(1) Apple publicly supports everything in the bill. That's their PR.
(2) Apple wants to water down key provisions of the bill, which would hold U.S. companies accountable for using Uighur forced labor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
>“What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not have any real consequences,”
The bill is not about Apple. If Apple is doing everything right, their costs may increase marginally. The bill would force US companies that don't have as good human rights records to comply. Apple lobbying against the bill is enabling this.
Summary: Apple wants to save little money. Result of that would be that unethical US based companies could continue their unethical business in China.
That's not the situation though. They already have a forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and have even already dumped suppliers for violating these policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The reason is because then everybody else would also have to do what Apple already does, and face the costs and accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.
Any source for that.
Link? The reports I've seen (like the WaPo article above) are about what Apple has requested in closed door meetings.
I don't know whose word I trust less, anonymous congressional staffers talking to the post, or the pr department of the richest company in the world.
I’m not certain what “strong” means here. If it meant principled or effective they wouldn’t need deadlines extended because they would already not be slavery adjacent.
The legislation introduced additional requirements that it would take time to comply with. Note they didn't object to complying, only asking for more time to implement it.