I don't feel sorry for your situation. But I do feel sorry for your inability to open your mind beyond personal experience.
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.
Tim Cook 'Deeply Offended' by BBC Documentary on Apple Factory Conditions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't feel sorry for your situation. But I do feel sorry for your inability to open your mind beyond personal experience.
I think maybe you need to go back and read the email. The idea of sourcing tin elsewhere was an option Apple considered, but as Apple is a small player compared to the total tin output of Indonesia, they felt it more important to push for better conditions and policies from the government, to try to improve conditions. If Apple gets out, the problem will persist.
LOL
I guess you missed the other part about actually verifying the terms. "Planned inspections" are a joke. Snap inspections, undercover Apple employees, clandestine employee interviews, etc...
How much effort does it take to observe the 1st day major infractions in the BBC documentary? Literally, before work even begins, there are three major infractions to the agreed upon terms that should have resulted in MAJOR contract violations. But why inspect when that might effect the "supply chain", especially when your CEO is the supply chain super wiz?
Where is your Apple defense for that?
Fair
This documentary may not be fair. But I suspect that it is publicity like this and the threat of it that partly fuels Apple's desire to work on these issues. The guys at the top of Apple are probably very nice folks. But there are nice folks at lots of companies. Apple does seem to work harder on these issues than most. And some of that is due to the unfair spotlight that media places on Apple. They can't deny that.
This documentary may not be fair. But I suspect that it is publicity like this and the threat of it that partly fuels Apple's desire to work on these issues. The guys at the top of Apple are probably very nice folks. But there are nice folks at lots of companies. Apple does seem to work harder on these issues than most. And some of that is due to the unfair spotlight that media places on Apple. They can't deny that.
Well no because Chinese workers will get better jobs, not worse.
It's called economic development. Look at the UK, at one point most people worked in factories and were treated appallingly. As the economy improved, working rights improved and people got better jobs out of the factories.
That is exactly what is happening in China right now, the country is rapidly developing and ironically by continuing to manufacture products in China, Apple is actually making it more expensive for them as the country becomes even more developed. Apple are contributing to their own downfall here.
It is sad that products can be made so cheaply because undeveloped countries can have their peoples' rights abused but unfortunately that's what capitalism does: abuses people with no capitalism.
And proving to the world that you can produce products without exploiting people is also lost. Better to keep on exploiting people, right? I guess you missed the part about people being exploited by Apple's suppliers.
This is the worst they found? This is nothing. Not sure what keeping the kids ID is all about. It has been said that Chinese workers often sleep at their desk so not sure how you can tell if these works are miserably overworked or just resting for a minute.
Also every company would be guilty of the same thing. Apple has really done a lot to change the working conditions, but obviously there is still a lot more that can be done.
Also every company would be guilty of the same thing. Apple has really done a lot to change the working conditions, but obviously there is still a lot more that can be done.
I don't quite get how you can say the BBC is in it for profit? They don't have advertisements on any of their channels and are paid for by a UK television tax. It's basically public broadcasting.
This report did not increase nor decrease the volume of money they earned at all.
And there are too many people who just because is Apple, will discard this and think they are not doing anything wrong, and somehow someone is trying to go after poor, nice, amazing Apple.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Foxconn now pays better than it did a few years ago. That is partly due to pressure that Apple received a few years back from bad publicity like this. Apple passed that pressure on to factories like Foxconn.
I'm saying that Apple needs to keep up the pressure, and in order for that to happen, the pressure needs to be kept up on Apple. The goal is not achieved if you raise the working conditions from horrific to horrendous.
I'm not berating them for trying. If you think I am, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm berating them (and you) for suggesting that they've already done enough, and don't need to do any more.
I think both sides here have fair points. I had misgivings about this programme because I've seen too many poor editions of Panorama where they feel disingenuous and misleading.
This wasn't great, and I can believe that some of Apple's objections have merit.
However, Apple shouldn't get a free pass on this. I believe they probably do do more than any of their rivals to improve conditions. I believe Apple probably do have a genuine desire to drive positive change on these issues.
But Apple themselves say they can do better. They admit themselves there is still work to be done.
Their logic behind the tin supply chain seems logical enough, but I can't help also thinking *a* reason they don't source their tin elsewhere is (perhaps in addition to their stated aim of 'improving from the inside' as it were) simply because it would cost more.
I think this is the strange world of cold corporate logic meeting warm-ish corporate ethics…
On the one hand capitalist corporations must make money for their shareholders or owners. This is often not just about making money because it's a good way to keep the business going, it's an actual legal responsibility that they must act in a financially responsible way.
On the other hand, most large corporations have loads of statements and policies on corporate ethics, on things like social responsibility, environmental considerations, etc.
The two things need not be in conflict, but when the ethics cost money to uphold, it gets trickier, even if every last executive at the company wishes it weren't so.
Apple may genuinely be 'deeply offended' by the Panorama programme, but they kind of have to say something like that (even if true). What's good (IMHO) is that this kind of thing keeps up the pressure, and actually will probably contribute to Apple being able to say to shareholders 'look, they're still on at us about this stuff - we need to do even more'. And that might be the most positive thing to come out of this.
Fundamentally though, Apple have the money to solve many of the problems that the Panorama programme covered. They may well be doing better than all their rivals, but that's not going to help the lady I watched last night who lost two successive husbands to illegal tin mining. And whilst I'm glad to read they send large numbers of staff to monitor the factories of their suppliers, such as the Pegatron plant featured in the programme (not Foxconn as some people seem to think it was for some reason), … send more maybe?
And really, maybe they should think about charging another $20-50 per iPhone if they can then say 'we're the only company with >99% compliance rates for the workers' conditions in our supplier factories… '. I think they'd be surprised how few sales it cost them, and how many extra it would make them.
This wasn't great, and I can believe that some of Apple's objections have merit.
However, Apple shouldn't get a free pass on this. I believe they probably do do more than any of their rivals to improve conditions. I believe Apple probably do have a genuine desire to drive positive change on these issues.
But Apple themselves say they can do better. They admit themselves there is still work to be done.
Their logic behind the tin supply chain seems logical enough, but I can't help also thinking *a* reason they don't source their tin elsewhere is (perhaps in addition to their stated aim of 'improving from the inside' as it were) simply because it would cost more.
I think this is the strange world of cold corporate logic meeting warm-ish corporate ethics…
On the one hand capitalist corporations must make money for their shareholders or owners. This is often not just about making money because it's a good way to keep the business going, it's an actual legal responsibility that they must act in a financially responsible way.
On the other hand, most large corporations have loads of statements and policies on corporate ethics, on things like social responsibility, environmental considerations, etc.
The two things need not be in conflict, but when the ethics cost money to uphold, it gets trickier, even if every last executive at the company wishes it weren't so.
Apple may genuinely be 'deeply offended' by the Panorama programme, but they kind of have to say something like that (even if true). What's good (IMHO) is that this kind of thing keeps up the pressure, and actually will probably contribute to Apple being able to say to shareholders 'look, they're still on at us about this stuff - we need to do even more'. And that might be the most positive thing to come out of this.
Fundamentally though, Apple have the money to solve many of the problems that the Panorama programme covered. They may well be doing better than all their rivals, but that's not going to help the lady I watched last night who lost two successive husbands to illegal tin mining. And whilst I'm glad to read they send large numbers of staff to monitor the factories of their suppliers, such as the Pegatron plant featured in the programme (not Foxconn as some people seem to think it was for some reason), … send more maybe?
And really, maybe they should think about charging another $20-50 per iPhone if they can then say 'we're the only company with >99% compliance rates for the workers' conditions in our supplier factories… '. I think they'd be surprised how few sales it cost them, and how many extra it would make them.
What dross; there are Chinese companies who would put to shame western businesses in working conditions and welfare. This idea that Apple somehow is the pinnacle of ethics and is somehow the moral compass everyone should be measured by is ridiculous.
The reality is that Apple are in total denial, are totally incompetent, or just plain complacent. You cannot have 1000's of staff embedded in the supply chain [as they claim] undertaking 100's of audits and inspections [as they claim] and not see what a couple of journalist managed in a matter of a few weeks.
The very fact that Apple pays approx $5 [as stated in the program] to assemble, by hand, an iPhone should itself be barometer to any rational person of the abhorrent conditions these poor people work in.
I like my Apple stuff as much as the next person and I know there the same stories and issues right across the industry [and many other industries], but it makes you think twice about how your little trinket comes about.
So if Tim Cook said Apple is going to start making iPhones in the U.S. all these Chinese Foxconn workers would get better jobs? Why aren't they taking those jobs right now? And who in the US would lineup to take a factory job to build iPhones? Is there a city with enough workers to staff a manufacturing plant that could pump out 30-50m iPhones in a quarter?
Thank you BBC for reporting this. It's unbelievable that Apple is such a bad company. I will buy non-Apple products from now on. Apple competitors are not mentioned by the BBC, so their factories must have top notch working condition. Chinese phones are cheaper anyway, and since the BBC does not have any reports on them, I wouldn't have to worry about their factories and/or supply chain.
I am glad that the BBC decided to educate the public with this report. This adds tremendous credibility to them, and on their other reports/news.
I am glad that the BBC decided to educate the public with this report. This adds tremendous credibility to them, and on their other reports/news.
I'm surprised there aren't more people who are "deeply offended" that their "premium" iphone made from the most "premium" materials (as opposed to cheap plasticky Android phones) costs a whopping $5 to make.
I have followed terrorism in Israel since the 1990s and helped spread some CDs at that time of undercover "sermons" by Arafat that proved his message to followers was completely the opposite of what he spoke of to the West, while standing on the lawn of the White House getting his Nobel Peace Prize.
Since then I have followed it very closely and have long since known that the media makes money with Hyperbole and untruths. For example, write a story about the bullies of Israel and everyone wishes to comment 1, 2 and 3 times which of course means great news for their advertisers and works out to big dollars.
Write a story about the truth and no one would read it. Theres no hyperbole to the truth, at least by Western standards so no money can be made.
THIS story about Apple I suspect is no different. Granted, I say this without having seen the documentary or even reading about it.
I shall do so later but I doubt the whole story is being told BUT think how much money they can make from the interest of such a story?
Which isn't to say that some of it might not be true but how much?
People tend to forget that the media, whether it be big news or programs like this ARE NOT in business to tell the truth BUT TO MAKE MONEY.
Why people keep believing what they read is utterly beyond me............and as stated, I suspect this won't be much different
Last edited:
+2
It is time for Apple to own the factories if they can't trust HonPegaHaiTron to run theirs properly.
Instead of wasting his time with hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, maybe Tim should finally clean this mess up.
IMO, people who defend everything Apple does are also part of the problem. It goes both ways.
Just an FYI on your point though:
this was a news / opinion piece done by the BBC. The BBC is a non for profit UK government Television network.
So this statement isn't accurate. the question is what is the BBC's agenda? Why did they persue this news story? Was it because they believe theires a legitimate issue or perhaps some other reason we dont know.
We should always ask the question of who benefits. But you can't automatically assume that it's just for money.
Root causes
This documentary wasn't all that shocking to me. Unions have been making the same conclusions for years - that companies who farm out work to foreign countries do so in order to get from the high costs of production brought about by many factors - high taxes, and most importantly, a unionized workforce. They understand that foreign countries don't suffer the "problem" of unions - which is how they can keep production costs so low.
Foreign, underpaid workers slaving away in cramped conditions equals profit. It's always been that way - Apple is just one in a long line of companies making profits this way. They happen to be the only company giving the appearance of actually caring and doing something about it.
People complain about unions and call them irrevelant. Nothing could be further from the truth. This documentary proves it - if companies can achieve a profit at the personal expense and health of its employees, they will do so.
Why? Because they can.
Apple can set up all the inspections it likes - but as we can see from the video, the feeder companies will just find innovative ways to cook the books and give the appearance of compliance. "Hey - the worker checked off the box indicating he's okay with standing on his feet for 12 hours a day. So what's the problem?"
The answer is to bring the work back to the western world, bite the bullet and allow unionization. Which of course means it'll never happen.
This documentary wasn't all that shocking to me. Unions have been making the same conclusions for years - that companies who farm out work to foreign countries do so in order to get from the high costs of production brought about by many factors - high taxes, and most importantly, a unionized workforce. They understand that foreign countries don't suffer the "problem" of unions - which is how they can keep production costs so low.
Foreign, underpaid workers slaving away in cramped conditions equals profit. It's always been that way - Apple is just one in a long line of companies making profits this way. They happen to be the only company giving the appearance of actually caring and doing something about it.
People complain about unions and call them irrevelant. Nothing could be further from the truth. This documentary proves it - if companies can achieve a profit at the personal expense and health of its employees, they will do so.
Why? Because they can.
Apple can set up all the inspections it likes - but as we can see from the video, the feeder companies will just find innovative ways to cook the books and give the appearance of compliance. "Hey - the worker checked off the box indicating he's okay with standing on his feet for 12 hours a day. So what's the problem?"
The answer is to bring the work back to the western world, bite the bullet and allow unionization. Which of course means it'll never happen.
Well put.
People should take a critical eye to any source of information, but it's silly to have that completely myopic attitude. Ignoring reporting because faults exist within the system just leaves us more in the dark and influenced by uniformed opinion.
And as already pointed out, the BBC is publicly funded. Sure, that doesn't make them completely immune to outside influence, but it's not your typical ad/corporate driven media conglomerate.