Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People keep arguing about cost as though that were the only factor Apple looks into when deciding where to base their factories.

For those who claim that manufacturing apple products in the US would only increase the final product cost by a marginal amount, ask yourself: would you be willing to get recalled to work at 2am because Apple discovered a flaw in its products and needed it to be rectified immediately? Or work 8-hour shifts at ungodly hours so the lines can be kept running 24/7? What happens if some union suddenly goes bonkers and calls for a strike, or holds out for higher wages?

Because that's what workers in China are doing, and that is what has allowed Apple to deliver quality products to you on time, however much you can gripe and wax lyrical about how abyssal their working conditions are.

That said, I cannot believe Apple is even bothering to dignify their detractors' comments by issuing such a statement. They should just do it the Steve way - remain mildly amused by all this hoo-haa, stay arrogantly confident and continue to do what Apple has always done; pump out quality products. In the end, let the sales numbers speak for themselves and drown out all the dissenting voices. :D
 
Last edited:
How many of those ~210,000 devs actually make enough $ to live on though is the question.

We have quite a number of full time devs all making a good living on iOS apps. It's not Apple's fault if a developer makes something no one will pay for...
 
Last edited:
Not, not a different analysis. An ACTUAL analysis as opposed to your conjecture.
Please name _one_ country whose economy has collapsed because it introduced worker's rights and laws against exploitation and hazardous working conditions.

Don't have to since I'm not making that claim.
 
Americans (or any nation for that matter) need to stop blaming all their economic problems on the few companies that are actually bringing in their wealth.

Apple are creating jobs and earning money both locally and internationally. This practice (in business in general) isn't new, hell its not even old. It's been happening since corporate business was established and man could sail/fly across the ocean.

:rolleyes:
 
I really don't care how many jobs Apple has supposedly created, or has created; I'm not really certain why they felt the need to shift focus away from their actual products either. Frankly, it's a bit worrisome when you see a large corporation start thinking in terms of quantity over quality. I would much rather have one qualified individual focused on producing the best quality products/services possible rather than having more less qualified workers focused on producing more. There's definitely a trade-off when corporations start getting too big for their own good — especially in terms of maintaining the quality that they were once built upon. I've seen it over and over with many other tech companies and I'm certain everyone here has too; it's the downfall of many empires. I can't help but notice just within the past year with the popularity of Apple products growing has come many windows converts — along with incredibly bad apps that now seem to fill the 'crappstore'. Keeping that in mind I hope the day never comes when I bite into an Apple that was once so sweet, turned rotten.
 
I really don't care how many jobs Apple has supposedly created, or has created; I'm not really certain why they felt the need to shift focus away from their actual products either. Frankly, it's a bit worrisome when you see a large corporation start thinking in terms of quantity over quality. I would much rather have one qualified individual focused on producing the best quality products/services possible rather than having more less qualified workers focused on producing more. There's definitely a trade-off when corporations start getting too big for their own good — especially in terms of maintaining the quality that they were once built upon. I've seen it over and over with many other tech companies and I'm certain everyone here has too; it's the downfall of many empires. I can't help but notice just within the past year with the popularity of Apple products growing has come many windows converts — along with incredibly bad apps that now seem to fill the 'crappstore'. Keeping that in mind I hope the day never comes when I bite into an Apple that was once so sweet, turned rotten.

Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are talking about at all, as your statements are quite general.

As with apps, I tend to agree with you. I am not familiar with the vetting process - do apple employees actually vet through each and every app before it goes on sale?
 
As with apps, I tend to agree with you. I am not familiar with the vetting process - do apple employees actually vet through each and every app before it goes on sale?

Apple has stated to the FCC that:

"Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols. Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. "

The result is:

"Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications. "

Besides mostly looking for bugs, developers often add that Apple's first concerns include watching for copyright violations.

As to how much time is spent vetting... back in 2009 Apple said they had 40 full time reviewers. They also said each app is checked by two reviewers to make more consistent decisions.

At the time, Apple said that they were receiving 8500 apps and updates to check each week. That was over 200 apps per reviewer per week... however if each app is really reviewed by two people... it rises to up to 400 apps per week.

If they worked five days a week,that's a minimum of 40 apps a day, up to 80 apps a day, per reviewer, or 5 to 10 an hour... basically five to ten minutes each, although they surely spend less time on simple apps and a longer time on more complex apps.

In that short time period, they have to look for copyright violations, breaking rules about being too close to an Apple app, using undocumented APIs, UI look and feel, and blatant bugs. No doubt they run an automated tool checking for API violations. If they're smart, they'll fake a time span so they find out if the app is hiding a time bomb to transmit personal info later on.

Do they have time to do a deeper analysis? Doesn't seem so. Apple is probably counting on being able to 1) remotely remove malware and 2) stonewall as usual, if anything gets past them.
 
Last edited:
Build in US and keep costs the same or lower than present Foxconn builds by Using the Obscene cash reserves apple has :D

Do you actually believe this, or are you simply trying to stir the pot? Yes, there are business models where a company sells hardware at a a loss to stimulate sales of profitable software, but Apple's profits are hardware driven. Even with $100B in the bank, they wouldn't last long, moving 50 million units a year at a loss.
 
I see Apple's cash balance and their off shore production situation as protection from an extremely fast moving industry.
Having all that manufacturing done in the US by hundreds of thousands of workers would kill apple if iphones and ipads suddenly stopped selling.
They would be in the same position that GM were in. You cant just wind down the staff you have if their your employees.

In the scenario that iphones and ipads arent as popular anymore Apple just amend the contracts with foxconn and cut down there production without having to deal with employment law and redundencies that companies like GM have to.

The tech industry moves far faster than the car industry (look at RIM and Nokia and how quickly they fell) so having their own assembly line workers would be bad news.

Finally, I'm sure that if there was a company like Foxxconn in the USA with the ability to guarantee millions of products built on time, Apple would use them. In fact so would Dell and Microsoft. The fact is there isn't a foxconn over here and its not apple's responsiblity or expertise to be a foxconn.
I'm sure apple isnt averse to having its products built in any particular company (Brazil have just started their plant) but its up to the US government and private investors to make such a firm like "foxconn usa".

It really is unfair to single out Apple for doing business in exactly the same way as everyone else in their field, simply because they are more succesfull than everyone else. Any journalist mentioning Apple in any negative consumer electronic manafucturing stories should make sure that Apple share the headline with MS, Sony, Samsung, Dell, Asus etc.. Otherwise the story is just crap.

Great post. I have a feeling if there were a Foxconn over here, it would be reviled as a nothing more than a high-tech sweatshop, with all the talk of global competitiveness and the virtues of "Made in USA" gone out the window.
 
As to how much time is spent vetting... back in 2009 Apple said they had 40 full time reviewers. They also said each app is checked by two reviewers to make more consistent decisions.

At the time, Apple said that they were receiving 8500 apps and updates to check each week. That was over 200 apps per reviewer per week... however if each app is really reviewed by two people... it rises to up to 400 apps per week.

To which I'd say: How much time does Google spend checking Apps that go on Android Marketplace? Answer: If not exactly zero, probably something close to it.

I'd hesitate before extrapolating anything from 2009 to today. In 2009 Apple couldn't know for certain how the App Store was going to take off. It seems far more probable that Apple has far more infrastructure and process in place today for checking Apps.

Secondly, I think its highly probable that Apple has automated the App checking process. Running submitted code on virtual machines representing every iOS device, under a wide variety of operating conditions, looking for conditions that would cause a crash or hang. Looking for bad memory handling, etc. etc. The amount of "eyes on" time by a human reviewer is simply to look for inappropriate imagery, double check for copyright issues, and to act as a final review.

Lastly, I think you need to recognize that iOS inherently is going to make it considerably more of a challenge for malware, trojans, etc. to get onto the device than Android. Which is why, to date, and after billions of apps being installed on hundreds of millions of iOS devices, there have been virtually zero reports of such issues. Thats not Six Sigma effectiveness, its an order of magnitude better than that.

Is Apple's App Checking process perfect? Obviously not. There have been reports of Apps reporting back location info and snooping into address books, among others. But these incidents have been addressed by Apple, and I'm sure that their process will continue to evolve to deal with new issues as they arrive.

Apple's App Review process isn't perfect. But suggesting from three year old data that they spend only a couple of minutes looking at each App is to make assumptions that don't really seem to be borne out by the results.
 
People keep arguing about cost as though that were the only factor Apple looks into when deciding where to base their factories.

For those who claim that manufacturing apple products in the US would only increase the final product cost by a marginal amount, ask yourself: would you be willing to get recalled to work at 2am because Apple discovered a flaw in its products and needed it to be rectified immediately? Or work 8-hour shifts at ungodly hours so the lines can be kept running 24/7? What happens if some union suddenly goes bonkers and calls for a strike, or holds out for higher wages?

Because that's what workers in China are doing, and that is what has allowed Apple to deliver quality products to you on time, however much you can gripe and wax lyrical about how abyssal their working conditions are.

That said, I cannot believe Apple is even bothering to dignify their detractors' comments by issuing such a statement. They should just do it the Steve way - remain mildly amused by all this hoo-haa, stay arrogantly confident and continue to do what Apple has always done; pump out quality products. In the end, let the sales numbers speak for themselves and drown out all the dissenting voices. :D

Well considering that factories can and often do run 24/7 that is not exactly a huge deal. You can run three 8 hour shifts and that 24 hours 5 days a week.
Or you can do what is pretty common and run the 4 12 system or a version there of(4 days, 4 days off, 4 nights, 4 days off ect.)
It is pretty common in I know the oil industry and other industries. The American Auto plants run 24/7 and really only shut down for maintenance or other changes overs.

All in all your argument on the getting people up is crap. Labor cost wise it would cost very little more to build the phone here. Their are other issues involved but it is not labor cost. A US plant would be much more robotized as over in China they are using people as robots.
 
Do you actually believe this, or are you simply trying to stir the pot? Yes, there are business models where a company sells hardware at a a loss to stimulate sales of profitable software, but Apple's profits are hardware driven. Even with $100B in the bank, they wouldn't last long, moving 50 million units a year at a loss.

I know nothing...just a dream some of us had...
 
This is a great start Apple! Now just bring your manufacturing and all other outsourced labor back to the states!
You can do it Apple! I believe in you!
 
Strange that this is becoming news now, Apple has been outsourcing manufacturing for 30 years. They built a manufacturing plant here when grants and a low tax rate were available, and when it became cheaper again to move them all to Taiwan/China, they did so.

It has nothing to do with unions or lazy workers, the cost of living is too high in most western countries, meaning the cost of employment is too high. The only way manufacturing will ever move back to western countries in a significant way is if there's a major taxation change or the cost of shipping increases dramatically (perhaps due to the cost of oil?).

And in Apple's case, the argument for outsourcing is even stronger - with the sheer volume that they now need, there are very few countries in which they could tool up and build up a workforce that quickly.
 
$100B in the bank means $100B more that banks can loan out to people starting businesses, buying houses and cars, and other things, which all means more job growth and more tax income for the government. Do you think banks give out interest because of magic? Banks are profit-making enterprises, using your money to make more money, then they give you back a cut.

Don't argue about economics if you are so ignorant of the basic elements of an economic system.

Quid pro quo, friend. How much of that $100B do you think is in US banks? Almost NONE. Apple has been asking for a tax free chance to re-patriate that money to spend it in the US, because bringing it back to the US would mean that they'd have to pay taxes on it - and since it's a nice even 100, even 15% tax would be $15 Billion skimmed right off the top to the government. Tim Cook does NOT want to pay those taxes and lose that money and stock holders don't want it either. On the other hand, some think it's wrong to hold that money out side of the US, just to keep from paying taxes, and then ask for a tax holiday just to bring it back. No one in the US is borrowing against or taking any advantage of that money, other than Apple stock holders.
 
Quid pro quo, friend. How much of that $100B do you think is in US banks? Almost NONE. Apple has been asking for a tax free chance to re-patriate that money to spend it in the US, because bringing it back to the US would mean that they'd have to pay taxes on it - and since it's a nice even 100, even 15% tax would be $15 Billion skimmed right off the top to the government. Tim Cook does NOT want to pay those taxes and lose that money and stock holders don't want it either. On the other hand, some think it's wrong to hold that money out side of the US, just to keep from paying taxes, and then ask for a tax holiday just to bring it back. No one in the US is borrowing against or taking any advantage of that money, other than Apple stock holders.

I know the US is the only country that actually matters :rolleyes:, but it would be more accurate to point out that they did actually pay taxes on that money in the country it was made. The US just wants its own cut, which is completely reasonable. Of course, leaving the money off shore to save on taxes is reasonable as well.
 
I know the US is the only country that actually matters :rolleyes:, but it would be more accurate to point out that they did actually pay taxes on that money in the country it was made. The US just wants its own cut, which is completely reasonable. Of course, leaving the money off shore to save on taxes is reasonable as well.

I wonder how much of Apple's revenue goes through its Irish operation. The corporate tax rate is about 1/3 of the US rate, so it's a very cheap place to do business.
 
I know the US is the only country that actually matters :rolleyes:, but it would be more accurate to point out that they did actually pay taxes on that money in the country it was made. The US just wants its own cut, which is completely reasonable. Of course, leaving the money off shore to save on taxes is reasonable as well.

Agreed, it's a balance. Consumers and stockholders will still see the benefits of Apple's $100B either way. The US gov may or may not.
 
(Random app developer who makes ten bucks a month asks if he's counted.)


Actually, to steal a quote from you, you're mostly wrong. Oops, no, sorry... you're entirely, utterly, totally wrong.

When Apple talks about 210k people in that industry, they're not doing something ridiculously dumb like just taking the number of app developers who have apps in the app store. They are using a 2012 TechNet study of the app development sector in the US, and using TechNet's own methodology to extrapolate the percentage of people in the mobile phone/tablet development industry that are developing for iOS/the percentage of any given company that is devoted to iOS if it is a multi-OS company.

What's really funny is, you actually correct other people, while making blind, eyes-closed assumptions like this. Whereas if you had even bothered to visit the Apple page being talked about in the post, you could have scrolled down to the bottom to read EXACTLY how the number was come up with.

It's sad when you're too lazy to even do that, but at the same time you feel you have to correct other people's impressions. It says a lot about you, really.

Let's quote what the page says, actually:

Apple Computer said:
A study by Analysis Group found that Apple has directly or indirectly created 304,000 U.S. jobs.* These jobs — spread across all 50 states — include thousands of jobs in numerous industries, from the people who create components for our products to the people who build the planes and trucks that carry them to our customers. For example, this figure also includes workers in Texas who manufacture processors for iOS products, Corning employees in Kentucky and New York who create the majority of the glass for iPhone, and FedEx and UPS employees. Together with the 210,000 iOS jobs generated by the app economy, these 304,000 jobs make a total of 514,000 U.S. jobs created or supported by Apple.

Odds are very strange that Corning, FedEx and UPS would have jobs without Apple. Why? People need cell phones, parts and delivery. NOW: Do you mean to say if Apple didn't exist, Corning still wouldn't make glass for other products, like they currently do? Oh wait.

Manufacture Processors for iOS products? Again, used in many products. If Apple doesn't buy them, their competitors would. So I fail to see how this is a big deal. Its true Apple can command a higher price and make things more stable, but the computer industry didn't have problems before Apple's ascendancy, and they're not having problems now (see Apple). I fail to see any evidence Apple can say that these jobs exist solely for Apple and wouldn't without Apple or any alternatives to Apple.

Apple Computer said:
With more than 550,000 apps and more than 24 billion downloads in less than four years, the App Store has created an entirely new industry: iOS app design and development. The app revolution has added more than 210,000 iOS jobs to the U.S. economy since the introduction of iPhone in 2007.** And Apple has paid more than $4 billion in royalties to developers through the App Store. We also provide app developers with the tools and distribution they need to bring their best ideas to tens of millions of iOS customers worldwide.

Oh, about that study? Guess what: Its based on want ads. There is science at play here, but its at an assumption that there are 3.5 times the position as the amount of initial ads placed, and then multiplied by 2 for total tech...and then multiplied by 1.5 due to economic impact of the company on other segments of the economy. But guess what? It seems to count each publisher as a job to size up the economy (Not so, hence my counting him). Using this assumption as reality, you have a number the study tries to hit. Even forbid a researcher trying to prove that a bunch of jobs in a sector which, again, might not even generate revenue outside of the hiree (remember that guy making $10 a month or day or whatever it was? He's a publisher and "job creator" even if he hires no one and since he services the industry, guess what? He's included in those numbers!). So you have to ask yourself about the quality of the pay in those jobs, and there is NO INFORMATION about it. Its like the general economy at play here-there's almost NEVER any mention of how well "new jobs" pay and we are told to accept it as good news. New jobs seem to never pay as well as old jobs, but...hey, look at it this way, we should accept it as great.

And comparing Apple to the auto industry is an outright joke I would add.

No doubt you want to defend Apple, and Apple's doing what's great for Apple, and they have some spillover of good into other places. That is a side effect and in my view, they could do more. They don't HAVE to do more though. And that's the problem-the company with the biggest market cap in the world, let's be honest, only hires 47,000 people. Every employee at Apple has a market cap of OVER $10M. Just think about how absurd it is to be a guy making $8/h at an Apple store, to see this...even though yes, its based on patents and what not and holdings of the company...but also let's read more about what it says on Apple's website...:

Apple Computer said:
The number of Apple jobs based in the U.S. has more than quadrupled over the past decade, from less than 10,000 employees in 2002 to more than 47,000 today. That number more than doubles again when we include vendors that employ more than 50,000 people who directly support Apple. These jobs require people with a wide variety of skills — including construction workers, component manufacturers, retail specialists, tech support representatives, salespeople, marketers, and the best hardware and software engineers in the world.

Our 246 retail stores in the U.S. average well over 100 employees each — the majority of whom are full-time employees. But unlike most retailers, we don’t rely on seasonal hiring. And part-time Apple Store employees are eligible for the same benefits as our full-time staff, including health insurance and the employee stock purchase plan.

Back in the doldrums of Apple, it went down to less than 10,000 but we can assume above 9000. If you subtract the retail jobs-27350-from Apple's total employment-that means Apple outside Retail only hires 19,650 people, which includes clerks, interns, part timers at the HQ and what not. It is true, however, that some of the retail jobs are legit upper and middle class jobs, so we'll keep the number where it is. That means Apple has grown by leaps and bounds, but has only just about doubled its employment in the last decade. Let's make this more nasty though: 7700 jobs in Applecare, which weren't there back ten years ago-I'd be shocked if it was much above 500, but let's be conservative and say Apple had 1000 working in this. That means that Apple outside of retail and Applecare employs only 13,000 people-not outrageously good, sorry, no matter how rosey you make it.

It says a lot about you about how you're completely incapable of processing economic data. I assume that every part time job created at CVS means the economy is improving despite full time, unionized with benefits manufacturing jobs being shed. That's the point: There's no evidence that these jobs are created by Apple, there's no evidence that they're full time, there's no evidence they bring in income they improve the economy-outside of the benefits of shareholders. The study, put simply, is very broad. Even if you assume good faith, it means that Apple's market cap basically pegs its value at $1M per job, far more than 99% of those workers will ever see from their job without harsh inflation. But why would you allow facts to get in the way of your denials about the nature of the modern US economy? This argument isn't just about Apple.

Your post reeks of absolute and unforgivable ignorance. Your logic is definitively flawed, inaccurate and insufficient to warrant a read, never mind a response...but I must digress.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Apple would be the same revered, respected juggernaut in the industry if it had a profit margin of a piddly (5%..?) like you suggest. Do you think Apple would be building data centers, expanding it's retail presence and building fuel cell farms (in the US), if it sacrificed it's profits? Btw, all those aforementioned projects are sure to provide tons of HIGH QUALITY jobs for US citizens.

How about Apple's share price? Do you think Apple would be trading at $500+ if it threw all it's profits out the window (and by that I mean trying to start a viable manufacturing operation in North America). Apples outstanding share price is helping out lots of ordinary people (like myself) in providing solid investment income.

Do you think Apple would be hiring engineers by the thousands to make the next great iProduct if it's profit margin was so thin?

The answer is no, none of that could happen. Instead we'd throw away a bunch of high-skill high salary jobs for a bunch of blue collar garbage.

The migration of manufacturing jobs off-shore is the best thing to happen to North America. Who wants to make a living clipping plastic and metal together in a factory anymore?

If Apple could make it off those margins, great, they could still make it. The point is that Apple could afford to take the hit-but has NO REASON TO. That, to me, makes them immoral, but it is not a company's obligation to be moral: there is no way to force a company to be moral aside from obeying laws, and I see no evidence Apple is not doing that. If you pass a law mandating the amount of jobs per profit, you'll make a company inflexible and constantly at risk due to the law, and if you backstop it with government support, then you put the taxpayers at risk. That doesn't mean Apple is a good company for most of the economy. It isn't. Its neutral at best in that, as there's no real evidence of massive, quality job creation in the US, there's no evidence of massive job deterioration. So Apple's function is rather obvious: It makes some people a lot of money, those people are almost always rich because, let's face it, owning 100 shares of Apple is well outside of the ability of most people in this world, and influential, and it did make a few lucky people in the middle class rich. This isn't a bad thing at all-but it explains why its lauded by elites, as the smart money has owned Apple for a while and they think its great, and with good reason.

As seen above, Apple isn't hiring Engineers by the thousand. Sorry. Apple is notoriously stingy with its money, despite having how much money in the bank, overseas, mostly so it doesn't have to pay taxes on it on its profits...mostly because spending that money would mean encountering all sorts of taxes anyway (Showing the tax system is broken, as the government is getting next to none of it, and Apple can't spend its money anyway too easily) but you're wrong if you do a quick look through Apple's analysis: They're merely hiring people to sell and service their products. Not design. Not manufacture.

And who wants to work in a factory? Look towards how large of a segment the auto industry is. Who wants to do treacherous work? Look at things such as garbage pickup-public and private-in the US, let alone the energy industry.

I could care less if Apple trades at $500 a share or $5 a share. A 100-1 split wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily-but again, obviously Apple's share price isn't directly helping ordinary people for one obvious reason: Ordinary people don't own Apple stock. Outside of these message boards, I haven't met one person who owns Apple Stock. I've met plenty of people who WISH they did, I know people who trade it in their companies and make bonuses off it, but I don't know ANYONE who owns it themselves: And that's the thing about Apple Stock-its bounced off of people looking to resell. Why? They don't pay dividends, and its price is based solely off future growth and cash reserves. At the level it is at, it stinks of a bubble solely because they're not returning any investment to the investor, and they don't need to, so long as people are willing to buy something solely because it moves up in price. Again, Apple is doing nothing wrong and I understand the technicals are good, but the reality is Apple is a LARGE company in terms of valuation and they have no excuse for not paying dividends aside from TAX EVASION-which is allowable because the market isn't demanding it. So Apple is only helping a select group, not "ordinary people" unless you have the same logic as TARP helping prevent unemployment by letting banks have access to individual savings, individual investments, AND taxes.

Your post reeks of unforgivable ignorance itself: You realize that your type of post, ignoring reality and the middle class is the reason you have OWS, Tea Party and such movements? They just know their middle class jobs (in the Tea Party) have been taken away, and the OWS people know they're not going to get the jobs promised to them. Why? Because we should be thankful that we have easily replaceable service jobs that provide no hard commodity or manufactured jobs and can be taken offline in a second?

And I don't care about "Respect and revered"-that doesn't mean "Good" as much as "feared" and "powerful"-to me, neutral terms used to turn heads of people who don't know better.

The Texan Microprocessor fabrication as well as the Corning Glass production to me are evidence that the iPhone is made partially in the US as well. This shows your argument is bunk about the assembly of the iPhone in the US due to the fact these components are US components and reasonably priced. The screens? Those are probably made with parts coming from Japan or Korea as well, which pay middle class wages. Why are these not too expensive for companies involved? Because it turns out that labor isn't nearly as expensive as people like you think.

Enjoy your Apple Stock though, and think that you're one of the rest of us with it. One share would buy 100 subway sandwiches and most people live paycheck to paycheck...so if that middle class person skips 100 dinners, I suppose they can afford 1 share of Apple, so long as they buy it now and not in 100 days.
 
Let's quote what the page says, actually:



Odds are very strange that Corning, FedEx and UPS would have jobs without Apple. Why? People need cell phones, parts and delivery. NOW: Do you mean to say if Apple didn't exist, Corning still wouldn't make glass for other products, like they currently do? Oh wait.

Manufacture Processors for iOS products? Again, used in many products. If Apple doesn't buy them, their competitors would. So I fail to see how this is a big deal. Its true Apple can command a higher price and make things more stable, but the computer industry didn't have problems before Apple's ascendancy, and they're not having problems now (see Apple). I fail to see any evidence Apple can say that these jobs exist solely for Apple and wouldn't without Apple or any alternatives to Apple.

I'm not debating the validity of rest of your points. As in, I'm not trying to say your general point is right or wrong.

I'm only calling out two things that you used as examples that don't support your points: "Do you mean to say if Apple didn't exist, Corning still wouldn't make glass for other products, like they currently do? Oh wait.
Manufacture Processors for iOS products? Again, used in many products. If Apple doesn't buy them, their competitors would."

1) Corning makes many types of glass. Gorilla glass is one type of glass and is the one used now for cell phone screens. I recall reading several times that prior to the iPhone, Gorilla glass had no industrial use. So if Apple didn't exist, Corning would still be making glass. But the entire production line of Gorilla glass would not exist until somebody else had the idea to use a glass plate for their touch screen. Given that Apple had to work on a way to shape/cut the glass as well, this would not have been a simple "oh, let's use glass!" so of decision amongst engineers. It likely would have remained an abandoned project for much longer.

2) The Texas Samsung plant is also another special case.
Nearly the entire plant is dedicated to chips customized by Apple, which wouldn't be used in any other manufacturer's product because they're Apple's custom chips.

Would a plant not making chips for Apple be making chips for another company? Normally yes.

However, in the case of this plant, not likely. (or at a significantly smaller scale.) This is because the plant is as big as it is due to investment from Apple.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-apple-samsung-idUSTRE7BF0D420111216
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/02...amsungs-texas-chip-making-plant-says-analyst/

----------

The Texan Microprocessor fabrication as well as the Corning Glass production to me are evidence that the iPhone is made partially in the US as well. This shows your argument is bunk about the assembly of the iPhone in the US due to the fact these components are US components and reasonably priced. The screens? Those are probably made with parts coming from Japan or Korea as well, which pay middle class wages. Why are these not too expensive for companies involved? Because it turns out that labor isn't nearly as expensive as people like you think.

One more....

I'm guessing you're not familiar with how LCDs and chips are made. And I'm guessing you're not familiar with how that differs from what Foxconn provides.

Essentially, LCDs and chips are highly automated. They can't be done by hand, so there is no choice but to have robots do it. After all, can any of us align photomasks at the micron level by hand, and do it in the presence of gasses that set on fire when exposed to air as well as chemicals that seep through your skin and melt bone? (no joke, it was an intriguing lecture at univ)

At Foxconn, you have barely skilled laborers screwing screws together, taping things together, gluing things together.

It's very different. And you can't use the Texan plant or LG's/Sharp's/etc silicon products manufacturing to make any statement about manual labor in a 1st world country because they are simply too different.
 
I'm not debating the validity of rest of your points. As in, I'm not trying to say your general point is right or wrong.

I'm only calling out two things that you used as examples that don't support your points: "Do you mean to say if Apple didn't exist, Corning still wouldn't make glass for other products, like they currently do? Oh wait.
Manufacture Processors for iOS products? Again, used in many products. If Apple doesn't buy them, their competitors would."

1) Corning makes many types of glass. Gorilla glass is one type of glass and is the one used now for cell phone screens. I recall reading several times that prior to the iPhone, Gorilla glass had no industrial use. So if Apple didn't exist, Corning would still be making glass. But the entire production line of Gorilla glass would not exist until somebody else had the idea to use a glass plate for their touch screen. Given that Apple had to work on a way to shape/cut the glass as well, this would not have been a simple "oh, let's use glass!" so of decision amongst engineers. It likely would have remained an abandoned project for much longer.

2) The Texas Samsung plant is also another special case.
Nearly the entire plant is dedicated to chips customized by Apple, which wouldn't be used in any other manufacturer's product because they're Apple's custom chips.

Would a plant not making chips for Apple be making chips for another company? Normally yes.

However, in the case of this plant, not likely. (or at a significantly smaller scale.) This is because the plant is as big as it is due to investment from Apple.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-apple-samsung-idUSTRE7BF0D420111216
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/02...amsungs-texas-chip-making-plant-says-analyst/

----------



One more....

I'm guessing you're not familiar with how LCDs and chips are made. And I'm guessing you're not familiar with how that differs from what Foxconn provides.

Essentially, LCDs and chips are highly automated. They can't be done by hand, so there is no choice but to have robots do it. After all, can any of us align photomasks at the micron level by hand, and do it in the presence of gasses that set on fire when exposed to air as well as chemicals that seep through your skin and melt bone? (no joke, it was an intriguing lecture at univ)

At Foxconn, you have barely skilled laborers screwing screws together, taping things together, gluing things together.

It's very different. And you can't use the Texan plant or LG's/Sharp's/etc silicon products manufacturing to make any statement about manual labor in a 1st world country because they are simply too different.

I get that. But you need people to service the robots. Those are usually high paying jobs! But even those "Taping screws together" jobs...that is work that can be automated here, or done here! In fact, there are plenty of manufacturing jobs in the US-it is still the second largest manufacturer of goods in the world, and was up until I believe last year, maybe two years ago No. 1.

I'm aware of how they're made. Automation requires people servicing the parts. That's why I said good, middle class jobs describing the LCD plants.

And subsequently, you CAN have those jobs in the "First world" and...Korea is essentially a first world country anyway nowadays, and many screens are made there anyway.

The point I was making is that for some products, Apple can afford to buy US parts, or other first world country parts, which were produced with someone from the first world or equal pay making the parts, so why can't they assemble the phone for the same pay? The answer is rather simple: They can get quality without it, and there's no incentive to.
 
I get that. But you need people to service the robots. Those are usually high paying jobs! But even those "Taping screws together" jobs...that is work that can be automated here, or done here! In fact, there are plenty of manufacturing jobs in the US-it is still the second largest manufacturer of goods in the world, and was up until I believe last year, maybe two years ago No. 1.

I'm aware of how they're made. Automation requires people servicing the parts. That's why I said good, middle class jobs describing the LCD plants.

And subsequently, you CAN have those jobs in the "First world" and...Korea is essentially a first world country anyway nowadays, and many screens are made there anyway.

The point I was making is that for some products, Apple can afford to buy US parts, or other first world country parts, which were produced with someone from the first world or equal pay making the parts, so why can't they assemble the phone for the same pay? The answer is rather simple: They can get quality without it, and there's no incentive to.

I certainly agree that Korea is first world and that many panels are made there. I also agree that yes, it takes highly paid engineers to service automated lines. However, it's several orders of magnitude difference in the quantity of service engineers for automation compared to assembly workers assembling phones by hand. There is also no reason I see as to why unskilled assembly workers should have pay anywhere close to the highly trained (and more difficult) workers making/assisting-in-making the significantly more difficult components.

So far, I'm glad that for many of the higher quality brands, the hardware design of the devices, the software, and the relatively-cutting-edge components are still primarily done by employees in first world countries. (I'll also admit that's selfish since I'm a software engineer) But I'm also trying to be pragmatic. If there's jobs we don't actually want to do, let somebody else do them.

But I disagree that they'd be able to get first world countries to assemble the phone at a rate and cost that would be considered acceptable to both the major electronics vendors as well as the workers that would be employed in such manufacturing.

We have several problems here that are very difficult to resolve.
1) If we use automation, sure, it makes manufacturing easier and cheaper. But there's less jobs because robots are taking them.
2) If we try to make lots of jobs doing assembly, they'll be for unskilled labor. But people will then also complain about the low wages. So if Apple were to do some heavy investment in a manufacturing line in the US, how many people really want to sign up to work for minimum wage assembling a phone?
3) If we pay higher wages, what's the incentive for the company to do so? Especially since there is not only the increase in wages for the workers in the US, but the slower hiring, the more difficultly handling the hiring due to laws, the cost of insurance, and the cost of building up their own manufacturing line?

One thing I feel that needs to be resolved is #2.
Suppose Apple or Motorola or Microsoft were to all of a sudden open a manufacturing plant and be ready to employ as many people as necessary to make their products, would the people clamoring for the jobs actually want them?
Like, if I were unemployed, what of these options would I consider viable solutions to my situation?
1) Flipping burgers at McDonalds or In-N-Out Burger at minimum wage?
2) Buying some tools and passing my name around facebook to friends to do handiwork? (you know, like changing a faucet, or changing oil on a car, or teaching people how to maintain their own car, or installing ground fault protected sockets) (for however much I can negotiate?)
3) Assembling iPhones, Droid Razrs, or xbox360s? (at minimum wage)
4) Passing my name around for fixing personal computers? (for however much I can negotiate?)
 
2) If we try to make lots of jobs doing assembly, they'll be for unskilled labor. But people will then also complain about the low wages. So if Apple were to do some heavy investment in a manufacturing line in the US, how many people really want to sign up to work for minimum wage assembling a phone?
3) If we pay higher wages, what's the incentive for the company to do so? Especially since there is not only the increase in wages for the workers in the US, but the slower hiring, the more difficultly handling the hiring due to laws, the cost of insurance, and the cost of building up their own manufacturing line?

A key problem I have with this attitude is it also can apply to clothing. A lot of US shoe manufacturers have gone out of business (Like Endicott-Johnson) due to pressure from Asia. However...that's also not completely true. While many shoes are made in Asia, New Balance has survived and seems to be thriving. They make their shoes in the US. They're a tad more expensive, and they don't get the same publicity as Nike. And they're not 33% more expensive than their competition, at least so far as I can see. Maybe they are. Honestly, I don't care.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.