UPDATE: 4000 new people from India will appear at WWDC, source says.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Hire 4,000 Employees in Hyderabad, India to Work on Maps Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple were truly a global company, they would relocate 60% of management positions to other countries too.
But their head quarters is in US you need to remember that and most of designing jobs of apple are still in US. Who knows they might consider to move out if US adopts protectionist approach.
So there you go. They're not a global company. They're a US company that outsources jobs to other nations.
Right, and by a bit of an extension of that logic, Starwood Hotels or AMC cinemas are Chinese companies just outsourcing revenues and jobs to America And Jaguar Land Rover is an Indian company outsourcing jobs to the UK and revenues to China , US And Europe
The fact remains that any company that starts earning a significant percentage of its revenues outside its country of origin (or ownership) should be seen as a transnational firm rather than confined to a single nation
So lets ask apple to stop doing business with rest of the world and just manufacture their products here, sell here and ignore the rest of the world and hire here. Problem solved then we can call apple as just US company.
[doublepost=1465350464][/doublepost]
It is not an excuse it is a fact programmers are good at providing technical solutions. Just come up with your business problems we can provide good and effective technical solutions that is the job of a typical passionate programmer. We can find very few who are good at both that does not mean he will be better than a passionate good programmer.
If we hire here with out H1b's or outsourcing apple will not be able to market its products outside US and profit margins will go down as it has to rely just on domestic market. If there is demand for certain skilled job and there is shortage of labor, labor costs will be high as input costs are high product will be out of reach of many people in domestic market itself forget about overseas markets. A made in china iphone costs more $1000 in many countries. If the same phone is made in US it costs much more apple will loose many markets across the world.
For example Apple is selling 50 million iphones each quarter if the product is restricted to domestic market if 330+ million people just buy apple for six quarters at the rate of 50 million iphones per quarter market will be saturated at the end of sixth quarter.
How will rest of world own US companies as their companies and buy their products if the companies do not market themselves as global brands? Why will governments across the world provide access to the US companies if they are not ready to invest in their people or country?
They will just say get out of our market. Do you think tech companies will be able to market their products with out approval from governments? Do you think other countries cannot play hardball with tech companies like apple? World has changed a lot they are developing and they are becoming bigger markets than domestic market for many tech companies. You cannot adopt conservative approach in the world of free trade and grow.
Technology should be affordable. With higher input costs companies cannot make it affordable and earn profits to satisfy their customers and investors .
Last edited:
Zzzzzzz. I'd love nothing better than for Apple to be about 1/1000th the size they are now. Maybe then they'd FTFF.
So you want all the tech companies to be bankrupt that is cruel dude. I think apple is already employing more local people compared to a company which is 1/1000th of its size. Appreciate for sharing your thoughts.
I'm glad. A good start towards achieving growth would be to no longer use straw man arguments. Go in peace.
But the way you are thinking will not achieve growth. Anyway I do not agree with you that I am making straw man arguments. I am sure if companies or Government implements protectionist or conservative approach economy will suffer companies will suffer job loss will be very high. If a companies size is 1/1000th of its current size then jobs generated will be 1/1000th of the current jobs how could you miss such a simple logic?
I see. In that case, a good start towards achieving growth might be to actually end the argument when you say that you are going to end the argument.
Growth associated with outsourcing is a complete myth. Right now there are more people graduating from college and returning home unable to find work than ever before. In some US banks, you can enter the bank to find it's staffed with 100% H1B visa workers. The idea of outsourcing isn't to supplement the American workforce it's to replace the American workforce.
Wall Street based companies care only about the bottom line and how fast they can get their money grubbing little fingers on the savings they get by replacing workers. The correct term for todays economic model shouldn't be "Trickle down economics," it should be called "Trickle out economics coupled with trickle down poverty."
Remember just a few years ago when the geniuses on Wall Street were all hedging their bets on bad mortgages? From a microeconomic standpoint, all they could see was profits. It never occurred to them that every other firm in that business was doing the same thing - dumping junk investments on the world.
A similar thing is going on now, except in this case, what's happening is the "geniuses" are creating mass unemployment. An outsourced IT worker may end up taking a job that's below his skill level just to make ends meet. This in turn displaces another, lesser qualified individual from that job. That person in turn takes a lesser position, and on down the ladder. People that were making $100K a year now make $70K, the person that was making $50K a year now makes $35K. Someone entering the market, instead of entering his/her profession at, say $25K ends up taking minimum wage position, probably doing something a high school graduate could do. And the high school graduate or the unemployed? Well, they just stay that way, except it's now a growth industry. Fortunately the way government statistics are handled (right after Bill Clinton implemented NAFTA) "discouraged workers" meaning those that can't find jobs don't show up in employment figures, and neither are there any statistics on the number of people that end up taking lesser jobs for less money.
As more and more companies need to compete with the cheapskates that outsourced their labor force, they are faced with the option of either not being able to compete or following the trend. They follow the trend. It cycles downwards.
The end result:
There is however a bright side: The Wall Street monkeys will make a killing. They'll probably even be able to buy elevators for their cars.
Wall Street based companies care only about the bottom line and how fast they can get their money grubbing little fingers on the savings they get by replacing workers. The correct term for todays economic model shouldn't be "Trickle down economics," it should be called "Trickle out economics coupled with trickle down poverty."
Remember just a few years ago when the geniuses on Wall Street were all hedging their bets on bad mortgages? From a microeconomic standpoint, all they could see was profits. It never occurred to them that every other firm in that business was doing the same thing - dumping junk investments on the world.
A similar thing is going on now, except in this case, what's happening is the "geniuses" are creating mass unemployment. An outsourced IT worker may end up taking a job that's below his skill level just to make ends meet. This in turn displaces another, lesser qualified individual from that job. That person in turn takes a lesser position, and on down the ladder. People that were making $100K a year now make $70K, the person that was making $50K a year now makes $35K. Someone entering the market, instead of entering his/her profession at, say $25K ends up taking minimum wage position, probably doing something a high school graduate could do. And the high school graduate or the unemployed? Well, they just stay that way, except it's now a growth industry. Fortunately the way government statistics are handled (right after Bill Clinton implemented NAFTA) "discouraged workers" meaning those that can't find jobs don't show up in employment figures, and neither are there any statistics on the number of people that end up taking lesser jobs for less money.
As more and more companies need to compete with the cheapskates that outsourced their labor force, they are faced with the option of either not being able to compete or following the trend. They follow the trend. It cycles downwards.
The end result:
- Increasing trade deficits
- Reduction in consumer spending
- Higher credit risks
- More bankruptcies.
There is however a bright side: The Wall Street monkeys will make a killing. They'll probably even be able to buy elevators for their cars.
Growth with outsourcing is not a myth it works for corporate as you said in your lines. Industry needs people who are employable and work for a moderate wage which is only possible through outsourcing. Same can be achieved with locals if locals are willing to work for moderate wage. Business needs to make profits otherwise they just vanish there is no easy way for them.
If I have to start a business with $1 million I will always like to keep my operational cost as low as possible so that I can invest more money on core business. If I need 4 skilled dev/testers to keep my business operational if I have topay $100k each I almost loose 40% of my principal to operation expenses if I outsource my operation expense I can definitely save on operational cost. If my business is not successful and if operation cost is low I will not loose much as I can always sell my core business and minimize my loss. This is the exact case where H1b/Outsourcing to offshore/nearshore works for corporate.
Success or failure is a common thing and no body pays for a failed product so corporate have to find a way to recover the loss in some way this is the exact scenario where lowering the production and operational costs will be effective. We cannot ask corporate to be bankrupt to satisfy our emotions.
Last edited: