https://stratechery.com/2021/the-information-on-apple-in-chi...
Even when you have one ultimate goal, there are a thousand different ways to go about it, including to behave in ways I find admirable in order to secure my business going forward. It's fairly irrelevant to me why you're behaving the way you are, so long as you are.
Wrong, it is survival bias. Not every company is motivated by profits, but the ones that survive long enough for you to notice are. If the company isn't motivated by profits, is simply doesn't last long enough to be a major player.
I don't actually think it's survivorship bias, my local coffee shop is good to me for little other reason than the owner and I get on well, and they're not likely to go out of business any time soon. I just didn't specify my point well enough.
I find your description distastefully cynical, but more importantly not particularly in line with my experience of how people behave.
I’d argue Zuckerberg did this in his Georgetown speech [0]. Recently the head of the woman’s tennis association did too when pulling out of China. Palantir is also principled about this (read their S1) - though incentives are more aligned there.
Add in the South Park writers too.
It is possible to do the right thing in difficult contexts - and that should be the goal.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerb...
Anyone can have “principles” when it’s also easy to have them. Someone should mention that to Ray Dalio.
Companies manufacture complex electronics products in China because everyone manufactures there. The skills are there, factories are there - but most importantly, the supply chains are there. You can drive a truck from factory to factory to pick up all the pieces you need. Then drop the truck off at Foxconn. They'll make the products and you can put them back into the truck and drop them off at the port or rail yard.
That's not something you can just replace overnight.
I'm very skeptical that China is the only place Apple can make their products. Sure, Apple doesn't actually "manufacture" anything -- the company outsourced it to Taiwnese CM's like Foxconn, Wistron, and others who have cleary demonstrated that they have no competence, experience, or even desire to build things outside China (see Foxconn's misadventures in Brazil, Wisconsin US). But that shouldnt' be surprising considering that their business model entirely depends on ginormous state subsidies and seemingly unlimited supply of young, unskilled laborers from rural China. Also consider the fact that most critical, high-value components come from not China, but South Korea, Japan, the US (some via TSMC in Taiwan) -- China still makes less than 5% of all chips produced globally (as of 2019 according to US SIA). Of course, they are all assembled/packaged there, but China's contribution to this whole process still accounts for less than 4% of overall value.
I just don't buy the argument that China as the world's electronic supply-chain can't be replaced.
I'm skeptical as well since Foxconn also open a factory in India for Apple.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Foxconn-set-to-m...
No one is really interested in taking the hit in creating in country supply chains for all of the low value stuff. Vietnam is too small to support that, SE Asia as a whole might work (or maybe India), but both are still politically and economically unstable to do much in this area yet. China has scale and stability.
I see final assembly moving to different countries, but the supply chains will remain plumbed through China for a while.
??? Vietnam has nearly twice South Korea's population (and less than Japan's) and of course, it also has scale, as South Korean businesses in Vietnam have shown repeatedly.
To boot, Vietnam has no immediate internal political threats (eg, compared against China's separatist movements by ethnic minorities in Tibet, Uigher, Inner Mongolia) or no potential regional geopolitical/territorial conflicts with neighbors (eg, Phillippines, Japan, India, etc), other than China. And, most importantly, despite having fought a war half-century ago, America's diplomatic and trade relationship with Vietnam is far less hostile -- it's in fact quite amicable -- than with China.
>> ... but the supply chains will remain plumbed through China for a while.
That's inevitable only b/c of Apple's political clout and relentless lobbying here in the US. I was hoping, while I was no fan of Trump, Trump's trade policy would at least partly address this, but oh boy, how quickly he caved in before Apple and dished out tariff exemptions.
> That's only inevitable b/c of Apple's political clout and relentless lobbying in here.
Apple is like .1% of the political clout and lobbying being brought to bear. Their only notability in this is that they are the only FAANG that has significant business in China.
Sure, as Tim Apple testified before Congress, Apple pays the most tax in the US and is also the most valuable company in the world. I'm pretty sure there is nothing going on between Apple and American/Chinese gov't. /s
Interesting, how much, what percentage is that of Apple revenue and what percentage of total federal tax income?
Of course it can. Manufacturing moved there over the last 30 years for the low regulation and particularly the low wages that keep manufacturing cheap and allow the bosses/owners to make more money. So, all you need is to accept less profit, which the controlling powers won't do without keeping wages/costs down to soften the blow - Western regulations on safety and workers rights means that's hard so prices will have to rise.
You might do it in a decade, but it'll hurt profits. Hence, USA politicians wading in with 'China can't be trusted all our allies must now buy electronics from us' ... which also helps y'all to spy on us too. Double win for USA.
And no, the US isn't interested in bringing the whole supply-chain back home, it just doesn't want a politically or economically unreliable partner.
I assume part of the massive china/apple deal was a promise to stay in china (and act as a passive marketing prop for chinese manufacturing).
Vietnam's plus are its cheap labour and proximity/good relations with China. As labour is growing costly in China, assembling of things is moving to Vietnam. Many components are still manufactured in China and exported to Vietnam.
China can as the electronics supply-chain can absolutely be replaced - at a cost.
I always cringed at Tim Apple's deceptive rambling on the industry's dependence and necessity of supply-chain in China and feared that he was cooking up something more sinister behind the curtain. I recall as far back as 2012 when Tim defended their oversea outsourcing practices on CBS by claiming that "Apple iPhone engines were made in America," even as they were working to offshore that to TSMC in Taiwan shortly afterward.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/made-in-...
And yet, the Apple products I bought for my wife this Christmas state "Made in Vietnam" on the box. And other electronics I've purchased for her recently were similarly not made in China.
China hasn't been the "only" place to manufacture tech for several years now. It's an outdated cliché.
China has never been the only place to manufacture tech ever South Korea, Japan, even Germany/France/USA for us in the UK (LG has grown phenomenally well the last couple of years, Japan in the 80s-90s was the place for UK electronics).
But China seems to have been the principal place for affordable consumer electronics [chips/circuits] for at least the last decade.
This would nearly completely cripple the world's tech economy for a decade, but that is far better then becoming vassals to CCP tyranny.
for the past years but China's wages is increasing and Chinese crack down on tech company like Alibaba, Tencent, DiDi...etc. would it extend to foreign company? Not to mention the rise of Chinese domestic tech company like Xiaomi.
it look like Apple is not making their money back in China with this deal.
"To placate Beijing, though, some capital may have served more like donations to state enterprises and local governments. The company generated $249 billion of sales in Greater China over the last five years, less than the pledged amount."
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/apples-ugly-china-deal...
If anything, continuing to manufacture in China is likely required for that market expansion. Otherwise I feel they would have started to diversify to other, less politically tenuous markets.
> Mr. Cook has watched China's middle class grow to four hundred million while watching the domestic middle class shrink. Like GM, which sells more cars in China than the USA, Apple knows where the market opportunities reside.
America needs growth again, whether that's immigration, childbirth and childcare subsidies, or seeking to merge with other democratic nations (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan).
America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.
America needs education that is equitable, but it also needs to let academically or extracurricularly gifted students advance to special placement.
I want America to be #1. Free speech, being critical of government, and even having the ability to run for president are rights that every person should have.
edit: [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/rb2774/comment/...
That presumes that other countries want to be part of America. I suspect strongly you'll find that's not the case. Merger then has a more "1812" feeling to it.
The only folks tripping over their shoelaces to be US states are Puerto Rico and DC.
> America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.
While these are strategically sensible decisions, that won't bring back Apple any time soon. Everyone manufactures in China because there's a critical mass of manufacturing in China. All your components are made there, by everyone, and the best-in-class assembly folks are all there. Supply chain and logistics are all there.
China's investments in ports, roads, railways are paying dividends. Including their one belt one road initiative offering overland rail links to the UK.
It's not sufficient to just say "let's make stuff at home" - it requires real, long-term, strategic thinking, huge investments and optimizing for the group. These are not America's strengths right now.
The first part of this statement is inaccurate and the second part is accurate. No, all of the components in your iPhone are not made in China. Yes, they have the logistics and capability to assemble efficiently. No, they do not make everything in an iPhone or Mac—not even close. Examples of major components often not made in China:
- Microprocessor (Taiwan)
- Memory (South Korea)
- Screen glass (USA)
- Audio, Wifi Chips (USA)
- Gyroscope (Switzerland)
- Accelerometer (Germany)
- Display (Japan)
- Camera (Japan)
The batteries tend to be made in China, but many of the raw materials that go into the batteries are not. Also, Apple has successfully had iPhones assembled in India, so there's no reason to believe if they chose to, they couldn't (at very significant cost and ramping up and effort) move assembly. iPhone prices might go up then though.
See more here: https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-iphone-made-1999503
Or checkout the book The One Device https://amzn.to/3pDolNW
That's inaccurate, repeated votes for statehood in PR have failed.
Ironically, the hardest challenge for the British during the war was to keep their soldiers from deserting to the US. Since there was no way a young British male could legally come to America from the UK, joining the army then crossing into America was their only hope.
Ironically today, the countries named by the GP (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan) all have a net inflow of people to trying to get into the US, mirroring what happened in 1812. The political elites might laugh at the idea of a merger (considering they have a vested interest in keeping power) but it seems to make sense for a lot of their highly educated citizens who decided to make it happen here in America!
That's not the same thing as wanting to abandon independence. Folks go to work in other countries not because they want their home country to be America. Those smart highly-educated workers aren't moving to America so much as the Bay Area to work at tech companies and make money - based on my personal experience and that of every other immigrant I know. Even those that went on to become US citizens wouldn't begin to entertain the idea of folding in their home countries.
I've lived in America for years but I certainly have zero interest in "merging" in Canada. I couldn't want anything less, tbh.
They're both unique and interesting countries in their own rights, with quite different peoples and values.
Meanwhile, there are now universities where 85% of the graduating class immediately moves to the US upon graduation [1]. And the numbers have actually increased during the Trump administration, despite the narrative that the US would stop attracting international talent.
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/3567893/justin-trudeau-jealous-im...
That’s fine on an individual level but that doesn’t mean they want to merge their home countries into Canada!
Someone from Italy may move to the US but that is totally disjoint from them wanting to make Italy the 51st state. If they retain a strong positive association with the attributes of their home country, they want to retain independence to preserve them. If they have a negative association with their home country they have no interest in merging them either as they've actively distanced themselves from the negative attributes of their home state.
Someone moving from California to New York doesn't want to see CA and NY merge into one bi-coastal superstate any more than someone moving from India to Canada wants to see a bi-continental megastate.
> Meanwhile, there are now universities where 85% of the graduating class immediately moves to the US upon graduation [1]. And the numbers have actually increased during the Trump administration, despite the narrative that the US would stop attracting international talent.
The number of people who desired to stay after college went up, but visa issuance was suspended so they were precluded. They can want to stay all day long, they're not being allowed to. And that will have an effect in time. Meanwhile... [1]
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b663ef33-2b6c-42ea-8952-bee9673f6...
What I posted is people who moved to the US, not people that had a desire to move.
> Meanwhile... [1]
It's interesting, because in these stories Canada is never the first choice. Seems like every story starts with someone being unable to qualify for US immigration using Canada as a back up plan.
Yes, because these are economic migrants and economic migrants are going to try for the most active and lucrative market first. If they can't get a visa, they'll certainly take their second pick. They'll then build up that market over time. This is why we have Shopify in Canada. The ecosystem builds on itself and it one day won't be quite so distant a second choice.
I feel like if there was a referendum, the UK's population would happily dump their monarchy in exchange for US statehood. There's a lot of commonality with their democracy, language, skepticism of foreign immigration, embrace of capitalism, etc.
It would also be a pretty solid strategic move to bring the US closer to Europe as a hedge against the Russian ambitions laid out in their Foundations of Geopolitics playbook.
Importing massive amounts of unskilled labor only depresses wages and, combined with NIMBY, creates a massive housing bubble thanks to artificial shortages.
In Australia's case, it also suffers from a disproportionate brain drain of highly educated professionals since local firms simply won't compete for talent.
edit: I think the "quality" argument is overrated. Not all immigrants do ground-breaking research or start billion-dollar companies. When it comes to economic activity, quantity has a quality of its own (apologies to J. Stalin). A city/state/country with the economic activity of an extra 20% population of mediocre, healthy, tax-paying, car-buying, mortgage-paying, burger-eating blue and white-collar immigrants is better off than one without.
Except for categories where there's an extremely high burden of proof for extraordinary abilities, it's simply someone's ability to get a job no American is qualified to take (and be so in demand that it commands a salary in the top percentiles for the profession).
So the market takes care of the selection.
Not exactly, its someone's ability to get a job that their employer cannot find a more qualified candidate after advertising the job in the local newspaper for 6 months including at least two separate Sundays.
This is obviously my idle speculation, and I think the UK voters would never be allowed to vote on such an opportunity anyway. Still, I think if it happened it'd be great for everyone.
I'm all for countries having local manufacturing capabilities. Not just the US. I was also pretty vocal about Argentina having them when I lived there and I'd love the US to have more accessible local manufacturing now that I'm here.
Thing is, as much as I can want that as an engineer with a somewhat cozy desk job it's true that on-plant jobs require skill and determination that I don't have so I feel a bit of like a hypocrite for suggesting that. Are there people in the US that want factory jobs? Because when looking for talent in California for stuff like manufacturing engineering, supplier development... or when trying to find small shops that will prototype I kinda feel that no one wants to do that. Salaries are kinda okish for those positions, but to actually rebuild the talent and the collective energy and willpower to work those jobs is going to take a while.
Honestly can't blame the Bay Area for not wanting to work in plant considering public transport sucks and everything closes early. You need someone at the house or with flexible schedule to be able to take a job on plant.
The only way to make manufacturing at home competitive with overseas is full-scale automation. It won't create jobs to bring it back onshore - nor should it for exactly the reasons you specify. Instead, it would be a strategic investment.
The biggest impediments are political. China will subsidize anything they're not already leading in. To counteract that, you either need tariffs or your own subsidies. But corporations will fight against tariffs (they've already invested in manufacturing in China) and labor unions will fight against subsidies for automation, so here we are.
For now. The trajectory is pretty clear, and the goal would be to shoot for where the puck is going, not where it was.
If they're expecting lifetime security on the assembly line with enough money for two cars in the garage and a pension with a gold watch at the end, it's not going to happen. That's not how the world works anymore.
Apple dominates the US market, and will continue to do so. So why bother to invest more in a market you already own? The US domestic market hasn't shrunk for iPhones. I think this is reading way too much into this. China is a new growing market largely untapped by Apple, and one that is significantly larger just due to population sizes. It's as simple as that.
In principle I agree with you, but in practicality something maybe isn't working as expected? If those things mattered so much, why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much while the American middle class shrank? (assuming this is true, which I'm not sure)
At the end of the day, there's still a hierarchy of needs. If one country cannot offer its citizen those needs, reaching for higher level ones doesn't matter. Most people would rather be able to afford food, clothes, a home, electronic, entertainment, etc, than they would the ability to be critical.
On some other dimension, the best argument free democracies had used to be that the people of those countries were richer and had better lives, while totalitarian regimes, religious regimes, communist regimes delivered a worse outcome to its people. And while this is still mostly true, it seems that it's no longer as obvious which one delivers better value to its people.
Going through an industrial revolution has impressive growth effects that can cover up a lot of bad stuff.
We'll see what happens when that growth starts to slow - I don't think it'll be good.
It's not meaningful: Middle class in China would be poor in the US, and developing countries can expand their economies much more quickly.
I am happy for the middle class people in China.
> the best argument free democracies had used to be that the people of those countries were richer and had better lives
You skip the main reason they have better lives, which is freedom. All those Americans (and others) worked and sacrificed for freedom. Wealth is barely mentioned in the founding documents; the Gettysburg Address, FDR, MLK, etc., didn't mention it much (though the latter two did address poverty).
The Chinese 'middle class' standard of medical care ( on average, a lot cheaper but it's also a very basic level of care), financial security, air / water / consumer good safety, access to meaningful education, and freedom of worship / speech / congregation of all types is well under what is typical for a middle class citizen in a western democracy, even including the united states. At around $20,000 USD per year (approx boundary of China's upper middle class) you're in the same general territory as Russia.
When you have observed a colossal material improvement in your life, and you have hope for the future, you can overlook a lot of problems with governance.
[1] Yes, yes, Moscow is not an active disaster zone. Russia does not begin and end in Moscow, though.
It has been long believed to work the other way: Poor people don't have the education or resources to deal with governmance; they are trying to survive, working three jobs (if they can get them), etc. When the middle class expands is typically when democracy blooms.
Russia's 'middle class' expanded massively since the economic disaster of the 90s, but I would not describe it as being more democratic today than it was in 1995.
A rising middle class isn't why communism fell apart in the 80s, either. It fell apart because the country lost any faith that the system will bring future prosperity.
So long as you're not Muslim.
Per capita GDP is similarly ranked.
And there are 56 minorities groups in China, they were all have specific aid program, like preferential treatment in national college exams.
What's the basis of such a wishwash statement on China and the people? Are you suggesting Chinese people are practicing racial segregation? Or what exactly are you suggesting?
Lol. Are concentration camps segregation? Because if so, then yeah that is what most people (outside of china) suggest is happening.
when you say "invested more in their people"? what do you mean?
if we are talking about education. both country offer free education to its people. College education are not compulsory and free in both countries
And you now changed it to "College education are not compulsory and free in both countries" which is even more wrong..
thank for clarify
>And you now changed it to "College education are not compulsory and free in both countries"
i never change my statement to OP and what's wrong? both countries doesn't offer free College education. one is cheaper doesn't mean its free.
I'll argue, you don't need a lot of techies. you need people with vision like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma...etc. they don't have tech background and yet created giant tech company.
Education in China is also only compulsory through the 8th grade. Only 60% go on to high school.
Source?
If that's true, that's disgusting.
Context: The bill they're talking about is unusually porcine, to the point of overwhelming even cynics. Relevant example: Subsidies of $12,500 for electric vehicles, but only if they're made by a union. Because auto unions are major campaign donors.
Everybody always talks about "oh the government spends so much money on pork all the time, deficits are so big etc." but this is another level:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
Federal spending as percent of GDP last year: More than triple the level present during the New Deal. >50% increase year over year.
It's unprecedented in peacetime. The only time it has ever been more as a percent of GDP is WWII, and in dollars (even per capita and adjusted for inflation) it's already more than WWII.
This year's proposals are a significant increase from that level.
The claim that to oppose the bill is to "promote divestment from the USA" is pretty bold.
There are of course criticism in the details. For example, a majority of the funds went to the top 10% which isn't great. How the funds were deployed was far, far from ideal. It lead to asset price inflation because of this. So there are problems with it, but the alternative, not investing, would have been much worse.
The criticism of the details is the point. Spending half as much money by cutting out the portion that went to the top 10% is only the most obvious of the better alternatives.
This doesn't mean anything without the details:
> Government deficits are an investment.
The government can borrow a trillion dollars and give it to Mark Zuckerberg or whoever else donates the most to their campaigns. That's not an investment, it's corruption. It represents a net loss to the American people, because they lose the money, have to pay interest on the debt forever, and get nothing in return.
To be an investment you actually have to invest in something. But during an economic crisis, the best thing to invest in is people. If you're going to borrow money, just send out the checks. Everybody gets the same amount. It helps the people who are in trouble, it stimulates demand, and it isn't susceptible to corruption or regulatory capture.
And if you did that, you wouldn't have to borrow as much, because the same money would be more effective and the same benefit could be achieved with less of it.
But that's not what's happening.
Every person? Including convicted criminals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t...