I always find it ironic when Foxconn is criticized for not treating their employees well when the fact is, Foxconn has done more to alleviate poverty in China than any single other company I can think of.
I live a few blocks away from the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen and whenever I try to bring up the "poor working conditions at Foxconn" topic with locals, I most often get a blank stare as if I had suggested something completely absurd. The truth is, Foxconn jobs are vastly superior to most alternatives down here.
I would recommend Western "do-gooders" to keep in mind that Chinese people are much more concerned about their own working conditions and well being than anyone else. They are in a much better position to address their own problems and if they ever need help from us Westerners, I'm sure they won't hesitate to ask. Meanwhile, I suggest we humbly mind our own business.
I think that's an important thing to consider. Whilst working conditions might be 'bad', they may be much better than what they might have otherwise, or better paid.
This whole Foxconn scrutiny is a blessing in disguise for Apple. How so?
Apple has deep pockets and very healthy margins that they could afford to fix this whole issue while keeping it in the media's radar and then at the right time turn it back to its competitors to prove their ethics. The competitors whose margins are already spread too thin will have great difficulty in coming clean in this issue. Apple gets a positive PR while others struggle.
Apple is criticized more than the others because they are in the media a lot already. They are a hugely successful company that has entered the public zeitgeist in a way that few of their competitors have. So, with this comes a lot more scrutiny, and thus it was easy for Apple to be the focus of attention when Foxconn's labor practices started to be reported on in the US.
Apple is handling this issue well (and much better than their competitors). But the real "issue" here is something that Apple has understood for a while. "The jobs aren't coming back" is a product of many factors, and the cost of labor is a red herring in this debate.
I find all of this hand-wringing over working conditions to be the biggest pile of bunk that I have ever heard of.
The only reason that China is manufacturing just about every consumer product out there is that sending work there allows you to exploit cheap labor, lax environmental regulation, and other regulation found in western countries.
So now some westerners who "care" are waxing on about the poor iPhone workers. Why aren't the Chinese people making shoes, underwear, leather coats or other unpleasant jobs worthy of our pity?
This may have been the case in the past, but for Apple and increasingly across many industries China is offering genuine advantages beyond labour cost/conditions, and labour cost/conditions are increasingly approaching those in the west. It's like Japan all over again.
Overlooked sidebar: the fact that we are having this discussion, that China is listening to some degree, and that Apple is having an influence on Chinese labor conditions speaks volumes about how capitalism changes nations for the better. Anywhere a degree of free trade is introduced, freedom expands. In this case, these workers are going to be better off in the long run with Apple, because someone, somewhere in the Chinese bureaucracy, is making some money in the supply chain, and they don't want that to ever stop - even if that means giving these workers just a little more freedom, safety and salary.
Look, I'm not particularly into this debate. I believe the conditions are relatively horrible, but there are lots of horrible things going on in the world, so it's not where I'd spend my time. At the end of the day, working at Foxconn is voluntary, as opposed to, say, cancer.
That said, I'm glad that there are people in the world fighting this fight. It's how social change happens. And I'm going to assume that these people, who have decided this is their fight, have done their due diligence and decided that the best way to go forward is by attacking what is the biggest company and one of the most famous brands in the world.
So do I think Samsung is less responsible? No. But this isn't about being "fair" about the blame for corporations; it's about changing the conditions at Foxconn and in turn, China and the world. Targeting Apple has proven to be the best vehicle for that. So be it.
My proof is that they're attacking Apple, and it's working; we're talking about it. We're also talking about the fact that Apple isn't the only company to blame. Even that happened by attacking Apple.
I'm not being facetious: are you really in need of evidence? It's happening, and the people who are doing it have decided it's the best strategy. I can't go by anything else. And thanks to the nature of the experiment, it can't be repeated. It may or may not be optimal, it just is.
I agree that it's achieving the goal of pushing Apple to improve working conditions although given that they started their improvement program in 2006, it's highly debatable whether the recent outrage has achieved anything that wasn't already happening.
It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on other manufacturers.
> Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.
Equal responsibility but lesser blame. It's like slagging on a poor man for eating unhealthy food on the dollar menu at McDonalds. That man has an excuse, he doesn't have the money to shop for organic food at Whole Foods. Someone already super rich eating the dollar menu just to save a few bucks definitely deserves more blame not for eating healthy.
There isn't much money left over after Apple is done sucking the profit out of the phone industry.
"Sucking the profit" out of an industry is something that happens when you're undercutting everyone on price, driving prices down and reducing overall profits. Apple products arent exactly known for being cheap, so i think it's a stretch to say they're sucking the profit out of the industry; if anything they're conditioning consumers to pay more for a phone than they otherwise would.
They fact they are able to sell a lot of units at those healthy profit margins while competitors struggle to sell cheaper devices at razor thin profit margins (leading to revenue breakdown chart like you linked to) does not lend to them "sucking the profit out of the phone industry", it's them showing everyone else you dont need to peddle cheap crap because customers are happy to pay more for something that doesnt suck.
However, due to their all their competitors including Apple moving manufacturing to China, they have been forced to close their European plants and move to China as well.
To be fair, the correct analogy would be that someone (Apple) who makes a third person (contractors) stop beating the wife is more laudable than someone (Nokia) who never had to do it in the first place.
As we are constantly reminded here, Apple takes 80% of the phone industry profits and thus deserve proportionate blame for working conditions.
They make $575 in profit from an iPhone but pay the Foxconn workers $7 to assemble it. They could double the pay and still make a very huge profit. On the other hand, many other companies like Amazon and Microsoft sell the hardware for a loss, hoping to make it up on software and media purchases.
Meanwhile, the other companies are not doing very well, and labor cost increases for them might put them out of business entirely and then the workers won't even have a job. HTC doesn't have $100 billion in the bank and recently reported a bad quarter. This is why Apple is criticized more since it has most leeway of all the companies mentioned in the article to increase wages.
That $575 number is nonsensical; the iPhone 4S (the most expensive model) costs $599 off-contract. These phones do not cost $25 to make. The real number is somewhere around $300, most of which paid by the carrier: http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/26/iphone-sine-qua-non/.
Regardless, doubling the pay for workers does not solve the real issue here. Their wages are already above average for Chinese factory workers in that area. If you want these workers to be paid a first-world wage, that's a much larger issue than how much Apple pays their final assembly workers.
Also, Foxconn does not build just phones. It's used by most desktop and laptop manufacturers, where Apple is certainly not in the lead, and to assemble all game consoles, where Apple doesn't even have products. Microsoft, for example, is responsible for the workers in the incident mentioned here: http://kotaku.com/5874706/report-mass-suicide-threats-at-xbo... (I don't think Microsoft would have an issue paying more, for example.)
Now this is not to underplay the problems in Chinese manufacturing, of which there are many. But Apple is certainly not singularly able to make any changes here.
>"While Apple generates more than $575 in profit for every iOS device, and according to estimates in 2007 Apple earned more than $800 on every iPhone sold through ATT, Horace Dediu reports that Android generated less than $550m in revenues for Google between 2008 and the end of 2011, earning only $1.70 per year, per Android device — explaining how Apple is sucking up two thirds of the profit in the mobile phone business.
That '$575 in profit' is, from the context, how much profit they make on average per year from an iOS device, not just the profit margin on the sale price, otherwise the comparisons to android's yearly profit would not make much sense.
$575 profit per iPhone? I think you mixed up profit with something else, maybe average sale price.
In a free market, profit isn't determined by cost or your intuition about "fairness". Price is determined by supply and demand, and profit is price minus cost.
Foxxconn already pays well above average wages while providing a safer workplace than the average US manufacturer, and a lower suicide rate than the Chinese average. And this is still going up even as working hours decrease.
Whether all these criticisms are completely legitimate or not (for example I think workers should be allowed to work more overtime if they voluntarily choose to, to get more money, instead of being capped at 49hours/week), Apple is responding to them as well as anyone could ask for.
Apple's competitors are not getting the same scrutiny. Since Apple is handling the issue great, isn't there room for some of that attention to land on others with much worse practices?
Further, Apple has nowhere near 80% of the production or employees or anything like that. There are other big players as far as how many Chinese workers they are involved with, which I think is the relevant metric for how important reform is.
If you look at Tim Worstall's (kinda op-ed) article on the second page, you can see that the author says that if the fatalities rate in Foxconn was the same as that in the US, we would expect to have 35 fatalities / year. Then he says that we only heard about 3-4 workers hurt at Foxconn, hence the rate is lower. That argument is flawed because what we hear on the news cannot be construed to represent all fatalities at Foxconn. I suspect that the fatalities rate at Foxconn is not publicized (because it doesn't have to be).
Another issue is that to determine the relative safety of the workplaces, the author is only looking at workplace fatalities. What about looking at accidents that leave the workers unable to work or maimed?
Bottom line, I don't think the incomplete data that we have supports the assertion that Foxconn is a safer workplace.
The data does support the case. It may be incorrect, or incomplete. But why would they be hiding fatality stats? Why would they get away with that when they are subject to the crazy levels of scrutiny that we see today?
Safety management is based on identifying and reducing hazards, which reduces accidents, near misses, lost time injuries, serious injuries and ultimately fatalities. With a large enough number of workers, as we have in this case, fatality number is a very good proxy for the other stats.
Oh, it does? Let's look at the article together and see if we can find that data:
>> (The US rate is) 3.5 per 100,000: we would expect, if the Foxconn factories were no more dangerous than the average American workplace, 35 workplace deaths a year among those 1 million workers. Yes, each of those deaths, each of those injuries, in those aluminium dust explosions is a tragedy. But if we were being realistic rather than spouting nonsense over such matters we would not be using evidence of three or four deaths as evidence of how Apple, Foxconn or even China are ignoring worker safety in pursuit of filthy lucre. At a very minimum we would be looking at the total workplace death rate rather than cherry picking one specific incident.
The author's saying he's heard of 3-4 people killed... so how does that map to 7 in the infographic? Where exactly are the Foxconn stats coming from? Because the "data" offered in this article is "as-seen-on-TV". Is there even a system of reporting mandated by the national govt to collect data? In the absence of actual vetted data, how can you conclude that Foxconn manufacturing is 5-10 times safer than avg US manufacturing?
>> But why would they be hiding fatality stats?
If you are Foxconn, do you want people talking about Foxconn and fatalities in the same sentence? And if the govt doesn't require it, do you feel compelled to use your own internal resources to voluntarily compile and publish stats that make you look bad?
It's relatively easy to hide accident stats. It's very difficult to hide fatalities - especially over time.
I would be unsurprised at better safety stats than the US. With DuPont as one of several exceptions, the safety culture in the USA is still one of compliance. The mining record is awful versus global large companies.
Apple and other customers are able to demand and get certain requirements met. A key part of that would be safety, and the first rule is integrity in measurement.
I've seen plants in Colombia and Mozambique operate at industry leading levels of safety. China can do it too - it really helps when you have a workforce that is motivated and eager for the relatively high paid work.
Fair point about comparison with other USA industries. The overriding tone of the overall conversation (not just on HN) is whether Apple et al. are outsourcing to a place with lower standards, including safety. Comparing Foxconn stats to US norms is then a valid approach.
> How would you die while assembling an iPad?
Since you asked - here are some typical risks. Happily these are all mitigable.
Falling from heights while in the store - for parts or for shipping.
Hit by a moving light vehicle inside the factory - forklift etc
Hit by a light or heavy vehicle outside the factory - e.g. when in loading operations
Incorrect handling of hazardous materials resulting in explosion
Incorrect handing of molten materials (plastics, metals)
Poor guarding on major equipment catching clothes and dragging worker into equipment. Ditto with poor isolation equipment prior to maintenance (machine switched on while someone is inside it)
Electrocution due to lack of isolation of electrified equipment before commencing maintenance work
Inhalation of fumes and other toxic emissions
Crushing by a press or other heavy industrial machine during operation, maintenance or installation
Crushed by stacks of inventory (parts, finished product) falling
Electrical fire or other sort of fire
Food poisoning, collapse of building, any incidents in staff accommodation and so on.
>Whereas Android generates $1.70/device/year and thus an Android device with a two year life generates about $3.5 to Google over its life, Apple obtained $576.3 for each iOS device it sold in 2011[4]. The economics of Android are nothing like the economics of iOS.
Slashdot has always reminded me of that clueless friend that always remembers the numbers from a news story but doesn't remember the units or have any sense of them in a meaningful context.
I don't know why people even read Asymco. His data why seemingly true, because he shows you charts and whatnot, it's usually very misleading.
Apple doesn't make $575 in profit per iPhone. The components alone cost around $300, and they only get like $650 from the carrier, but you also have to take into account all the extra costs, marketing, shipping, salaries, R&D, and so on. At most they probably make around $200-$300 in profit for iPhone, depending on the version.
The Android data is also misleading. He's taking it from what Google said in the trial. You don't think Google would try to downplay the revenues they get from Android in the trial through some smart accounting?
"As we are constantly reminded here, Apple takes 80% of the phone industry profits and thus deserve proportionate blame for working conditions."
Blame needs to be proportional to amount produced, not amount profited. If I have one phone manufactured and I charge $11 million for it (and actually find a buyer), but you produce a million $10 phones, your impact on the workers is far greater.
"On the other hand, many other companies like Amazon and Microsoft sell the hardware for a loss, hoping to make it up on software and media purchases."
So if tomorrow Apple decided to sell their phones at half price, thereby eliminating all profits, then suddenly no one will be able to say anything to Apple about their manufacturing and worker treatment?
"Meanwhile, the other companies are not doing very well, and labor cost increases for them might put them out of business entirely and then the workers won't even have a job. ... This is why Apple is criticized more since it has most leeway of all the companies mentioned in the article to increase wages."
So it all amounts to how much you charge the end user. If a company charges more for their product they must ensure the workers of the companies they contract with are paid/treated fairly, but if a company chooses to sell devices at little to not profit, they can treat the workers however they want.
It sounds to me more like if a company makes a device and provides it to you cheaply, you'll look the other way on how they handle manufacturing.
I did not say Microsoft and Samsung should be excluded from criticism, I said Apple deserves proportionally more blame because they can easily afford to pay more wages unlike other OEMs some of who are struggling to stay afloat.
>They make $575 in profit from an iPhone but pay the Foxconn workers $7 to assemble it. They could double the pay and still make a very huge profit.
Assembling the iPhone is a small and very insignificant part of the manufacturing process. What about the manufacturing of the steel, glass, LCD panels, logic boards, processors and IC chips, antennas, speakers, microphones, screws, cameras, batteries, and cables?
Obviously if it's unethical for Apple to contract the assembling of the iPhones to a manufacturer that pays high wages relative to the average Chinese job, then it must also be unethical to buy components from suppliers that also pay their factory workers a similar wage. Clearly, doubling the wage for all factory workers who work on any component of the iPhone will have a huge impact on the manufacturing cost far beyond the extra $7 you suggest it to be.
The real irony, to my mind is this: Apple is the company with the most integrity I've ever known. This manifests itself everywhere- from product quality to service at Apple stores.
Apple has been proactive in making sure their employees are well taken care of, here and abroad, and they've been doing this for the past decade.
They've been auditing suppliers in various ways for far longer than this story has even been in the news, going back at least to the 1990s.
Sure, Apple is the biggest, most profitable tech company, and it is also the one with the biggest brand. I think Apple's brand is a huge factor here- it is a global brand, it is associated with really good values such as quality, respect, integrity, etc, and thus it is the most attractive brand the put dirt on.
This explains why media, and unscrupulous people focus on attacking Apple for "working conditions".
But the reality is, when Foxconn has positions open to work for Apple, they get massive numbers of people who want to come work for them. Everyone in china has methods of communication, if Apple wasn't the best place to work, they wouldn't have so many applicants. Word would get out.
Apple solved this problem before it ever became a problem, but they are attacked because their brand is strong, and the people attacking them lack integrity.
They're also being attacked because it fits a political agenda. Unions and regulation have destroyed the manufacturing employment levels in the USA (actual manufacturing capacity is higher now than then, but a lot fewer people are employed) and so rather than recognize themselves as the cause of business moving overseas, they wish to demonize the businesses that did move overseas in the hope of coercing them to move back here. Every political season there are proposals that companies be punished for doing business overseas. This is why.
Thus perpetuating the fantasy that Apple runs sweatshops or uses "slave labor" is politically motivated.
The reality: When Foxconn cut back overtime (in response to this muckraking) the employees were very upset. They want to work more hours.
The employees have spoken...
----
I digressed. My original point is, that all these other companies are benefiting from Apple leading the way here. Apple is teaching the chinese how to be ethical and to treat employees well, by requiring it, and all these other manufacturers are benefiting from that.
This is a cost to apple, and it is a profit to those other manufacturers.
Thus it is really ironic when the media smears apple-- the company that has literally revolutionized manufacturing in china, as far as working conditions go.
You have a cite for Apple "revolutionizing" working conditions? Please, they're a electronics designer. They contract with whoever bids lowest, and always have. One of the big reason Foxconn is so large now is precisely because they were the low bidder for Apple's business years ago.
Now, I agree with the premise of the linked article that Apple has been unfairly tarnished for problems that are endemic to the industry as a whole.
But to flip this around and claim that Apple is somehow a champion fighting for workers rights is ... just weird (and I'll admit that it makes me sad to see this kind of completely unselfaware fawning on a site where discussion used to be a lot more intellectually robust). Like the rest of the industry, Apple didn't do poop about chinese workers until they were embarassed.
I have no horse in this race but It's very well known that Apple does indeed pick who bids lowest but:
* They put severe requirements on the quality of the produce
* They put severe requirements on secrecy
* The they put severe requirements on how the workforce needs to be treated
All of the above are enforced. Apple has massive teeth. They are king makers of the industry and drop suppliers like a hat for any offences.
Yes they end up with whoever bids lowest and isn't yet on their shit list. But labour requirements have been part of these requirements since 1990 and have become ever more demanding since.
This is exactly how governments do it. They enter trade and aid agreements with other countries and attach labour requirements. That's the very mechanism which in the long run leads to prosperity.
> They put severe requirements on the quality of the produce
That's not great for workers, who lose pay if they cannot meet these exacting standards.
> They put severe requirements on how the workforce needs to be treated
The conditions they demand may be better than most workers get in the target country. That doesn't mean those conditions are actually enforced, nor does it mean they are acceptable.
The amount of profit Apple makes means it should be fairly easy for them to dramatically improve conditions for overseas workers. That would be a huge sales point for them. Not only do you get pretty design, you know you're funding education / healthcare / whatever for developing world workers.
"The amount of profit Apple makes means it should be fairly easy for them to dramatically improve conditions for overseas workers"
In a similar vein, the amount of money the average westerner makes means it should be fairly easy for them to save a life in Africa every day.
I do not think Apple in particular is to blame for what we as a collective do.
"That would be a huge sales point for them"
Would it? Can you give one example of a company that behaves that way and gets a hugs sales boost from it? If so, how does that sales boost compare to Apple's profits?
The entire branding side of fair-trade is based on the idea that there is a sales boost from advertising that you treat your workers fairly.
So an obvious example would be Starbucks' investment in fair-trade coffee.
[edit] but this only is profitable if people are basing purchasing decisions on it. Before this current furore, there was very little press about these issues, so if from this a 'fair-trade' hardware movement emerges, it would then be profitable for Apple to exploit it, but in the absence of one it isn't.
Are you serious? Since when a shopper gives a damn about how his/her product is made? If that is the case, walmart would not be as big and profitable as they are today. No shopper (or very negligible amount of shoppers) cares about any of these. All they care about is low price, coupons, discounts and deals. How else would a company like Groupon could become so big, so quickly?
> All they care about is low price, coupons, discounts and deals.
You make a good point. Many users only care about price, and that's why you can buy an ink-jet printer with starter carts for less than the price of replacement full carts.
But with Apple we're not talking about a company that has cheap customers. People are happy to pay a premium for Apple products.
Several things make people happy to spend that money - build quality; nice design; user experience; buying experience. "Ethical manufacture" would be one more thing to add to that list.
"They are king makers of the industry and drop suppliers like a hat for any offences."
No they don't;
"The FLA investigation, released late last week, resulted in the questioning of 35,000 Foxconn workers across the Chengdu, Longhua and Guanlan factories and found average hours worked per week were 56, compared to the legal Chinese limit of 49 hours, which includes overtime."
[edit] I do think that Apple has taken a lead by the standards of the electronics industry, but the global standards of the commercial electronics industry are not high and Apple has been embarrassed into a lot of this.
If Apple dropped suppliers for any serious violations in the way that you claim, they would not have the giant pile of money they have today.
Apple is quite adamant on work weeks standards, however this is in direct conflicts with the workers (!!). In fact, workers at Foxcon and others have started preferring to work for other companies then Apple because they can't get the amount of paid overtime that they want.
Remember, China is a very different place then the US. Simply taking our own standards and transplanting them onto this area of the world will lead you to misunderstand the signals.
Nah, I think the standards are pretty universal. It isn't surprising they want more hours. It isn't like they love working, they love money (a very universal standard). The reason why it is in direct conflict with the workers is they aren't getting a fair wage. Overtime isn't a sign of happy workers, it is a sign of mismanagement and low wages.
This gave me pause; because I'd never thought of things this way. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to fit with my own experience. I've worked jobs that paid overtime. I worked overtime when I could, not because I felt the wage was unfair, but because I wanted the extra money.
> "Please, they're a electronics designer. They contract with whoever bids lowest, and always have."
Do you have a cite for your claim that Apple has never been holding their producers up to a standard of quality, and has been entering into contracts on the SOLE basis of price? Of course you don't, as this is just an ideological statement, already refuted by my pointing out their history of audits and high requirements.
> "One of the big reason Foxconn is so large now is precisely because they were the low bidder for Apple's business years ago."
One of the reasons Foxconn was a relatively low bidder all those years ago was because in their partnership with Apple they acquired a great deal of knowledge about how to build products to Apple's exacting standards, and how to run a large business employing large numbers of employees and treat them well. This has, in fact, allowed Foxconn to grow to a very large business, and might be the one thing that separated them from the pack of contract manufacturers that came about at that time-- many of whom offered lower prices and were competing solely on price.
>But to flip this around and claim that Apple is somehow a champion fighting for workers rights is ... just weird
Actually, no flipping is involved. It is a simple statement of fact. Apple has been auditing its suppliers going back decades and including inside china since it started manufacturing there.
>"makes me sad to see this kind of completely unselfaware fawning on a site where discussion used to be a lot more intellectually robust"
Frankly, it makes me sad to see people who cannot make an argument, cannot respond to the argument that has been made, and instead are only able to misrepresent the argument and engage in the kind of ad hominem you just have. There is zero "intellectual robustness" in your response, as your response comes completely from your mindless hatred of Apple. This is why the site is in such decline-- simply mentioning anything positive about Apple (or other chosen targets of hatred) or negative about Google or Amazon (or other chosen targets of adoration) results in down votes and these kind of mindless snotty responses.
> Like the rest of the industry, Apple didn't do poop about chinese workers until they were embarrassed.
This is a flat out lie. But you believe it because others with the same ideology as you have said it, and so you just assert it here, comfortable that the down vote brigades will have your back. Your entire post is a prime example of the kind of content free, pure ideological response that makes "intellectually robust" discussion impossible here.
Did you make a counter argument? No, you just demanded a "cite". Did you defend your assertions as I did? No, you just made broad, obviously false assertions. Did you respond to the point? No, you attacked me personally with derogatory characterizations. Did you defend your ultimate point? No, you just made an assertion that fallacious on the face of it, as would be obvious to anyone who had been paying attention to this issue for more than a few months (apple's been publishing reports of supplier audits for years, and has been doing the audits for decades.)
You are why Hacker News is in decline and why anyone who is capable of argument-- such as myself-- is hesitant to post here, because there really is no point in attempting to engage in debate given the mindless hordes who make purely ideological posts like yours.
In fact, I'm certain that it is-- ironically-- Apple's decades of integrity that is the very reason you hate them so. They have done right, and they won, even after you all thought there was no way they could ever be something more than a marginal player--- so rather than bashing them for being marginal, you're now bashing them for their success.
Do you have a cite for your claim that Apple has never been holding their producers up to a standard of quality
There is a concept called "burden of proof". If you are claiming something without evidence (which you did), the responsibility is on you to provide evidence that you are right, not on him to prove that you are not.
I'm certain that it is-- ironically-- Apple's decades of integrity that is the very reason you hate them so
This is the HN-poison, not anything else. He never said that he hated Apple, he simply questioned their actions. Your reaction to simple criticism is to label him as irrational and full of hatred. "Doth protest too much" and all that.
>"If you are claiming something without evidence (which you did)"
False.
>"the responsibility is on you to provide evidence that you are right, not on him to prove that you are not."
False, and False. He made a claim, it is his responsibility to provide evidence. I already provided evidence for my claim.
By the way, absolutely every time someone has said "cite needed", in my experience, they are simply ignoring the evidence presented (as in this case) or will ignore it when presented.
This is the tactic of those who cannot make an argument. Since they cannot make an argument they demand a citation and then go on to make a lot of unsupported claims.
>"he simply questioned their actions"
This is an obvious lie. He made obviously false claims about Apple in a snide and disparaging way. Further, these claims came in response to an article where I'd already cited facts refuting them.
>"is to label him as irrational and full of hatred. "Doth protest too much" and all that."
Another flat out lie. But of course, you had to tell that lie so you could call me names.
You, and his, complete inability to argue the point, and your reliance on name calling shows a severe lack of integrity.. and is why HN is not a place where discussion is tolerated on certain topics.
If you dare to defend Apple, you will be called names by Apple haters. (if you don't like the term Apple haters, find a better one, and I'll use it.)
By the way, now that you bring it up, yes, its true, I do think that resorting to personal attack as you have is irrational and a result of hatred.
I would much rather you just responded to my points, with arguments, rather than dishonesty.
You're talking to someone who was convinced Apple was the sole inventor of multi-touch, abused everyone who claimed otherwise, and then disappeared when definitive counter-proof was provided, without apologising. He's an arrogant fanboy (not a term I use lightly), and he's not worth arguing with.
Your comment is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You made six claims, all of which are false, and none of which you provide any evidence of. To best of my recollection, this "counter-proof" was the movie 2001: A Space Odessey.
Your comment is pure insult, and much worse, you tell flat out lies about me.
I'm sorry that you wish to believe the fiction that Apple didn't invent multi-touch, or that a movie counts as prior art.
But you impeach yourself, when you, and others, run around this site telling such lies about people. Its nothing more than personal attack, and you are in fact engaging in the very abuse you accuse me of. By the way, my "abuse" was describing the details of the technology in question.
I am always able to defend my positions with logic, facts and argumentation. The problem is, so rarely do I get counter arguments, that such defenses are not often necessary. (notice all of the responses to my posts here are characterizing me, rather than addressing my arguments, for example.)
Instead, you guys get into such a blinding rage at the fact that I might dare point out these facts that you have no other ability to respond than to attack me personally.
No response from me, should be necessary, but Hacker News is overrun with this kind of partisanship to the point where you feel comfortable saying something that, quite frankly, should get you hellbanned.
> "You're talking to someone who was convinced Apple was the sole inventor of multi-touch, abused everyone who claimed otherwise, and then disappeared when definitive counter-proof was provided, without apologising. He's an arrogant fanboy (not a term I use lightly), and he's not worth arguing with."
Ah, I see from looking at your comment history, you're attacking me for political and ideological reasons. You're attempting to intimidate me into silence by engaging in ad hominem. Exactly as I indicated was going on on HN.
Here, I looked up the relevant portion of the comment thread for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3262469 . You supported your claims about Apple inventing multi-touch with a claim that Apple had trademarked a specific definition of multi-touch - thus allowing you to dismiss out of hand people citing earlier screens that supported multiple touches. You accused at least one of these people of lying. I showed you that you were wrong, that the trademark application you cited had been denied because the term is generic. Hence, other people's examples of multi-touch interfaces were perfectly valid.
I'm not really sure what 'political and ideological reasons' you think I have - I have no idea of your political history, and have only noticed your posts related to Apple. I am a happy user of several Apple products and, on the whole, admire them as a company despite certain faults. I'm just not a rabid fanboy.
> The problem is, so rarely do I get counter arguments, that such defenses are not often necessary.
Funny how you stopped arguing at the exact moment your position became indefensible, and were so keen to do so before then. I'm honestly finding it hard to work out if you're trolling me or not.
>>You are why Hacker News is in decline and why anyone who is capable of argument-- such as myself-- is hesitant to post here
>I'd hate to see what happens when you aren't being hesitant.
Thank you for a perfect example of the kind of content free, snotty, irrational response I was talking about.
For some reason, those who up voted you, and down voted the comment you were replying to (which, by the way, contains several arguments, none of which has anyone addressed) think that this kind of integrity free voting lets you off the hook for ruining this site. It doesn't.
Come off it, you started out by smearing all potential critics with accusations about their integrity, before then going on to claim that Apple taught the Chinese the concept of ethics, all within your first post.
What kind of response would you expect from that? A cake and a paper hat?
I think you are giving Apple a bit too much credit. Apple is not teaching the Chinese how to be ethical. Apple is not revolutionizing manufacturing in China.
Apple is using a Chinese manufacturing company and giving them a lot of business. A LOTTTTT of business. This is a good thing.
But you can't go from there to claim that Apple is somehow teaching the poor Chinese, who are incapable of ethical action. It sounds very insulting the way you put it :(
I do wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the peculiar focus on Apple for Foxconn's bad working conditions is very strange. It's not like Foxconn is the only manufacturing company, nor is Apple their only customer.
"claim that Apple is somehow teaching the poor Chinese, who are incapable of ethical action. It sounds very insulting the way you put it :("
China is a country that only liberalized and allowed capitalism a few decades ago. It has started from communist rule down a path to where now it is a world manufacturing powerhouse.
It is not an insult to say that in doing so, Chinese manufacturers learned a lot, and that Apple's partnership with foxconn (Which is a legit partnership, not just Apple picking the lowest bidder as people assume) did involve a lot of such education. This is not an insult to the chinese, in fact, it is a testament to the wisdom of the guy who founded Foxxconn, as I believe it is this partnership that has allowed him to grow as fast as he has and be as successful.
Apple's relationship with Foxcon involves Apple owning hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment in their plants, that Apple bought and paid for and that Hon Hai uses to manufacture Apple products. This is an investment in Hon Hai as well as a leg up to them, and is merely the physical analog to the intellectual side of the relationship.
I misuse the word "ethical" in my post, and I should have avoided it completely. I certainly didn't mean to imply the chinese are unethical, or that their working conditions lacked ethics. Actually, on the contrary, I think their work ethic is superior to the american one.
I believe that Hon Hai put up with more requirements from apple, and gave apple a good price, in exchange for apple helping to modernize their manufacturing processes their quality control processes, etc.
Ah k. If indeed you mean that this situation eventually leads to pressure for something like more beneficial labor laws/practices, then I'm 100% with you. Sorry for the confusion there.
> Apple is the company with the most integrity I've ever known. This manifests itself everywhere- from product quality to service at Apple stores.
Watching really smart people repeat this emotional and unreasonable argument, makes me highly value their genius marketing. Learning how their concise UX from products to slogan can convince reasonable people to act emotionally is a must for every entrepreneur.
> Watching really smart people repeat this emotional and unreasonable argument
If you're going to make a claim about the quality of an argument, please back it up. Otherwise it comes off as a form of ad hominem.
I'm not making an emotional, nor an unreasonable claim. I've been a customer of Apple for decades, and a partner of theirs for many years. I've had many interactions with them, across a variety of modes, and I've never, not once, seen Apple act without integrity. This is including situations where Apple has made errors (generally they fixed quickly) or where Apple might have been in the right (because the situation was grey) or I was in the wrong (and they explained clearly how and why.)
At the same time I've done business with a variety of other companies, and watched them fail to honor warranties, ship crappy products, ship broken products, and refuse to deal with it, and engage in all kinds of practices that lack integrity.
> makes me highly value their genius marketing.
Right, it couldn't be the decades of good products and positive experiences I've had with Apple, it must just be their marketing that is so genius that it's caused me to believe this "emotional and unreasonable" thing. Yeah, no way my actual experiences with them could be what did it-- it was the commercials. (Unless you think that acting with integrity in all spheres is a form of marketing, in which case, you have stumbled upon the real genius of the marketing. Yep, believe it or not, treating people with respect, showing integrity in your business dealings, and delivering good products, and supporting them-- this is all very good marketing.)
>"Learning how their concise UX from products to slogan can convince reasonable people to act emotionally is a must for every entrepreneur."
I made an argument, a fairly lengthy one, and I explained my reasoning. Further, I just went into even more detail about my reasoning.
You have made a very snide response, near as I can tell, because you have a very emotional reaction to Apple. I don't know if you're projecting or not, but I think your characterizations-- especially since you don't bother to defend them-- are inappropriate.
I've been a customer of Apple for decades, and a partner of theirs for many years. I've had many interactions with them, across a variety of modes, and I've never, not once, seen Apple act without integrity.
And they are all customer-facing interactions. Not that I'm suggesting the two companies are the same, but I'm reasonably sure that I could set fire to something I bought at Walmart and still return it for a full refund. Despite their crappy products, I've always got relatively good customer service at Walmart. Meanwhile, they absolutely hammer their suppliers to within an inch of their lives. In fact, one of the main reasons Walmart is able to not care about refunds is because of their margins with suppliers.
So, I'm not suggesting that Apple does hammer their suppliers- I have no evidence on hand to suggest so. But to assume that they don't because you, as a customer giving them money, has had a fantastic experience, is strange logic indeed.
Please don't think that. Wasn't my intention. I've followed your posts, you're a very bright person, and I love reading what you have to say. I agree with you that Apple is being target both because it's a big brand and because there's political motivation. I also do agree with you they make great products, I never implied otherwise.
I only think "integrity" only because "Word would get out" between poor Chinese workers who barely have an alternative is a little bit pushing it.
I didn't mean to offend you, nor apple, when I said their marketing is genius at making their users emotional about their products. I was being honest, if a smart and reasonable person like you can get emotional with their brand. That doesn't mean that you're a sheep nor that they're dishonest. It only means that you're human and they're genius at doing they're job. And we as entrepreneurs should recognize that and try to understand how they're so good at branding.
The quality of your argument is absolutely appalling.
You claim that Apple has the most integrity of any company you have ever known, when the longest serving CEO was well known for a very wobbly relationship with the truth, in his "reality distortion field".
You also claim that any critics of Apple are driven by hatred and lack integrity.
To my mind, your entire argument lacks integrity and you are guilty of grievous insults to those who would disagree with you, even before anyone had a chance to do so.
> Apple is the company with the most integrity I've ever known. This manifests itself everywhere- from product quality to service at Apple stores.
Please. This is a completely separate issue to the OP. Working conditions for producers and service to consumers are not the same...
I can understand (and agree with) some of the points you make later in this post, but this post is dressed up far too much in off-topic (and in many cases poorly-qualified) emotive sentences and to me this does your argument (and credibility) no favours.
>> Apple solved this problem before it ever became a problem, but they are attacked because their brand is strong, and the people attacking them lack integrity.
This seems like hyperbole to me. What I mean is that Apple itself does not make this claim. They are honest about what things are good, and what things need work. Their audits often show problematic stuff; there have been reports of underage workers, workers exposed to toxic chemicals, etc. To Apple's credit, the company has worked to close those gaps. But it's clearly not the case that there have never been any problems at Apple's Foxconn factories, or that they "solved this problem before it ever became a problem."
Moreover, I don't think it's fair to take the facts that Apple jobs and longer hours are desirable at Foxconn and extrapolate from them that everything there is ideal. Let's be honest: factory work in China is not exactly the finest working environment ever conceived. There are a lot of really bad things that go on there. The fact that Apple is the best as far as Foxconn jobs are concerned does not by any means indicate that there are no problems whatsoever with the working or living environment. Again, to Apple's credit, they haven't put forward this excuse and commenced to ignore their critics; they've actively and honestly confronted the problems in the working environment in their factories, and tried to fix them, even when they've already exceeded standards set by other factories in the Foxconn group.
I think it's really important that we work to avoid whitewashing the difficult conditions at the Foxconn factories. It's really fantastic what Apple's done so far, but that doesn't mean there's nothing more to do. In our rush to speak well of a company that has done some really awesome things, let's not overstate the good they've done, lest we lose sight of why they're doing it.
I live a few blocks away from the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen and whenever I try to bring up the "poor working conditions at Foxconn" topic with locals, I most often get a blank stare as if I had suggested something completely absurd. The truth is, Foxconn jobs are vastly superior to most alternatives down here.
I would recommend Western "do-gooders" to keep in mind that Chinese people are much more concerned about their own working conditions and well being than anyone else. They are in a much better position to address their own problems and if they ever need help from us Westerners, I'm sure they won't hesitate to ask. Meanwhile, I suggest we humbly mind our own business.