While Apple Is Criticized for Foxconn, Other Companies Are Silent
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
I live a few blocks away from the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen and whenever I try to bring up the "poor working conditions at Foxconn" topic with locals, I most often get a blank stare as if I had suggested something completely absurd. The truth is, Foxconn jobs are vastly superior to most alternatives down here.
I would recommend Western "do-gooders" to keep in mind that Chinese people are much more concerned about their own working conditions and well being than anyone else. They are in a much better position to address their own problems and if they ever need help from us Westerners, I'm sure they won't hesitate to ask. Meanwhile, I suggest we humbly mind our own business.
Apple has deep pockets and very healthy margins that they could afford to fix this whole issue while keeping it in the media's radar and then at the right time turn it back to its competitors to prove their ethics. The competitors whose margins are already spread too thin will have great difficulty in coming clean in this issue. Apple gets a positive PR while others struggle.
Apple is handling this issue well (and much better than their competitors). But the real "issue" here is something that Apple has understood for a while. "The jobs aren't coming back" is a product of many factors, and the cost of labor is a red herring in this debate.
The only reason that China is manufacturing just about every consumer product out there is that sending work there allows you to exploit cheap labor, lax environmental regulation, and other regulation found in western countries.
So now some westerners who "care" are waxing on about the poor iPhone workers. Why aren't the Chinese people making shoes, underwear, leather coats or other unpleasant jobs worthy of our pity?
How is this surprising? Maybe the NYT should look inwards and cover Foxconn as a general problem, not something endemic to Apple.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Look, I'm not particularly into this debate. I believe the conditions are relatively horrible, but there are lots of horrible things going on in the world, so it's not where I'd spend my time. At the end of the day, working at Foxconn is voluntary, as opposed to, say, cancer.
That said, I'm glad that there are people in the world fighting this fight. It's how social change happens. And I'm going to assume that these people, who have decided this is their fight, have done their due diligence and decided that the best way to go forward is by attacking what is the biggest company and one of the most famous brands in the world.
So do I think Samsung is less responsible? No. But this isn't about being "fair" about the blame for corporations; it's about changing the conditions at Foxconn and in turn, China and the world. Targeting Apple has proven to be the best vehicle for that. So be it.
Do you have any evidence at all for this? How do you know that targeting other companies too wouldn't be more effective?
I'm not being facetious: are you really in need of evidence? It's happening, and the people who are doing it have decided it's the best strategy. I can't go by anything else. And thanks to the nature of the experiment, it can't be repeated. It may or may not be optimal, it just is.
[edit: one reason I think it's unhelpful is that it legitimizes misleading reporting, which is itself a great harm]
Proven to be sufficient at achieving the goal, then.
It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on other manufacturers.
Why am I quoting a 2008 movie?
There isn't much money left over after Apple is done sucking the profit out of the phone industry.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/03/first-apples-rank-in-mobile...
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqxYiXtzKd0&feature=playe...
However, due to their all their competitors including Apple moving manufacturing to China, they have been forced to close their European plants and move to China as well.
They fact they are able to sell a lot of units at those healthy profit margins while competitors struggle to sell cheaper devices at razor thin profit margins (leading to revenue breakdown chart like you linked to) does not lend to them "sucking the profit out of the phone industry", it's them showing everyone else you dont need to peddle cheap crap because customers are happy to pay more for something that doesnt suck.
She is looking at a graphics cards, not a motherboard.
I'm concerned about production in China generally, sure, but Apple suppliers are the ones that keep making headlines.
Maybe Apple's just been spectacularly unlucky, but it's like we have this shoe, and it matches Apple's foot size so well...
Apple has been proactive in making sure their employees are well taken care of, here and abroad, and they've been doing this for the past decade.
They've been auditing suppliers in various ways for far longer than this story has even been in the news, going back at least to the 1990s.
Sure, Apple is the biggest, most profitable tech company, and it is also the one with the biggest brand. I think Apple's brand is a huge factor here- it is a global brand, it is associated with really good values such as quality, respect, integrity, etc, and thus it is the most attractive brand the put dirt on.
This explains why media, and unscrupulous people focus on attacking Apple for "working conditions".
But the reality is, when Foxconn has positions open to work for Apple, they get massive numbers of people who want to come work for them. Everyone in china has methods of communication, if Apple wasn't the best place to work, they wouldn't have so many applicants. Word would get out.
Apple solved this problem before it ever became a problem, but they are attacked because their brand is strong, and the people attacking them lack integrity.
They're also being attacked because it fits a political agenda. Unions and regulation have destroyed the manufacturing employment levels in the USA (actual manufacturing capacity is higher now than then, but a lot fewer people are employed) and so rather than recognize themselves as the cause of business moving overseas, they wish to demonize the businesses that did move overseas in the hope of coercing them to move back here. Every political season there are proposals that companies be punished for doing business overseas. This is why.
Thus perpetuating the fantasy that Apple runs sweatshops or uses "slave labor" is politically motivated.
The reality: When Foxconn cut back overtime (in response to this muckraking) the employees were very upset. They want to work more hours.
The employees have spoken...
----
I digressed. My original point is, that all these other companies are benefiting from Apple leading the way here. Apple is teaching the chinese how to be ethical and to treat employees well, by requiring it, and all these other manufacturers are benefiting from that.
This is a cost to apple, and it is a profit to those other manufacturers.
Thus it is really ironic when the media smears apple-- the company that has literally revolutionized manufacturing in china, as far as working conditions go.
Now, I agree with the premise of the linked article that Apple has been unfairly tarnished for problems that are endemic to the industry as a whole.
But to flip this around and claim that Apple is somehow a champion fighting for workers rights is ... just weird (and I'll admit that it makes me sad to see this kind of completely unselfaware fawning on a site where discussion used to be a lot more intellectually robust). Like the rest of the industry, Apple didn't do poop about chinese workers until they were embarassed.
* They put severe requirements on the quality of the produce
* They put severe requirements on secrecy
* The they put severe requirements on how the workforce needs to be treated
Yes they end up with whoever bids lowest and isn't yet on their shit list. But labour requirements have been part of these requirements since 1990 and have become ever more demanding since.
This is exactly how governments do it. They enter trade and aid agreements with other countries and attach labour requirements. That's the very mechanism which in the long run leads to prosperity.
That's not great for workers, who lose pay if they cannot meet these exacting standards.
> They put severe requirements on how the workforce needs to be treated
The conditions they demand may be better than most workers get in the target country. That doesn't mean those conditions are actually enforced, nor does it mean they are acceptable.
The amount of profit Apple makes means it should be fairly easy for them to dramatically improve conditions for overseas workers. That would be a huge sales point for them. Not only do you get pretty design, you know you're funding education / healthcare / whatever for developing world workers.
In a similar vein, the amount of money the average westerner makes means it should be fairly easy for them to save a life in Africa every day.
I do not think Apple in particular is to blame for what we as a collective do.
"That would be a huge sales point for them"
Would it? Can you give one example of a company that behaves that way and gets a hugs sales boost from it? If so, how does that sales boost compare to Apple's profits?
So an obvious example would be Starbucks' investment in fair-trade coffee.
[edit] but this only is profitable if people are basing purchasing decisions on it. Before this current furore, there was very little press about these issues, so if from this a 'fair-trade' hardware movement emerges, it would then be profitable for Apple to exploit it, but in the absence of one it isn't.
Are you serious? Since when a shopper gives a damn about how his/her product is made? If that is the case, walmart would not be as big and profitable as they are today. No shopper (or very negligible amount of shoppers) cares about any of these. All they care about is low price, coupons, discounts and deals. How else would a company like Groupon could become so big, so quickly?
You make a good point. Many users only care about price, and that's why you can buy an ink-jet printer with starter carts for less than the price of replacement full carts.
But with Apple we're not talking about a company that has cheap customers. People are happy to pay a premium for Apple products.
Several things make people happy to spend that money - build quality; nice design; user experience; buying experience. "Ethical manufacture" would be one more thing to add to that list.
(http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/)
Apple already is a member of the FLA -
(http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/think-fair-apple-becomes-...)
The drawback is obvious - they have independent reports sometimes criticising the working practices, and their competitors do not.
No they don't;
"The FLA investigation, released late last week, resulted in the questioning of 35,000 Foxconn workers across the Chengdu, Longhua and Guanlan factories and found average hours worked per week were 56, compared to the legal Chinese limit of 49 hours, which includes overtime."
http://www.crn.com.au/News/295713,apple-auditor-finds-foxcon...
[edit] I do think that Apple has taken a lead by the standards of the electronics industry, but the global standards of the commercial electronics industry are not high and Apple has been embarrassed into a lot of this.
If Apple dropped suppliers for any serious violations in the way that you claim, they would not have the giant pile of money they have today.
Remember, China is a very different place then the US. Simply taking our own standards and transplanting them onto this area of the world will lead you to misunderstand the signals.
[edit] also, are you supporting a family in this? That makes a huge difference to the economics in both needing more time and more money.
Do you have a cite for your claim that Apple has never been holding their producers up to a standard of quality, and has been entering into contracts on the SOLE basis of price? Of course you don't, as this is just an ideological statement, already refuted by my pointing out their history of audits and high requirements.
> "One of the big reason Foxconn is so large now is precisely because they were the low bidder for Apple's business years ago."
One of the reasons Foxconn was a relatively low bidder all those years ago was because in their partnership with Apple they acquired a great deal of knowledge about how to build products to Apple's exacting standards, and how to run a large business employing large numbers of employees and treat them well. This has, in fact, allowed Foxconn to grow to a very large business, and might be the one thing that separated them from the pack of contract manufacturers that came about at that time-- many of whom offered lower prices and were competing solely on price.
>But to flip this around and claim that Apple is somehow a champion fighting for workers rights is ... just weird
Actually, no flipping is involved. It is a simple statement of fact. Apple has been auditing its suppliers going back decades and including inside china since it started manufacturing there.
>"makes me sad to see this kind of completely unselfaware fawning on a site where discussion used to be a lot more intellectually robust"
Frankly, it makes me sad to see people who cannot make an argument, cannot respond to the argument that has been made, and instead are only able to misrepresent the argument and engage in the kind of ad hominem you just have. There is zero "intellectual robustness" in your response, as your response comes completely from your mindless hatred of Apple. This is why the site is in such decline-- simply mentioning anything positive about Apple (or other chosen targets of hatred) or negative about Google or Amazon (or other chosen targets of adoration) results in down votes and these kind of mindless snotty responses.
> Like the rest of the industry, Apple didn't do poop about chinese workers until they were embarrassed.
This is a flat out lie. But you believe it because others with the same ideology as you have said it, and so you just assert it here, comfortable that the down vote brigades will have your back. Your entire post is a prime example of the kind of content free, pure ideological response that makes "intellectually robust" discussion impossible here.
Did you make a counter argument? No, you just demanded a "cite". Did you defend your assertions as I did? No, you just made broad, obviously false assertions. Did you respond to the point? No, you attacked me personally with derogatory characterizations. Did you defend your ultimate point? No, you just made an assertion that fallacious on the face of it, as would be obvious to anyone who had been paying attention to this issue for more than a few months (apple's been publishing reports of supplier audits for years, and has been doing the audits for decades.)
You are why Hacker News is in decline and why anyone who is capable of argument-- such as myself-- is hesitant to post here, because there really is no point in attempting to engage in debate given the mindless hordes who make purely ideological posts like yours.
In fact, I'm certain that it is-- ironically-- Apple's decades of integrity that is the very reason you hate them so. They have done right, and they won, even after you all thought there was no way they could ever be something more than a marginal player--- so rather than bashing them for being marginal, you're now bashing them for their success.
Isn't it a little presumptuous to deride someone else for not providing cited sources when you haven't provided any yourself?
I'd hate to see what happens when you aren't being hesitant.
Your comment is pure insult, and much worse, you tell flat out lies about me.
I'm sorry that you wish to believe the fiction that Apple didn't invent multi-touch, or that a movie counts as prior art.
But you impeach yourself, when you, and others, run around this site telling such lies about people. Its nothing more than personal attack, and you are in fact engaging in the very abuse you accuse me of. By the way, my "abuse" was describing the details of the technology in question.
I am always able to defend my positions with logic, facts and argumentation. The problem is, so rarely do I get counter arguments, that such defenses are not often necessary. (notice all of the responses to my posts here are characterizing me, rather than addressing my arguments, for example.)
Instead, you guys get into such a blinding rage at the fact that I might dare point out these facts that you have no other ability to respond than to attack me personally.
No response from me, should be necessary, but Hacker News is overrun with this kind of partisanship to the point where you feel comfortable saying something that, quite frankly, should get you hellbanned.
> "You're talking to someone who was convinced Apple was the sole inventor of multi-touch, abused everyone who claimed otherwise, and then disappeared when definitive counter-proof was provided, without apologising. He's an arrogant fanboy (not a term I use lightly), and he's not worth arguing with."
Ah, I see from looking at your comment history, you're attacking me for political and ideological reasons. You're attempting to intimidate me into silence by engaging in ad hominem. Exactly as I indicated was going on on HN.
Thank you for providing such a nice example.
Here's the reference, and his linkedin page if you want to ask him to check.
Here, I looked up the relevant portion of the comment thread for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3262469 . You supported your claims about Apple inventing multi-touch with a claim that Apple had trademarked a specific definition of multi-touch - thus allowing you to dismiss out of hand people citing earlier screens that supported multiple touches. You accused at least one of these people of lying. I showed you that you were wrong, that the trademark application you cited had been denied because the term is generic. Hence, other people's examples of multi-touch interfaces were perfectly valid.
Another user cited a cofounder of Fingerworks stating that multi-touch was not a single innovation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3263335 .
I'm not really sure what 'political and ideological reasons' you think I have - I have no idea of your political history, and have only noticed your posts related to Apple. I am a happy user of several Apple products and, on the whole, admire them as a company despite certain faults. I'm just not a rabid fanboy.
> The problem is, so rarely do I get counter arguments, that such defenses are not often necessary.
Funny how you stopped arguing at the exact moment your position became indefensible, and were so keen to do so before then. I'm honestly finding it hard to work out if you're trolling me or not.
Thank you for a perfect example of the kind of content free, snotty, irrational response I was talking about.
For some reason, those who up voted you, and down voted the comment you were replying to (which, by the way, contains several arguments, none of which has anyone addressed) think that this kind of integrity free voting lets you off the hook for ruining this site. It doesn't.
What kind of response would you expect from that? A cake and a paper hat?
There is a concept called "burden of proof". If you are claiming something without evidence (which you did), the responsibility is on you to provide evidence that you are right, not on him to prove that you are not.
I'm certain that it is-- ironically-- Apple's decades of integrity that is the very reason you hate them so
This is the HN-poison, not anything else. He never said that he hated Apple, he simply questioned their actions. Your reaction to simple criticism is to label him as irrational and full of hatred. "Doth protest too much" and all that.
False.
>"the responsibility is on you to provide evidence that you are right, not on him to prove that you are not."
False, and False. He made a claim, it is his responsibility to provide evidence. I already provided evidence for my claim.
By the way, absolutely every time someone has said "cite needed", in my experience, they are simply ignoring the evidence presented (as in this case) or will ignore it when presented.
This is the tactic of those who cannot make an argument. Since they cannot make an argument they demand a citation and then go on to make a lot of unsupported claims.
>"he simply questioned their actions"
This is an obvious lie. He made obviously false claims about Apple in a snide and disparaging way. Further, these claims came in response to an article where I'd already cited facts refuting them.
>"is to label him as irrational and full of hatred. "Doth protest too much" and all that."
Another flat out lie. But of course, you had to tell that lie so you could call me names.
You, and his, complete inability to argue the point, and your reliance on name calling shows a severe lack of integrity.. and is why HN is not a place where discussion is tolerated on certain topics.
If you dare to defend Apple, you will be called names by Apple haters. (if you don't like the term Apple haters, find a better one, and I'll use it.)
By the way, now that you bring it up, yes, its true, I do think that resorting to personal attack as you have is irrational and a result of hatred.
I would much rather you just responded to my points, with arguments, rather than dishonesty.
What defense is needed, if you cannot produce corroborating evidence/sources?
Apple is using a Chinese manufacturing company and giving them a lot of business. A LOTTTTT of business. This is a good thing.
But you can't go from there to claim that Apple is somehow teaching the poor Chinese, who are incapable of ethical action. It sounds very insulting the way you put it :(
I do wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the peculiar focus on Apple for Foxconn's bad working conditions is very strange. It's not like Foxconn is the only manufacturing company, nor is Apple their only customer.
Edit: I can grammar.
China is a country that only liberalized and allowed capitalism a few decades ago. It has started from communist rule down a path to where now it is a world manufacturing powerhouse.
It is not an insult to say that in doing so, Chinese manufacturers learned a lot, and that Apple's partnership with foxconn (Which is a legit partnership, not just Apple picking the lowest bidder as people assume) did involve a lot of such education. This is not an insult to the chinese, in fact, it is a testament to the wisdom of the guy who founded Foxxconn, as I believe it is this partnership that has allowed him to grow as fast as he has and be as successful.
Apple's relationship with Foxcon involves Apple owning hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment in their plants, that Apple bought and paid for and that Hon Hai uses to manufacture Apple products. This is an investment in Hon Hai as well as a leg up to them, and is merely the physical analog to the intellectual side of the relationship.
I misuse the word "ethical" in my post, and I should have avoided it completely. I certainly didn't mean to imply the chinese are unethical, or that their working conditions lacked ethics. Actually, on the contrary, I think their work ethic is superior to the american one.
I believe that Hon Hai put up with more requirements from apple, and gave apple a good price, in exchange for apple helping to modernize their manufacturing processes their quality control processes, etc.
Watching really smart people repeat this emotional and unreasonable argument, makes me highly value their genius marketing. Learning how their concise UX from products to slogan can convince reasonable people to act emotionally is a must for every entrepreneur.
If you're going to make a claim about the quality of an argument, please back it up. Otherwise it comes off as a form of ad hominem.
I'm not making an emotional, nor an unreasonable claim. I've been a customer of Apple for decades, and a partner of theirs for many years. I've had many interactions with them, across a variety of modes, and I've never, not once, seen Apple act without integrity. This is including situations where Apple has made errors (generally they fixed quickly) or where Apple might have been in the right (because the situation was grey) or I was in the wrong (and they explained clearly how and why.)
At the same time I've done business with a variety of other companies, and watched them fail to honor warranties, ship crappy products, ship broken products, and refuse to deal with it, and engage in all kinds of practices that lack integrity.
> makes me highly value their genius marketing.
Right, it couldn't be the decades of good products and positive experiences I've had with Apple, it must just be their marketing that is so genius that it's caused me to believe this "emotional and unreasonable" thing. Yeah, no way my actual experiences with them could be what did it-- it was the commercials. (Unless you think that acting with integrity in all spheres is a form of marketing, in which case, you have stumbled upon the real genius of the marketing. Yep, believe it or not, treating people with respect, showing integrity in your business dealings, and delivering good products, and supporting them-- this is all very good marketing.)
>"Learning how their concise UX from products to slogan can convince reasonable people to act emotionally is a must for every entrepreneur."
I made an argument, a fairly lengthy one, and I explained my reasoning. Further, I just went into even more detail about my reasoning.
You have made a very snide response, near as I can tell, because you have a very emotional reaction to Apple. I don't know if you're projecting or not, but I think your characterizations-- especially since you don't bother to defend them-- are inappropriate.
You claim that Apple has the most integrity of any company you have ever known, when the longest serving CEO was well known for a very wobbly relationship with the truth, in his "reality distortion field".
You also claim that any critics of Apple are driven by hatred and lack integrity.
To my mind, your entire argument lacks integrity and you are guilty of grievous insults to those who would disagree with you, even before anyone had a chance to do so.
And they are all customer-facing interactions. Not that I'm suggesting the two companies are the same, but I'm reasonably sure that I could set fire to something I bought at Walmart and still return it for a full refund. Despite their crappy products, I've always got relatively good customer service at Walmart. Meanwhile, they absolutely hammer their suppliers to within an inch of their lives. In fact, one of the main reasons Walmart is able to not care about refunds is because of their margins with suppliers.
So, I'm not suggesting that Apple does hammer their suppliers- I have no evidence on hand to suggest so. But to assume that they don't because you, as a customer giving them money, has had a fantastic experience, is strange logic indeed.
Please don't think that. Wasn't my intention. I've followed your posts, you're a very bright person, and I love reading what you have to say. I agree with you that Apple is being target both because it's a big brand and because there's political motivation. I also do agree with you they make great products, I never implied otherwise.
I only think "integrity" only because "Word would get out" between poor Chinese workers who barely have an alternative is a little bit pushing it.
I didn't mean to offend you, nor apple, when I said their marketing is genius at making their users emotional about their products. I was being honest, if a smart and reasonable person like you can get emotional with their brand. That doesn't mean that you're a sheep nor that they're dishonest. It only means that you're human and they're genius at doing they're job. And we as entrepreneurs should recognize that and try to understand how they're so good at branding.
Please. This is a completely separate issue to the OP. Working conditions for producers and service to consumers are not the same...
I can understand (and agree with) some of the points you make later in this post, but this post is dressed up far too much in off-topic (and in many cases poorly-qualified) emotive sentences and to me this does your argument (and credibility) no favours.
This seems like hyperbole to me. What I mean is that Apple itself does not make this claim. They are honest about what things are good, and what things need work. Their audits often show problematic stuff; there have been reports of underage workers, workers exposed to toxic chemicals, etc. To Apple's credit, the company has worked to close those gaps. But it's clearly not the case that there have never been any problems at Apple's Foxconn factories, or that they "solved this problem before it ever became a problem."
Moreover, I don't think it's fair to take the facts that Apple jobs and longer hours are desirable at Foxconn and extrapolate from them that everything there is ideal. Let's be honest: factory work in China is not exactly the finest working environment ever conceived. There are a lot of really bad things that go on there. The fact that Apple is the best as far as Foxconn jobs are concerned does not by any means indicate that there are no problems whatsoever with the working or living environment. Again, to Apple's credit, they haven't put forward this excuse and commenced to ignore their critics; they've actively and honestly confronted the problems in the working environment in their factories, and tried to fix them, even when they've already exceeded standards set by other factories in the Foxconn group.
I think it's really important that we work to avoid whitewashing the difficult conditions at the Foxconn factories. It's really fantastic what Apple's done so far, but that doesn't mean there's nothing more to do. In our rush to speak well of a company that has done some really awesome things, let's not overstate the good they've done, lest we lose sight of why they're doing it.
They make $575 in profit from an iPhone but pay the Foxconn workers $7 to assemble it. They could double the pay and still make a very huge profit. On the other hand, many other companies like Amazon and Microsoft sell the hardware for a loss, hoping to make it up on software and media purchases.
Meanwhile, the other companies are not doing very well, and labor cost increases for them might put them out of business entirely and then the workers won't even have a job. HTC doesn't have $100 billion in the bank and recently reported a bad quarter. This is why Apple is criticized more since it has most leeway of all the companies mentioned in the article to increase wages.
In a free market, profit isn't determined by cost or your intuition about "fairness". Price is determined by supply and demand, and profit is price minus cost.
Foxxconn already pays well above average wages while providing a safer workplace than the average US manufacturer, and a lower suicide rate than the Chinese average. And this is still going up even as working hours decrease.
Whether all these criticisms are completely legitimate or not (for example I think workers should be allowed to work more overtime if they voluntarily choose to, to get more money, instead of being capped at 49hours/week), Apple is responding to them as well as anyone could ask for.
Apple's competitors are not getting the same scrutiny. Since Apple is handling the issue great, isn't there room for some of that attention to land on others with much worse practices?
Further, Apple has nowhere near 80% of the production or employees or anything like that. There are other big players as far as how many Chinese workers they are involved with, which I think is the relevant metric for how important reform is.
The number is from the usual suspect Asymco.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/04/02/android-economics/
>Whereas Android generates $1.70/device/year and thus an Android device with a two year life generates about $3.5 to Google over its life, Apple obtained $576.3 for each iOS device it sold in 2011[4]. The economics of Android are nothing like the economics of iOS.
Apple has an ASP on iphones on the order of 650 and a profit margin on the order of 40%. They can't be making 575 profit per phone.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/04/08/0546247/google-ear...
Apple doesn't make $575 in profit per iPhone. The components alone cost around $300, and they only get like $650 from the carrier, but you also have to take into account all the extra costs, marketing, shipping, salaries, R&D, and so on. At most they probably make around $200-$300 in profit for iPhone, depending on the version.
The Android data is also misleading. He's taking it from what Google said in the trial. You don't think Google would try to downplay the revenues they get from Android in the trial through some smart accounting?
Would really love to see some data that backs up that assertion.
https://twitter.com/#!/nicepaul/status/163797296306331648/ph...
which gives a data source and is linked from
http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-03-20-now-can-we-star...
The data for: https://twitter.com/#!/nicepaul/status/163797296306331648/ph...
as indicated at the bottom, comes from: http://onforb.es/wj2Lt6
which maps to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple...
If you look at Tim Worstall's (kinda op-ed) article on the second page, you can see that the author says that if the fatalities rate in Foxconn was the same as that in the US, we would expect to have 35 fatalities / year. Then he says that we only heard about 3-4 workers hurt at Foxconn, hence the rate is lower. That argument is flawed because what we hear on the news cannot be construed to represent all fatalities at Foxconn. I suspect that the fatalities rate at Foxconn is not publicized (because it doesn't have to be).
Another issue is that to determine the relative safety of the workplaces, the author is only looking at workplace fatalities. What about looking at accidents that leave the workers unable to work or maimed?
Bottom line, I don't think the incomplete data that we have supports the assertion that Foxconn is a safer workplace.
Safety management is based on identifying and reducing hazards, which reduces accidents, near misses, lost time injuries, serious injuries and ultimately fatalities. With a large enough number of workers, as we have in this case, fatality number is a very good proxy for the other stats.
Oh, it does? Let's look at the article together and see if we can find that data:
>> (The US rate is) 3.5 per 100,000: we would expect, if the Foxconn factories were no more dangerous than the average American workplace, 35 workplace deaths a year among those 1 million workers. Yes, each of those deaths, each of those injuries, in those aluminium dust explosions is a tragedy. But if we were being realistic rather than spouting nonsense over such matters we would not be using evidence of three or four deaths as evidence of how Apple, Foxconn or even China are ignoring worker safety in pursuit of filthy lucre. At a very minimum we would be looking at the total workplace death rate rather than cherry picking one specific incident.
The author's saying he's heard of 3-4 people killed... so how does that map to 7 in the infographic? Where exactly are the Foxconn stats coming from? Because the "data" offered in this article is "as-seen-on-TV". Is there even a system of reporting mandated by the national govt to collect data? In the absence of actual vetted data, how can you conclude that Foxconn manufacturing is 5-10 times safer than avg US manufacturing?
>> But why would they be hiding fatality stats?
If you are Foxconn, do you want people talking about Foxconn and fatalities in the same sentence? And if the govt doesn't require it, do you feel compelled to use your own internal resources to voluntarily compile and publish stats that make you look bad?
I would be unsurprised at better safety stats than the US. With DuPont as one of several exceptions, the safety culture in the USA is still one of compliance. The mining record is awful versus global large companies. Apple and other customers are able to demand and get certain requirements met. A key part of that would be safety, and the first rule is integrity in measurement.
I've seen plants in Colombia and Mozambique operate at industry leading levels of safety. China can do it too - it really helps when you have a workforce that is motivated and eager for the relatively high paid work.
So a variety of US jobs against Foxconn isn't exactly comparing like with like.
I think this stat can exonerate Foxconn work as pretty safe even by US standards without condemning the US.
> How would you die while assembling an iPad?
Since you asked - here are some typical risks. Happily these are all mitigable.
Falling from heights while in the store - for parts or for shipping. Hit by a moving light vehicle inside the factory - forklift etc Hit by a light or heavy vehicle outside the factory - e.g. when in loading operations Incorrect handling of hazardous materials resulting in explosion Incorrect handing of molten materials (plastics, metals) Poor guarding on major equipment catching clothes and dragging worker into equipment. Ditto with poor isolation equipment prior to maintenance (machine switched on while someone is inside it) Electrocution due to lack of isolation of electrified equipment before commencing maintenance work Inhalation of fumes and other toxic emissions Crushing by a press or other heavy industrial machine during operation, maintenance or installation Crushed by stacks of inventory (parts, finished product) falling Electrical fire or other sort of fire Food poisoning, collapse of building, any incidents in staff accommodation and so on.
The data doesn't show that at all. It is at best safer than the average US workplace. The average is skewed by these dangerous jobs: http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead...
Also I really hope any company has a lower suicide rate than the national average people employed after all tend to be happier than those who aren't
Regardless, doubling the pay for workers does not solve the real issue here. Their wages are already above average for Chinese factory workers in that area. If you want these workers to be paid a first-world wage, that's a much larger issue than how much Apple pays their final assembly workers.
Also, Foxconn does not build just phones. It's used by most desktop and laptop manufacturers, where Apple is certainly not in the lead, and to assemble all game consoles, where Apple doesn't even have products. Microsoft, for example, is responsible for the workers in the incident mentioned here: http://kotaku.com/5874706/report-mass-suicide-threats-at-xbo... (I don't think Microsoft would have an issue paying more, for example.)
Now this is not to underplay the problems in Chinese manufacturing, of which there are many. But Apple is certainly not singularly able to make any changes here.
> the iPhone 4S (the most expensive model) costs $599 off-contract
649 according to the store, and that's for the 16GB version, the 64GB one is 849. According to http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iph... anyway.
Well, then maybe Slashdot is wrong too:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/04/08/0546247/google-ear...
>"While Apple generates more than $575 in profit for every iOS device, and according to estimates in 2007 Apple earned more than $800 on every iPhone sold through ATT, Horace Dediu reports that Android generated less than $550m in revenues for Google between 2008 and the end of 2011, earning only $1.70 per year, per Android device — explaining how Apple is sucking up two thirds of the profit in the mobile phone business.
Should Samsung be excluded from criticism because they discount their prices? Even though they make more phones than Apple?
If Apple decided to lower their prices to compete more aggressively with Android, would that absolve Apple of majority responsibility in your eyes?
Blame needs to be proportional to amount produced, not amount profited. If I have one phone manufactured and I charge $11 million for it (and actually find a buyer), but you produce a million $10 phones, your impact on the workers is far greater.
"On the other hand, many other companies like Amazon and Microsoft sell the hardware for a loss, hoping to make it up on software and media purchases."
So if tomorrow Apple decided to sell their phones at half price, thereby eliminating all profits, then suddenly no one will be able to say anything to Apple about their manufacturing and worker treatment?
"Meanwhile, the other companies are not doing very well, and labor cost increases for them might put them out of business entirely and then the workers won't even have a job. ... This is why Apple is criticized more since it has most leeway of all the companies mentioned in the article to increase wages."
So it all amounts to how much you charge the end user. If a company charges more for their product they must ensure the workers of the companies they contract with are paid/treated fairly, but if a company chooses to sell devices at little to not profit, they can treat the workers however they want.
It sounds to me more like if a company makes a device and provides it to you cheaply, you'll look the other way on how they handle manufacturing.
But the profit margin is an important factor in your ability to make things better.
Assembling the iPhone is a small and very insignificant part of the manufacturing process. What about the manufacturing of the steel, glass, LCD panels, logic boards, processors and IC chips, antennas, speakers, microphones, screws, cameras, batteries, and cables?
Obviously if it's unethical for Apple to contract the assembling of the iPhones to a manufacturer that pays high wages relative to the average Chinese job, then it must also be unethical to buy components from suppliers that also pay their factory workers a similar wage. Clearly, doubling the wage for all factory workers who work on any component of the iPhone will have a huge impact on the manufacturing cost far beyond the extra $7 you suggest it to be.
Because we live in a world where success is discouraged, and mediocrity is celebrated.