Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shivetya | Hacker News Reader

Well I was not going to buy one, the price jump from the previous Pro was not something I or many expected or appreciated.

I will get on my soap box again.

Apple needs to be out of China, not moving more manufacturing to that country. What will it take to get Apple to stand up for the rights of the oppressed in China or are they that wrapped up in dollars they no longer see the people component? For a country which struts around in Western countries about their rights and privacy position their continued and increasing production in China shows how much that stand of theirs is meaningless.

They stand for rights and privacy only when it does not interfere with their revenue stream

View on HN

Honestly this is a very one-sided view of the issue. The life of Chinese people definitely improved with economic improvements.

In spite of the Chinese party...

The Chinese gov may be massive and seem all encompassing but they don’t have an economic and financial administrative system yet comparable to the US (or Europe) which is involved in licensing and oversight of everything at multiple tiers of gov in the west, from who can be an interior designer (4yrs! of education is mandatory in some states) to who can cut hair. When China does have a system in place it can usually be bypassed by “financially partnering” with the local party officials. Which has allowed industry to flourish there, in spite of the sweeping sociopolitical controls and strong security posturing, which of course includes some of the downsides of lacking forward thinking administration with a strong industrial sector (environmental, long working hours, etc).

Just take the example of the whole process of opening a factory in the US, despite having the full support of the executive branch and some local governments, it has been an eye opening disaster for Foxconn. Any large factory opening in the US is a big deal and a laborious process that has to be greased by extensive tax breaks (to already wealthy companies) and other such nonsense (see Amazons whole HQ charade) to even happen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn's_Wisconsin_plant

So the improvements to the economic lives of the Chinese may have improved massively there are still lots of other areas it's straight-up authoritarian, or worse, its opaque what level of government is involved.Which in business is usually none until you’re making a lot of money, which can be skimmed. The good thing is with economic success comes improvements to education, healthcare quality, foreign travel, etc which improves the individual Chinese position in the world and hopefully can empower their home country to some brighter future.

> in spite of the government

It's often like that. If you think the government of Trump is responsible for America's progress let's chat. The point is that it is permissive enough.

I believe you are over-simplifying a very complicated argument, although perhaps HN is not the place for the full argument.

When I was young, I lived in nightly fear of China. I lived on a military base in the 1980s, and read conspiratorialist material my parents had in the house. One of my greatest fears was China's army of hundreds of millions of men. Today I don't fear China. I have a ten-year tourist visa for China and will be heading to Hong Kong next week.

I believe the difference is economic engagement. The economic interests of both America and China are too entangled now to imagine a military war between the two countries.

So on the one extreme is sanctions a la Iran or North Korea, and on the other extreme is the full unlimited economic engagement we have now. If the choices are that stark, I choose engagement every time.

The choice isn't that stark, though. One can still engage but with limits and conditions, right? It seems likely that even if Apple completely withdrew all manufacturing from China, or with even more difficulty and expense, completely withdrew all supply of raw materials, there would still be enough economic engagement between China and other companies to make open hostility unpalatable. But Apple is definitely one of the bigger companies doing business there, and they would have lost any influence there at all.

Right now Apple can say they've brought the standard of living for employees of factories which build Apple gear up quite a bit. Not to western standards, obviously, but far, far higher than they were. If Apple leaves, do those changes remain? Or do the standards drop back down to pre-Apple levels, sending people back into poverty and hardship? I don't know, do you?

Where would Apple send manufacturing next? They were producing the Mac Pro in the US, which I think is one of the largest reasons that platform has stagnated for years now. Do you have a suggestion of another country that provides the resources Apple needs while also providing a standard of living for every citizen that satisfies you? I mean, does the standard of living for every citizen of the US satisfy you?

Anyway, it's a complicated issue, and I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't continue to do more, but I think disengagement is not the right move here, for Apple, for Chinese citizens, for anyone.

> Today I don't fear China. I have a ten-year tourist visa for China and will be heading to Hong Kong next week.

Hong Kong was just the site of a million people protesting because they were afraid of China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/11/why-are-t...

and winning

Not sure we have. The chief executive just ignore the 1 then 2m walk due to the support of chinese comunust regime.

China is strong and cohesive enough the world should be afraid. Raising economically but totalitarian politically justify a strong arm and nasty approach. And any people struggled would be jailed. (Last noble prize winner plus nearly all human rights lawyers.)

Be afraid.

If you don’t you are playing fire with your children’s life. Macau -> HK -> Taiwan once done it will expand to asia. Good luck to humanity.

Is Macau even with you on this protest? And where do you get the fantasy of democracy or freedom in HK before 1997? How old were you in 1997?

HK may have been prosperous before 1997, but it doesn't mean it was democratic or free. Not ruled by China != democratic and free.

> And where do you get the fantasy of democracy or freedom in HK before 1997?

Just to respond to the point about democracy in Hong Kong.

It is written in the Basic Law (the constitution of Hong Kong) Article 45 that the Chief executive should be chosen by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee as an eventual goal.

So to a certain extent the demand for democracy is based on the constitution.

> I believe the difference is economic engagement. The economic interests of both America and China are too entangled now to imagine a military war between the two countries.

This was a very popular argument before world war one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

It's true that World War One didn't disprove Angell's specific argument (war is economically and socially irrational) but economic interests don't prevent them either.

> What will it take to get Apple to stand up for the rights of the oppressed in China

Economically speaking, the standard of living for the average Chinese person has improved dramatically in recent decades, precisely because of foreign manufacturers locating operations there. Would you rather have the Chinese regime oppressing the people with their current level of wealth, or the same regime oppressing a people with 1% of their current wealth (e.g. North Korea)? Please note, I am in no way supporting the Chinese state or oppression of any kind. I'm merely saying that removing manufacturing from China would definitely have a negative impact on the people.

> They stand for rights and privacy only when it does not interfere with their revenue stream

Their "stand for rights and privacy" helps improve their revenue stream: it is marketing. Same story for any green initiatives, diversity initiatives, etc. It's all marketing to cast a positive corporate image with consumers.

Now for the flip side: if enough people raise a stink about Chinese manufacturing to the point that revenues begin to decline due to that fact, then the corporation will relocate its operations.

> Would you rather have the Chinese regime oppressing the people with their current level of wealth, or the same regime oppressing a people with 1% of their current wealth (e.g. North Korea)?

You hit the nail on the head. Every time someone brings up "human rights" as a reason to stop trading with China is just hiding behind a pretentious facade, and an obvious one at that. It's totally understandable to feel threatened by the rise of China, it's totally understandable to feel competitive pressure from a country that deploys many unfair strategies, but it's not ok to pretend to care about the "human rights" of a country's citizen while being absolutely ok devastating an economy of 1.4 billion people.

Someone on Reddit literally said because CCP doesn't respect human rights, we should send the country back to the middle age and cut off them completely from the rest of the world.

You know what, I bet even if China were a completely democratic country, there would still be many who hold extremely hostile/defensive attitude towards the them, for a myriad of reasons that I'm not going to spell out.

But at least there are some inside. That is human.

The fear of china ... look at those who live closest. What do you think 2m walk if it is not of fear.

Hk is one of the top economic entity in the world. We still fear that country.

Money and democracy and freedom can live side by side.

I'm not really sure it's Apples job to advocate for policies in a foreign country. They're a business, not a nation state. I think the extent to which privacy is valued is up for the Chinese to decide. Not really a fan of American companies engaging in corporate activism abroad.

Define "foreign" country in the context of a multinational corporation? I'm not sure I understand what the significance of that word is. Companies can and do attempt to sway political policies in their favor in whatever country they are operating in, regardless of where that company was founded.

Almost all people are employed by companies. If companies don’t advocate for human rights that means that almost noone will except for politicians and the unemployed.

We should expect more civil responsibility from companies since they have a strong influence over the time, speech, health, purchasing-power, and labor of nearly all citizens.

How keeping production away from China will help the oppressed?

By not helping the Chinese government.

“I have to kill you in order to save you” logic.

More like I have to kill you in order to save your children.

what’s after CCP could be worse.

How has that helped in the case of Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

As I don't have access to a parallel universe: I don't know.

I think, in the long run, deep economic engagement with China will change it for the better, not economic withdrawal. If you care about the people of China I think this is a positive (albeit, a drop in the bucket).

Not that they should just embrace or accept the worst trends of China -- that wouldn't help. But engage and apply pressure with the resulting leverage. Here's a link to Apple's self-reported efforts in this area (it seems sincere to me, though I don't have any special insight into this): https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2...

This is nearly a tautology. Economic engagement with the rest of the world is obviously good for any single country (especially when you're essentially cherrypicking the rules you follow while the rest of the world is mostly compliant). But if that country is poised to become the next superpower and its leaders are the modern day analogue of imperial Japan or the USSR, that economic engagement is probably not good for the rest of the world (in the long-term).

It has not. That is the consensus in academic circle by and large.

> They stand for rights and privacy only when it does not interfere with their revenue stream.

I understand the sentiment, but it's a nonstarter. A company that prioritizes human rights at the expense of profit, is a company that has no chance of survival in our political or economic environment, regardless of whether it's in China or the US. The corporate incentives are not fully aligned with the long term interests of humanity. That's why we see companies supporting LGBTQ rights and immigration, but fight to their teeth to prevent labor laws and unions.

This is a painfully oblivious statement. Have you been under a rock for the past 100 years? Corporations put profits in front of human rights CONSTANTLY, often with the grudging acceptance of the majority of the populace and a blind eye from governments.

In fact, I think it would be very difficult to name even 30 companies in Forbes Top 100 list that someone would be hard pressed to find no examples of running afoul of basic human rights.

EDIT: I haven't been downvoted or anything, but after rereading my post, it sounded a bit forward. Not attacking you personally, I just found this to be an alarmingly weak argument.

I ignore your first paragraph since it sounds hostile.

As for the rest, obviously, free market has a self-correcting mechanism. Corporations need consumers so they cannot simply "run afoul of basic human rights" as you said or they get a pushback from the populace. But at the same time, western companies send their manufacturing to Asia due to lower costs despite the lax labor and environmental regulations in those countries. I'm not sure what is controversial about what I said.

I didn't say it was controversial, I think your statement that companies not having any chance of surviving due to stepping on human rights issues is flatly and verifiably wrong. That's evidenced by my second point that the vast majority of the most powerful corporations on Earth can and do infringe on said rights, and have done so for quite some time.

> But at the same time, western companies send their manufacturing to Asia due to lower costs despite the lax labor and environmental regulations in those countries.

Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included. I'm a staunch capitalist, but I also recognize that the market will only correct when the offense makes people uncomfortable enough to take action and stop partaking in a given product or service.

And again, not hostile to you. Only hostile to your argument. I'd be happy if you had an argument that could change my mind, as my own view is quite cynical, and not something I find comfort in in the least.

I think it's been a misunderstanding, because I agree with what you just said.

> A company that prioritizes human rights at the expense of profit, is a company that has no chance of survival in our political or economic environment

> Corporations need consumers so they cannot simply "run afoul of basic human rights"

>>Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included.

The bottom statement is incompatible with the first two. You state that companies will not survive if they do such things. You back that up saying that consumers are them mechanism that keeps them from surviving. My statement directly refutes that.

Also, if you don't mind, could you make a record of what was edited in the original post? Ninja edits aren't usually looked on well here on HN.

> Apple needs to be out of China, not moving more manufacturing to that country.

Why? It’s better for China ans Chinese for sure and I’m sure for a luxury product it’s better for US consumers as well.

I'm saying you are right or wrong but let me ask you this. Have you divested yourself (401K, IRA, etc.) completely from Apple? Their margin comes exclusively from making these things as economically as possible. Or are you willing to pay $2K for your next iPhone so the stock can keep growing at such a high rate? All of our actions have consequences too.

It may not even be possible to manufacture electronics at Apple’s scale outside of Shenzhen. The Mac Pro is one thing, but moving all of Apple including iPhone out of China could be functionally impossible.

They're a public company owned by their shareholders. This isn't their job.

What it will take is for the US and other countries to start prioritizing human rights in trade negotiations.

What it will take is for the US to start prioritizing human rights, at all? I mean, they're currently running concentration camps for children at the Mexican border, in their own country. It would be a bit rich if they start telling other countries what to do regarding human rights before fixing their own issues.

It probably explains the at least $4,000 markup between the cost of the hardware and the final price. They've gotta pay those tariffs and pass the losses onto consumers who don't care about spending $6,000 for an 8-core CPU, 32gb of ECC ram, an R580X and 256 SSD.

You'd have to be drinking a lot of fucking Kool Aid as any sort of creative professional to think MacOS is worth that premium above alternative tools in either Linux or Windows 10.

Apple deciding to move production to an economically hostile country and shutter more American jobs only adds injury to insult.

In professional environments the price of a computer is so minimal it doesn’t really matter. If someone is being paid even $100K a year then the extra $4,000 for a computer they’ll have for probably 4 years is a rounding error.

Have that attitude about your purchases for 10 years, wasting at least $4000 a year, and you've wasted $40000. That's significant even if you do make $100k.

in 10 years that's a $1m. Even if you bought a mac pro every year that's not particularly significant. Of course, it is a lot of money by itself and if you are smart about it you can save a lot, but the value is there for other people in not building a custom PC with cooling.

Who buys a new computer every year? That’s just silly and a waste of money.

You don't buy a new computer every year but if you carry that attitude around with you then you're probably wasting comparable money elsewhere.

You did get something in return for that 40k though.

1% is a pretty bad rounding error, you might want to look into some better accounting software.

To put the markup into more concrete terms, here's a sample Windows laptop I quickly found around $1000 (the Prime price, normal price is apparently $1400). [0] I'll compare it to the cheapest MBP at $1300. [1]

I wish HN markdown had tables.

15.6" 3840 x 2160 vs 13.3" 2560x1600

i7-7700 vs unspecified i5

16GB RAM vs 8GB RAM

GTX 1050 vs Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640

256GB SSD+1TB HDD vs 256GB SSD ($800 upcharge for a 1TB SSD on the MBP when in reality a 1TB SSD costs $100)

Numpad and usb-A ports, HDMI vs no numpad and usb-c only (no ethernet on either but I didn't look very hard to find this listing)

And some have an affinity for Mac OS (I don't understand it at all) but on the Windows one you'll be able to easily run any game you want and have a much broader software catalog to choose from in general.

0: https://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-Touchscreen-i7-7700HQ-GeForc...

1: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/13-inch-space...

> on the Windows one you'll be able to easily run any game you want and have a much broader software catalog to choose from in general.

The main difference is that macOSX for the most part isn't adware. I still prefer MATE but if linux not your thing for some silly reason it's really the only other viable option.

Edit: Also that laptop is 2lbs heavier than the 13 inch and 1lb heavier than the 15. Not that I'd buy a 15 in. mbp with my own money in any case but they are nice.

What do you mean, like OSX doesn't show you ads natively? Nothing comparable to seeing app suggestions in the Windows store tiles? Nothing Windows 10 has done to me so far has bothered me. Candy Crush ad in the games tiles in the start menu doesn't bother me.

Unless you mean susceptibility to malware. There's definitely malware that gets onto OSX and it can be harder to remove than on Windows.

> Candy Crush ad in the games tiles in the start menu doesn't bother me.

this is where we differ.

Err that's the entry level cut to the bone product to make it look not to expensive for journalists who have brought into the mac eco system at the lower level.

For high end workstations which is the pros market a realistic spec will be a lot more for example back in 99 when I was working with built to the hilt pc in todays money it would be over $10k - and real workstations like Silicon graphics cost a LOT LOT more

Reply on news.ycombinator.com