then it's a good investment yeah? :wink:


You're ignoring the realities of competition. Let's establish an economic fact here: industries seldom police themselves. Left to their own devices, many of the players will rob, pillage and rape. Look no further than China's food industry to see that this is true. And similar things would be happening in the west if allowed.
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tihZ_hO » Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:16 am

rickettyrabbit wrote:I wish they'd keep 5% for quality assurance. The 2008 version of Microsoft Office still has the bugs that first surfaced in Office 97. Yes, that's right. They STILL haven't been fixed. But what the hell - 11 years goes by in the blink of an eye.


Office 2008 that's the Windows Office 2007 version ported for Mac OS. Well lets be fair, MS Office is designed for Windows, and not for Macs. Why can't you use an Office suite designed for Macs and forget Microsoft Office?
Image





You know who you are
User avatar
tihZ_hO

happy

Board Deity
 
Posts: 16206
Mood: Cool
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:43 am

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:48 am

Office has the same defects on the Mac running Office 2008 - the Mac version; as Office 2007 running in Windows 7 on my Mac through VMWare Fusion, and running Office 2007 in native Windows 7 on my Dell Latitude notebook. It's just a buggy POS when you try to use its more advanced bullets and numbering capabilities. My reports often need this feature.

I tried Open Office and the Mac office suite (iWorks) but I'm not willing to send my clients documents that were produced in a so-called "compatible" suite that have been saved as MS Word. My previous experience is that sometimes, the features don't work when you convert.

Gates just needs to spend a little more on QA. Microsoft produces powerful software, but doesn't put enough effort into cleaning it up. For people like me - the 1/10th of 1% who use the advanced features in bullets and numbering, I guess we're not worth the effort. (Of course, Apple makes the same kinds of decisions, as do all companies.)
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:58 am

This helps to explain why Apple has to produce in China if it wants to stay on top.

Analysis: Why Apple and Samsung are killing it in the smartphone market

January 27, 2012 — 10:44am ET | By Phil Goldstein

Midway through the fourth-quarter earnings season, it's becoming apparent that while Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) had a record-breaking quarter with 37 million iPhone sales and Samsung did nearly as well, most other handset makers are struggling or facing stagnation.

Click here for a chart on the 2010 and 2011 smartphone shipments reported so far this year.
Why are Apple and Samsung so successful? And what can other handset makers do to emulate them in today's cut-throat market, especially for smartphones? Analysts point to the unique attributes that have buoyed Apple and Samsung, including their access to components, scale, brand recognition and overall product execution. Still, they argue, it is becoming more difficult for OEMs to succeed with traditional business models. The weak fourth quarter results--traditionally handset makers' best--either posted so far or expected from HTC, Motorola Mobility (NYSE:MMI), Nokia (NYSE:NOK) and Sony Ericsson, attest to the challenges.

One of Apple and Samsung's advantages is that they develop components internally, including chips, and they have massive scale. "They're not just OEMs that slap a bunch of components together," said ABI Research analyst Kevin Burden. "They are able to develop their own component technologies. What other companies have those?" Samsung, an international electronics conglomerate, recently said it will spend $42 billion in 2012 on research and development and on upgrading plants, an investment few companies can achieve.

Analysts said another advantage Apple and Samsung have over their competitors is their ability to engineer and deliver products to market that carriers will quickly pick up. Samsung does this at a much faster rate than Apple, but both have developed strong relationships with scores of operators and can deliver flagship products that operators can easily get behind. "That combination of consistent new product development and launch really helps with operator demand," Informa Telecoms & Media analyst Andy Castonguay said of Samsung.

The ability to stand above the fray, as Apple has done with the iPhone 4S and Samsung has with its Galaxy S line, speaks to an issue affecting handset makers more broadly: that there are too many SKUs in the market, and new models get lost in an largely undifferentiated sea of devices. To combat this, analysts said handset makers should try and focus on fewer models. Indeed, Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha said at the Consumer Electronics Show that the company intends to release fewer devices in 2012 as it focuses on producing models that can break through the smartphone clutter. Executives at HTC, which posted a 25.5 percent drop in fourth-quarter profit, have made similar comments. Ultimately, Burden said, this comes down to the bottom line. "Do they end up spending too much money per phone and not getting the same return back if they limited their SKUs?"

Yet for all of Samsung's ability to invest in components, it may soon struggle with the same problems affecting other OEMs, said CCS Insight analyst John Jackson, noting that Samsung and Apple are "two very different animals."

"Apple is a formula," he said. "Apple is a self-reinforcing formula built on top of control of the distribution of third-party content, world-beating industrial design, a world-beating brand, a fantastic retail footprint and a legacy of innovation that consumers are aware of."

While Samsung has tried to become more vertically integrated with the introduction of its Media Hub services and has attempted to make mobile devices the centerpiece of the digital living room, Jackson contends that Samsung is at heart a very good OEM. "If you are a device business and nothing else, sooner or later your margins will fall away," he said. "It's harder and harder to create and sustain a differentiated proposition."

The market is accelerating its move away from OEMs and toward platform companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) and others, Jackson said, arguing that the market essentially forced this transformation at Nokia, pushing it into the arms of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and led Motorola into the arms of Google. Sony's move to take control of the Sony Ericsson venture could be seen as an attempt to create its own platform for its content and devices--it was simply missing a mobile phone unit to call its own. Jackson said that as this shift continues, OEMs that are muddling along may either be acquired or exit the market. What is clear, analysts said, is that there is a great deal of upheaval in the market.

"This is perhaps the most fascinating time in terms of watching how the competitive levers are pulled and changed," Castonguay said.



Read more: Analysis: Why Apple and Samsung are killing it in the smartphone market - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ana ... z1ksYcuaVL
Subscribe: http://www.fiercewireless.com/signup?so ... ceWireless
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby Shinbone » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:17 am

tihZ_hO wrote:Why can't you use an Office suite designed for Macs and forget Microsoft Office?




WWMCD?

What would my customers do?
“I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics class. Now I don’t.”
“Sounds like the class helped.”
“Well, maybe.”
User avatar
Shinbone
Veejay
Veejay
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:04 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby rickettyrabbit » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:14 am

VGQ! WWTD?
Wabbit
"So many words simply to state what we already knew!"
Foxfyr
User avatar
rickettyrabbit

rickettyrabbit

Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 9731
Mood: Cool
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:35 am
Location: Chinese-free zone. No, wait - just looked at the wife.

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tylerdurden » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:23 am

rickettyrabbit wrote:VGQ! WWTD?


What would Tyler do?

For a relatively small consideration, I will tell you.
"yea shanghai is a sh*thole but a massive sprawling epic clusterf*ck of a sh*thole that is fun while it lasts.." (ultimatekrang)
User avatar
tylerdurden

Ground Zero

Board Royalty
Board Royalty
 
Posts: 6587
Mood: Happy
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Apple Articles - NY Times

Postby tihZ_hO » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:42 am

rickettyrabbit wrote:Office has the same defects on the Mac running Office 2008 - the Mac version; as Office 2007 running in Windows 7 on my Mac through VMWare Fusion, and running Office 2007 in native Windows 7 on my Dell Latitude notebook. It's just a buggy POS when you try to use its more advanced bullets and numbering capabilities. My reports often need this feature.


Hmm, I also use bullets and numbering, well not as much as I used to, but a while back it was much more than just simple bullets...it could go several layers deep (company SOP) and never had an issue on my elderly DELL Inspiron 1720.

Oooo wait, did you have these problems only when you saved it in a legacy "doc" file format and not with docx format?? Maybe this is your problem, as I never saved as DOC only as DOCX and for reports I saved as a PDF for distribution.
Image





You know who you are
User avatar
tihZ_hO

happy

Board Deity
 
Posts: 16206
Mood: Cool
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:43 am

Next

Return to News & Opinion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest