BBC One Documentary to Profile Working Conditions in Apple's Supply Chain

[Zxxv]

stupidest thing I have heard in years

actually its not. How would you feel if another website demanded money from you, but you only read macrumours?

thats the point people make these days. They don't want the service bbc so why are they wanting money from them.

The world has moved on. This socialist idea that everyone must pay for the State Tv is outdated.

 

[numlock]

But these are not Apple employees. Why should Apple take care of another company's employees?

If this disgusts you so much maybe you need to move on from Apple products and Apple rumor sites. That would be the moral thing to do, right?

----------



So Apple is responsible for the well being of every employee from every company in their vast supply chain?

i think responsibility moves up a level(s) and for the very few that are as immense in size and power as apple comes responsibility.

companies like apple always claim how important and big they are. how many jobs they create directly and indirectly. so to answer your question i would have to say yes. and i get the same feeling from their supply responsibility page.

 

[Attonine]

actually its not. How would you feel if another website demanded money from you, but you only read macrumours?

thats the point people make these days. They don't want the service bbc so why are they wanting money from them.

The world has moved on. This socialist idea that everyone must pay for the State Tv is outdated.

Yes, I'm sure you never use any BBC services. None at all.

Anyway, you don't need to pay the license fee if you don't watch live BBC TV. You can still use iPlayer to watch catch up shows, just not live.

 

[sim667]

Its a bit of a funny on this.

Strictly speaking are foxconn employees also apple employees..... No, they are sub contractors.

As one of the biggest tech companies and most expensive tech companies in the world, do apple have an obligation to pressure their sub contractors into ensuring workers rights, yes they do.

Does this mean that apple should be pushing for workers rights to be the equivalent to the rest of the country the foxconn is based in, or for them to be as they would be in the westernised world....... that is the grey area.

That isn't the scandal, the scandal is that tech companies are largely going unchecked in their other practices, such as sourcing materials, workers rights, and companies like samsung are also arms manufacturers who literally sell death.

This is the age old trick of the media though, put a brand name on the face of it, demonise one, and the story sells, do it as the whole industry and people aren't interested, because the public is unfortunately not interested in the issue here, they're interested in the brand, this thread pushes that beyond doubt.

Does pressuring the top dog have a trickle down effect? Yes, but for the wrong reasons, and its very slow, but whilst most people go about their lives not giving a monkeys about anyone working for their desirable tech, then the trend carries along exactly on course.

 

[rctlr]

Yes, I'm sure you never use any BBC services. None at all.

Anyway, you don't need to pay the license fee if you don't watch live BBC TV. You can still use iPlayer to watch catch up shows, just not live.

When someone mentions the BBC in a forum, it always boils down to "I hate the BBC because of the TV license".

True the BBC gets the majority go the money from it, but the license fee is controlled be the government. The only way to abolish it is petition your member of parliament.

The amount of content the BBC produce, not just for the UK, but for the world is some of the best in the world.

It is a little archaic, but it's one of the cheapest fees for state funded public service television in europe, and has been frozen for a number of years. If/when the decision is made by the government to abolish it - I'm sure those funds will be found somewhere else, by subscription model, or an increase in income tax.

 

[roadbloc]

The world has moved on. This socialist idea that everyone must pay for the State Tv is outdated.

I disagree. I like the BBC and I don't mind paying the TV Licence. The BBC produce some quality shows, all without stupid ad breaks and obtrusive sponsorships. A breath of fresh air in comparison to other channels. And lets not forget iPlayer, something quite ahead of its time when released in 2007.

 

[MagicBoy]

Whether or not they're impartial is certainly up for debate what is an issue is their investigative reporting leaves a lot to be desired IMO including the running of the organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I have more faith in the BBCs investigative reporting than the accuracy of a Wikipedia article.

 

[roadbloc]

Ah the BBC, one to ignore then.

----------



Whether or not they're impartial is certainly up for debate what is an issue is their investigative reporting leaves a lot to be desired IMO including the running of the organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I wonder if they'll mention Apple manufacturing partners are also those used by Sony, Microsoft, Cisco - probably not.

There is room for criticism for all large companies and corporations. What I like about the BBC is that if something is wrong with the BBC, it's always the BBC who first report it. They're willing to be open about all of their mistakes. Want to be the first to know the latest BBC scandal? Watch the BBC then.

To think it is *possible* criticism aimed at Apple for their manufacturing process that has caused this thread to become an anti-BBC parade is quite ironic in my opinion. It amazes me that people would rather see the world remain the same and have manufacturing workers (assumingly) underpaid and working in rubbish conditions just because their precious Apple may have a few damming reports and bad press thrown in its direction. Pathetic.

And just so you know, the BBC will most likely inform viewers that other companies do the exact same too. There is no reason why they wouldn't.

 

[vito]

I have more faith in the BBCs investigative reporting than the accuracy of a Wikipedia article.

Surely, the Wikipedia article is a collection of viewpoints which include sources such as The Independent et al reporting on bias or the possibility of.

To dismiss it is no different to heavily siding with the BBC in this case.

 

[Attonine]

Surely, the Wikipedia article is a collection of viewpoints which include sources such as The Independent et al reporting on bias or the possibility of.

To dismiss it is no different to heavily siding with the BBC in this case.

Check wikipedia for Wikipedia Criticism. I think the areas of concern for Wikipedia are much greater and in many areas much more serious than for the BBC.

Considering the BBC was established in 1922 and Wikipedia in 2001, I don't think the BBC is doing too badly in comparison.

 

[MagicBoy]

Surely, the Wikipedia article is a collection of viewpoints which include sources such as The Independent et al reporting on bias or the possibility of.

To dismiss it is no different to heavily siding with the BBC in this case.

Check wikipedia for Wikipedia Criticism. I think the areas of concern for Wikipedia are much greater and in many areas much more serious than for the BBC.

Considering the BBC was established in 1922 and Wikipedia in 2001, I don't think the BBC is doing too badly in comparison.

Well said. Can't really add much to that.

As for heavily siding with the BBC - against whom? This thread is not some sort of Apple vs BBC face off.

 

[vito]

There is room for criticism for all large companies and corporations. What I like about the BBC is that if something is wrong with the BBC, it's always the BBC who first report it. They're willing to be open about all of their mistakes. Want to be the first to know the latest BBC scandal? Watch the BBC then.

To think it is *possible* criticism aimed at Apple for their manufacturing process that has caused this thread to become an anti-BBC parade is quite ironic in my opinion. It amazes me that people would rather see the world remain the same and have manufacturing workers (assumingly) underpaid and working in rubbish conditions just because their precious Apple may have a few damming reports and bad press thrown in its direction. Pathetic.

And just so you know, the BBC will most likely inform viewers that other companies do the exact same too. There is no reason why they wouldn't.

I don't agree that the BBC regulates itself when it comes to self criticism, its usually someone else who brings it to their attention and thus they have very little choice in reporting it.

Apple is a very easy target for criticism, its certainly brings eyeballs to TV screens and clicks on a website. What would be interesting to see is how the BBC differentiates Apple from its competitors who also use the same manufacturing partners when it comes to Apple's innovation in striving for better working conditions in comparison to the efforts led by others. I suspect the latter doesn't make for very good viewing.

Oh please, a state funded media outlet which has been involved in more scandals then I can remember should maybe document their wrongdoings in an edition of Panorama. Naive to have a view that the BBC is a squeaky clean broadcaster who are reporting for the good of the British public like myself that is a pathetic view to take.

----------

Check wikipedia for Wikipedia Criticism. I think the areas of concern for Wikipedia are much greater and in many areas much more serious than for the BBC.

Considering the BBC was established in 1922 and Wikipedia in 2001, I don't think the BBC is doing too badly in comparison.

By your logic paper is still doing well in comparison to silicon

You do understand how Wikipedia works right, its content is referenced thus anything you read would have originated elsewhere.

----------

Well said. Can't really add much to that.

As for heavily siding with the BBC - against whom? This thread is not some sort of Apple vs BBC face off.

Its the attitude that its the BBC then it must be factually correct.

 

[MagicBoy]

Oh please, a state funded media outlet which has been involved in more scandals then I can remember should maybe document their wrongdoings in an edition of Panorama. Naive to have a view that the BBC is a squeaky clean broadcaster who are reporting for the good of the British public like myself that is a pathetic view to take.

The BBC are centrally funded public-service broadcaster who are an independent body. The revenue comes via the license fee paid by those who own a television set.

The BBC are not state funded. State funded would be something like the North Korean Central Television...

Anyway, I'll leave you to sit in the corner in your tin-foil hat trying to avoid the TV detector vans.

----------

You do understand how Wikipedia works right, its content is referenced thus anything you read would have originated elsewhere.

Depends how often the volunteers check the content. One of my colleagues put an article up claiming that another colleague invented the Donner kebab. They didn't get around to checking it for 3 months...

Imagine all those incorrect school reports.

On another note - I love the targetting begging from Wikipedia at the moment claiming they need money whilst sat on an ever increasing cash pile of $60m+

 

[vito]

The BBC are centrally funded public-service broadcaster who are an independent body. The revenue comes via the license fee paid by those who own a television set.

The BBC are not state funded. State funded would be something like the North Korean Central Television...

Anyway, I'll leave you to sit in the corner in your tin-foil hat trying to avoid the TV detector vans.

I thought it was the BBC trust but apparently its Ofcom and parliament.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/13/ofcom-easily-regulate-bbc-chief-executive

I pay for a TV license because the wife likes to watch live broadcasts which basically consists of Eastenders!

----------



Depends how often the volunteers check the content. One of my colleagues put an article up claiming that another colleague invented the Donner kebab. They didn't get around to checking it for 3 months...

Imagine all those incorrect school reports.

On another note - I love the targetting begging from Wikipedia at the moment claiming they need money whilst sat on an ever increasing cash pile of $60m+

That's hilarious! I agree content on Wikipedia isn't checked as regularly as it should and personally don't agree it should ever be used in school reports it makes students particularly lazy.

Yea its annoying having it take over the page like that.

 

[Zxxv]

Yes, I'm sure you never use any BBC services. None at all.

Anyway, you don't need to pay the license fee if you don't watch live BBC TV. You can still use iPlayer to watch catch up shows, just not live.

I use catch up for dr who thats it. I could hire them if they weren't free and it would still be cheaper than paying for a tv license. Something I do not own because I don't watch live broadcasts. My set is also set up to not receive any broadcasts. Its just a monitor for showing other stuff.

----------

The BBC are centrally funded public-service broadcaster who are an independent body. The revenue comes via the license fee paid by those who own a television set.

Slightly incorrect. I own a tv set. I do not pay or own a tv license because I don't watch live broadcasts. Owning a tv set does not mean you pay for a licence. Its easy to think you do because the details are in the small print or in one line somewhere usually hidden away. If you do not watch tv programs as they are shown live you do not require a tv license.

Anyway, I'll leave you to sit in the corner in your tin-foil hat trying to avoid the TV detector vans.

They don't exist. I haven't bought a license in years yet they still knock on my door and send me letters. Why can't they just park outside and use the van to see I don't watch live broadcasts?

Its a con thats why. It does not work, never has worked and thats why it won't hold up in a court of law. Its a fear based system meant to control the weak minded.

 

[roadbloc]

Oh please, a state funded media outlet which has been involved in more scandals then I can remember should maybe document their wrongdoings in an edition of Panorama. Naive to have a view that the BBC is a squeaky clean broadcaster who are reporting for the good of the British public like myself that is a pathetic view to take.

I never once said the BBC is squeaky clean. In fact I stated there was plenty room for criticism. Just so you know, the BBC isn't state funded, its independent so that no government could toy with it. The fact that you value information from Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia that is nothing but an endless war of misinformation being corrected) over the BBC is laughable. Sure, the BBC may misreport things or make mistakes, but in comparison to the rest of the TV industry, they're saints as far as I'm concerned.

By your logic paper is still doing well in comparison to silicon

That is the most ridiculous interpretation I've seen on MacRumors.

----------

They don't exist. I haven't bought a license in years yet they still knock on my door and send me letters. Why can't they just park outside and use the van to see I don't watch live broadcasts?

LOL. The quip about the TV detector vans was obviously a joke. I don't think anybody actually believed they had such things. Hence the tinfoil hat bit...

 

[MagicBoy]

LOL. The quip about the TV detector vans was obviously a joke. I don't think anybody actually believed they had such things. Hence the tinfoil hat bit...

Indeed.

The vans did physically exist - I saw one cruising around outside school in the 1980s. As to if they actually did any TV detection ... that's another matter entirely. I suspect not.

Anyway, this is getting massively off topic, as any BBC thread usually does.

Roll on Thursday.

 

[Zxxv]

Indeed.

The vans did physically exist - I saw one cruising around outside school in the 1980s. As to if they actually did any TV detection ... that's another matter entirely. I suspect not.

Anyway, this is getting massively off topic, as any BBC thread usually does.

Roll on Thursday.

Just for info sake - The official excuse given to not using and presenting any detector van evidence in court is that to do so would reveal how they work. So they are useless even if they did work because to convict they still rely on a confession to watching tv. So they knock on your door saying you are watching tv we can detect it. They expect you to confess. Many do.

Supposedly/allegedly they also only worked on analogue; not digital.

 

[Milese3]

person 1: "we need a story that's going to grab viewers"
person 2: "Let's do a story on the Apple supply pipeline and how bad some of the Apple employees are treated"
person 3 (voice of reason)"But, these employees don't really work for Apple. Plus, wouldn't the supply pipeline and factories also handle other companies products as well? Why not just report on the overall story and not just limit it to Apple?"
Person 1 and 2: "clean out your desk."
And the anti Apple party rejoiced, for they saw the report and found it to be good.

Honestly, the BBC doesn't need viewers. They're the largest television broadcaster in the UK.

 

[vito]

I never once said the BBC is squeaky clean. In fact I stated there was plenty room for criticism. Just so you know, the BBC isn't state funded, its independent so that no government could toy with it. The fact that you value information from Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia that is nothing but an endless war of misinformation being corrected) over the BBC is laughable. Sure, the BBC may misreport things or make mistakes, but in comparison to the rest of the TV industry, they're saints as far as I'm concerned.

We agree their is plenty of room for improvement and accountability.

With regards to funding, they collect a license fee, can be regulated by ofcom however parliament has the ultimate responsibility (link) hence the reason I used state-funded which you can interpret however you like.

The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, they allegedly have the license fees best interest at heart.

Why is it laughable to quote from Wikipedia, you do understand that Wikipedia in itself is a collection of sourced information. If one of the sources was the BBC would that be acceptable or laughable?

That is the most ridiculous interpretation I've seen on MacRumors.

It was in direct response to one who claims just because something precedes another in time it should necessarily correlate to superiority.

LOL. The quip about the TV detector vans was obviously a joke. I don't think anybody actually believed they had such things. Hence the tinfoil hat bit...

BBC is well known for scaremongering to ensure the TV tax is paid but that's a debate for another time.

----------

...Roll on Thursday.

This!

Honestly, the BBC doesn't need viewers. They're the largest television broadcaster in the UK.

They probably don't, with the TV tax they're not going out of business soon.

 

[Attonine]

Except I never made those claims or that correlation.

Look at the criticisms of the bbc with almost 100 years under it's belt. Then look at the criticisms of Wikipedia with less than 20 years of service. I think in comparison the bbc stacks up pretty well, especially as it's had a lot more time to accumulate criticism and make c*** ups.

 

[vito]

Except I never made those claims or that correlation.

Look at the criticisms of the bbc with almost 100 years under it's belt. Then look at the criticisms of Wikipedia with less than 20 years of service. I think in comparison the bbc stacks up pretty well, especially as it's had a lot more time to accumulate criticism and make c*** ups.

I couldn't fathom to list all criticisms for each that would be a daunting task!

As MagicBoy has pointed out above, this thread is digressing considerable fast.

Lets reconvene after Thursday when it airs

 

[Ironduke]

actually its not. How would you feel if another website demanded money from you, but you only read macrumours?

thats the point people make these days. They don't want the service bbc so why are they wanting money from them.

The world has moved on. This socialist idea that everyone must pay for the State Tv is outdated.

the alternative is the american way which is disgusting and totally biased. Atleast the bbc answers to both labour and conservatives.

and the website thing you mentioned was dumb.

 

[sim667]

I disagree. I like the BBC and I don't mind paying the TV Licence. The BBC produce some quality shows, all without stupid ad breaks and obtrusive sponsorships. A breath of fresh air in comparison to other channels. And lets not forget iPlayer, something quite ahead of its time when released in 2007.

Im with you, I think the BBC has some fantastic programming.

But their news reporting so flagrantly biased its horrific.

 

[Attonine]

But their news reporting so flagrantly biased its horrific.

Really? So give me an idea of a good news service.