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?
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.