How much do Apple's factories cost?
asymco.com
asymco.com
"In the twelve months ended June, Apple will have spent $2.9 billion in M&E to manufacture 118 million iOS devices. To put that in perspective, Nokia, which manufacturers a large (if not majority) of the 340 million phones it sells, expects full year 2011 capital expenditures of $1.1 billion. Correcting for amortization and depreciation and deducting some spending on Mac M&E, it’s very likely that Apple spent twice as much as Nokia on the instruments of production for one third the number of devices."
There is another, better interpretation that can be given to the facts: Apple's level of investment is high because it believes it will experience dramatic growth in the near future, and Nokia's level of investment is low because it does not expect dramatic growth in the near future.
This bit is an especially odd bit of reasoning:
"it’s very likely that Apple spent twice as much as Nokia on the instruments of production for one third the number of devices."
Investment in production facilities are investments that are aimed at the future, whereas how many units you've sold so far is a reflection of what you've done in the past. What Apple is investing in the future says nothing about what it has paid so far to produce its iPhones and iPads. Building up production facilities is more expensive than maintaining them.
Imagine you have 2 companies, A and B. Imagine A has a great decade where it dominates its industry, but then in the next decade is falls into decline, and starts to lose market share. Imagine B sleeps through the first decade but then takes off and has stellar growth during the second decade. What sort of investment patterns would you expect to see in that second decade? Clearly, you would expect investment from A to be declining, and investment from B to be rising. But A probably built up some impressive production facilities back when it was doing well, and it can coast on those production facilities for awhile. It can continue to produce large amounts of units, without investing a lot more in new facilities.
My point is, one has to be careful when drawing a relationship between present levels of investment and how many units a company can build. Past investments in production can allow a company to coast a long time. Building up production facilities is more expensive than maintaining them.
This strategy assumes more risk by taking ownership of the capital equipment but it strengthens their negotiating position with the supplier considerably. The supplier is only leasing labor and would be more effectively barred from running a second or third shift in the same facility to create competitive products. For example, ownership of the capital equipment would allow for considerably more visibility into factory operations by virtue of maintenance and product test activities.
At the time it seemed to me that they were investing in touch-display capability to ensure their production demands for the iPad display.
Now if they own their suppliers, that argument suddenly wouldn't really be persuasive.
The human rights story comes to mind because I read this piece the other day and the description of the "man whose right hand was permanently curled into a claw from being smashed in a metal press at Foxconn" has remained vividly in my imagination: :-(
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/jobs-looked-to-the...
Wrong: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/
Apple actively monitors their suppliers to ensure compliance with their code conduct, and if violations are found they make the supplier fix them, compensate the workers for the abuse, and in some cases have dropped the supplier if they thought it wasn't acting fast enough or sincerely enough.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/31/environmental-watchdog-repo...
In general, Apple gets a lot of flak from environmental groups simply because it's the target that will make news. This means that Apple has to be especially careful. Would anyone care or be surprised if Dell were polluting an estuary?
Here are a couple others that come up in a quick search:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/technology/23apple.html?pa...
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/01/chinese-environmen...
and this (which is a little bit older)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07suicide....
Whether or not Dell is guilty of the same thing is a different issue altogether and no less surprising or upsetting