Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Chinese Suppliers Accused of Causing Significant Environmental Damage

itwbennett writes "Environmental watchdog groups in China on Wednesday released a report detailing a 5-month investigation on electronic suppliers that they believe are used by Apple. According to the report, accessory manufacturer Kaedar Electronics and printed circuit board maker Unimicron have allegedly been discharging waste water and harmful gas from their plants in the Chinese city of Kunshan. The report claims that over a 10-year period, 'many people have fallen sick, with a sharp increase in the village's cancer rates.' Since 2007, more than nine people have suffered or died from cancer in the village, which has a population of fewer than 60. Apple declined to say if the companies named were in fact its suppliers, but company spokeswoman Carolyn Wu, responding to the report, said, 'Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base.'"

346 comments

  1. Low prices or pollution in China. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Low prices or pollution in China

      I think you meant to say "High prices or pollution in China"

    2. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by jgagnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Low prices or pollution in China..

      With Apple you get high prices AND pollution in China. :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    3. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called making a dent in the universe baby!

    4. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by nharmon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please. More like: Unemployment or pollution in China; Chinese people have made their choice a long time ago.

      China knows what increasing environmental standards will do to them. It is the same thing they did to us: shift manufacturing elsewhere. That is not to say they should not raise their standards; but it is hard to ignore the costs of doing so.

      Placing this on the shoulder of American consumers ignores the fact that if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America.

    5. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Ryanrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Consumers did not make that choice. American businesses made their choice a long time ago.

    6. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And, in fairness, China has chosen between industry with little or no controls, and pollution/the environment.

      For the same reason that a lot of Chinese children fell ill when their milk powder was laced with melamine ... because there are either no controls, or it's really easy to bypass them. Ultimately, they exported this to us as pet food.

      Hell, even if Apple (or whoever) had stipulated that they do it all according to the book because they wanted to be ethical, there's no guarantee it would have happened. China is more or less completely unregulated capitalism run amok. I must say, I am completely unsurprised by any of this.

      And, really, pretty much anywhere in the world, industry will consistently do things like this if nobody is doing an effective job of policing them ... greed and short cuts for profit know no cultural boundaries.

      Corporations in America would burn kittens, babies, and the flag for fuel if it was cost effective and nobody stopped them. Especially if you could bribe the people who were supposed to keep you honest.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hey, guess what? the world is finite. Raise standard everywhere, and compete no manufacturing quality.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by nharmon · · Score: 1

      That is the best long-term global strategy, but in the long-term we're all dead.

      In the mean time you have to expect that developing countries are going to go lax on their environmental standards for a time so that they can catch up.

    9. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh no. Don't lay this on consumers. The purpose of companies is to make profit for shareholders within bounds of the law. Period. The purpose of companies is not to be stewards to environment. It is not to make employees rich. It is to make money for shareholders.

      The purpose of governments is to lay down regulations under which these corporations operate. This includes working conditions, wage standards, and yes, it also includes environmental standards.

      It is China's government that is to be blamed for their pollution. They chose to mortgage China's future health to gain current economic growth.

      I can give you examples of when a western company would build water treatment to remove 99+% of all contaminants in the water before discharging that water back to environment. Some would even build 100% water recycling - basically all their waste water would be recycled back. But do the Chinese officials care?? Hell no!! It is actually a wasted effort and negative for shareholders to have these capital expenditures because there is no ROI.

      I remember a few years ago when some mines in Chile had to upgrade their processing to include concentrators to reduce water usage by 80-90%. That was a capital expenditure and it was only built because the government set up a new laws that required to reduce water usage in mining operations. And this is what the government should be doing. Imposing laws to protect the environment.

      This has nothing to do with Apple. This has everything to do with China.

      BTW, I'm not an Apple fanboy and I think Apple products are significantly overpriced.

    10. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, the problem is, when it IS cheaper to build somewhere else because you don't have to worry about pesky things like child labor, and environmental issues, then yeah. It is HARD to IMPOSSIBLE to compete when the playing field is not level. THIS is why everyone left for China.

      And you can thank all the people who wanted to normalize relations and "free" trade with China. Both (R) and (D) parties are to blame here, because both don't give a real shit about LIBERTY. Mainly because they don't understand Liberty and are mired in Group Politics and class warfare debates, while liberties are being systematically removed.

      To fix this problem, we have to DEMAND that imported goods are manufactured under the same rules and regulations required by US law, and charge import duties or refuse entry for all products that do not comply with US Law. Fair Trade, not Free Trade. We cannot impose our laws on others, we can only enforce them at our borders.

      And, if YOU are not willing to demand such action, then you cannot complain about the results such as the one mentioned in the article. People are buying from China (and other places) and when people do, they're part of the problem. There is no way a US manufacturer can make a product in the US, and compete against low wage, lax environmental laws and lack of regulation.

      You want to fix the problem fix the two party system that enables it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess that labor costs, fire escapes, handicap accessibility and various other factors work into that whole equation too.

      Short of making it US law that every part of a product must be manufactured somewhere that meets US health, safety, labor and environmental laws, you'd never get around it. And that would be disastrous for the US.

    12. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      This is the problem of the group thinking. Consumers are Businesses, and Businesses are consumers . YOU are both. Unless you work for the government, in which case you live off of businesses and consumers taxes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by FlyingGuy · · Score: 0

      Really? Care to guess a guess at the cost of an iPhone that had everything it is made from manufactured in say California a state that has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the entire world?

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    14. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Kenja · · Score: 2

      Dont forget that China has around a 40% tarif on goods made outside of their borders while we have around 5%. So if a company wants to sell their product in China, they had best move the jobs there as well.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    15. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      To fix this problem, we have to DEMAND that imported goods are manufactured under the same rules and regulations required by US law, and charge import duties or refuse entry for all products that do not comply with US Law. Fair Trade, not Free Trade.

      So you talk about LIBERTY and then demand that the government prohibit people from trading with others outside the country who you don't like. Interesting.

      How about you only buy products from companies who adopt policies you like? If you're right and most people want to pay more for the things they buy then that will automatically lead to companies adopting those policies.

      But, of course, you and I both know that won't happen, which is why you want to prohibit people from buying from companies you don't like.

    16. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by fafaforza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that you can't really buy a computer without many of the same companies being involved. So whatever system you buy instead is likely no better as far as environmental impact.

    17. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      33,000 dollars?

    18. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by arbulus · · Score: 2

      The problem is that there are entire segments of goods that are not manufactured in the US at all. There are no electronics manufacturers here. So if you want a computer, phone, tablet, television, dvd player, etc., you have zero choice but to buy foreign. You can't just say "buy american" and it solves all our problems. Most of the things we consume simply aren't made here.

    19. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Both!

    20. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Consumers make that choice every time they sort the list by price and pick to lowest one, which is what they do 99% of the time. You either get your product to the top of that list or you go out of business. You can hate business (as per your training) for a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.

    21. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'd even bet that the Chinese authorities only cared because it was an American business at the bottom of the supply chain.

    22. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by shentino · · Score: 1

      How much would that iPad actually cost for Apple to manufacture?

    23. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I CAPITALIZE random words IN my posts because I think it MAKES my point more FORCEFULLY, but in reality it just makes me look INSANE.

    24. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by shentino · · Score: 1

      That's nice in a cooperative world.

      But in today's cutthroat international environment there's MUCH to gain from cheating. Especially in the case of sovereign nations that cannot be put in prison or fined.

    25. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      You know, regulation of Foreign trade is one of the few things that the Federal Government is Constitutionally authorized to perform.

    26. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by shentino · · Score: 2

      Consumers are just as selfish as any other entity.

      They benefit from low prices while chinese citizens are the ones that suffer.

    27. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by shentino · · Score: 1

      The only thing the PRC has to lose is all the bribes it's collecting from companies to look the other way.

    28. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Exactly, when we cracked down on it here they just moved to where it was open season. I guarantee that Chinese officials are probably cheaper to bribe as well so the few regs they have are easier/cheaper to bypass.

    29. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Products are worth what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less.

    30. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by kvnslash · · Score: 1

      You've abstracted the poster's idea beyond comprehension. Yes, in your screwed up world, there is no way to distinguish between right and wrong. But wake up, we have the responsibility to distinguish between the two. There is some basic level of liberty that all people deserve, that is the only 'policy' we are discussing here. The problem in China is so bad, and I am choosing to side with those think something actually should be done.

    31. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      What's not buying Apple got to do with it? How many computers are manufactured in the US? I have a computer that was made in Pennsylvania but that was in the 80's and that company is gone entirely now. If someone still makes computers here I'd love to hear about it.

    32. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      Last I checked the iPhone was one of the most expensive cell phones money can buy.. specialty jewel encrusted gold phones notwithstanding. I don't think I'd call that low prices. How about "High prices and pollution in China".

    33. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      But, of course, you and I both know that won't happen, which is why you want to prohibit people from buying from companies you don't like.

      Care to point out where he said that? He doesn't want to stop anyone from buying those products in the least. He just wants companies that manufacture them to actually do so without polluting the shit out of China and abusing their workers.

      By saying they should be able to do that, you're basically advocating for liberty for the very rich, at the expense of the 3rd world poor.

    34. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      Same thing goes for all Apple products. Apple is well known for having extremely high prices.

    35. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Consumers are Businesses, and Businesses are consumers . YOU are both.

      I call bullshit. This is that same shitty thinking that leads to the idea that, there doesn't need to be any regulations on business, because they'd be completely willing to police themselves. Despite several decades of history proving the exact opposite.

    36. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Care to point out when the US made iPad was offered?

    37. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Probably because consumers don't have any fucking money, and thus are forced to buy the cheap crap.

    38. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      According to Mrs Dick Parry, speaker for the Tea Party, child labor is not so bad; and every member of the more conservative U.S.Congress types would not argue your child labor point. Another miner factoid is that the government of china approves all building construction, manufacturing processes, and anything else their Politburo deems fit to rule on. Not even the wholesale slaughter of 150,000 children causes much attention by those who rule the middle kingdom. So why should any of us be conserned? (queue Irony at this point)

    39. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      Have you bought any electronics product in the past 20 years? Then you are guilty of the exact same thing.

      Don't try to fool yourself into thinking this is just Apple. They only mentioned Apple because they're the biggest, name wise. Every other company does the same thing.

    40. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Well, from a purely capitalist viewpoint, the prices for labor and dumping waste material in a village are slightly higher here than there.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    41. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It is also hard to ignore the costs of doing so. The costs are the death and suffering of people and environmental destruction that will eventually have to be cleaned up by the state. Environmental regulation is an ounce of prevention put on the corporate dime in exchange for avoiding a pound of cure on the public's dime. In the long run, it is a really good deal and cheaper than the alternative for everyone involved, including the corporations.

    42. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by albacrankie · · Score: 1

      "liberties are being systematically removed" "To fix this problem," "we can only enforce them at our borders" You seem to be saying that liberty is about enforcing laws at the border. That's an interesting take. But it strikes me as weird.

    43. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Same thing goes for all Apple products. Apple is well known for having extremely high prices.

      And, very high customer satisfaction. Coincidence? I think not.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    44. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Would that be a Commodore Amiga by any chance? Whats interesting is even in the 80s Apple was outsourcing a lot of their production to places like Singapore (My Apple IIgs was built there) while companies like Commodore were manufacturing it all in the USA and were competitive on price. Even IBM was selling "assembled in the USA from domestic and foreign components" machines.

    45. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor Apple, it's in such a margin squeeze.

    46. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same thing goes for all Apple products. Apple is well known for having extremely high prices.

      And, very high customer satisfaction. Coincidence? I think not.

      I very much agree that the two are related. I'm sure I'll get modded down for elaborating, but I think Apple's success is very much like Prada's. Ownership of an Apple product is more about status than it is about what the product does. Prada handbags offer inferior storage and configuration to cheap competing bags, even ones manufactured from the same materials yet people (the ones who can afford to do it) still shell out the cash for a Prada handbag instead of going to another brand and paying a fraction of the price. In fact, the price its-self is part of the allure.

    47. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I very much agree that the two are related. I'm sure I'll get modded down for elaborating, but I think Apple's success is very much like Prada's. Ownership of an Apple product is more about status than it is about what the product does.

      *shrug* Your mileage may vary, and perception can be reality. But ...

      I've had iPods for over a decade, because they did what I want then, and continue to do it now ... contrast this with, oh, a Zune or any number of defunct devices.

      And, when I bought my iPad there wasn't really another product on the market -- despite people saying there have been tablets for a long time, in terms of one I could buy at a consumer electronics store and that was widely supported, in my opinion, the iPad was the first product that was readily available to me.

      I won't say that there aren't people for whom Apple is a status symbol ... but as an overweight, non-trendy geek in his 40s who bought these purely on a user satisfaction basis ... maybe it's a status symbol because it works well, not because other people also like them.

      I don't know a single owner of Apple products who bought it on the basis of what other people would think of it. And, I know a lot of people who have Apple products. In fact, almost all of the people I know who own anything by Apple are at least 40, have worked in tech for at least 10-15 years, and typically have at least an undergraduate degree in computer science. The rest, do not want to know anything about how their tech works, and just want it to work without fuss.

      Other than your belief that people only buy Apple because it's trendy, or that maybe anecdotal evidence suggests that superficial high school kids treat it as a status symbol ... do you have anything which supports this assertion? Or is this merely your own perception or something you've just heard from other people? Because, quite frankly, I hear this a lot but without anything to support it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    48. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by konohitowa · · Score: 2

      Other than your belief that people only buy Apple because it's trendy, or that maybe anecdotal evidence suggests that superficial high school kids treat it as a status symbol ... do you have anything which supports this assertion?

      No, it's just that he's an expert on purses and is trying to put that expertise to good use.

    49. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by JSBiff · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that a governmental policy which disallows pollution *in* America, but allows imports of products from companies which have no such restrictions, played a big roll too.

      I'm not against importing products from other nations, per se, but it seems to me that it would be altogether *reasonable* and *sane* to require imported products manufacturer's to adhere to the same rules as domestic suppliers.

      What has happened was entirely predictable when domestic companies are forced to compete on an asymmetric legal standard with regards to worker safety, labor treatment, and environmental protection laws compared to their foreign competition.

    50. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the hungry kittens and mange infested dogs. Who'll think about them? Hmm?

    51. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by migla · · Score: 1

      >American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.

      Except, the choice didn't come in the form of a ballot where you could check YES or NO to poisoning the planet and exploiting poor people. If presented like that, people might make a different choice.

      We shouldn't put the burden on consumers to have to know everything about every product. We should set up some rules about fucking up the environment and exploiting the poor, so that consumers don't have to check everything. Consumers don't want to try to investigate every product and they shouldn't have to.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    52. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. So quit your lame ass whining about illegal immigrants!

    53. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      That was the point...

      the options are:

      Low prices AND Chinese pollution
      OR
      High prices AND environmental responsibility.

      AC was correct, that it is High prices OR pollution.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    54. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Why does anyone have to DEMAND any ACTION? If you don't approve of China's labor, etc, don't buy products made in China. If enough people do that, companies will get the hint. Yes, this may mean that people may actually have to voluntarily give up having some things they otherwise might have. Oh, the horror! On the other hand, if people don't stop buying Chinese products, what makes you think they actually want policies that prevent them from getting Chinese products? The problem is not the two-party system. The problem is that people are unwilling to take the simple actions that can make a difference, because taking those simple actions (which they claim to so strongly believe in) inconveniences them. Blaming politicians and government is just taking the easy way out - placing the blame on someone else instead of where it belongs, firmly on the shoulders of consumers.

    55. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      $5, it would be done by robots which don't require pay.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    56. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bastia · · Score: 1
      Cool! You keep your irony in a queue so that you can easily dequeue it when you need it later?

      (Yes, yes. I know that you meant cue, not queue.)

    57. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it? In the 1960's and 70's many people went without grapes and lettuce for five years to protest the treatment of farm laborers. You can't even give up a freaking toy? This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us. Instead, it is ever so much easier to blame 'evil corporations' and 'corrupt governments'. If you think manufacturing in China is a problem, do your part and don't buy Chinese products, even if it causes you to sacrifice a little.

    58. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that an iPad made in the US would cost roughly $14,000. So I'd say their stuff is still pretty cheap.

      Yep, i bet you read it on the internet so it must be true.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    59. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Please. More like: Unemployment or pollution in China; Chinese people have made their choice a long time ago.

      China knows what increasing environmental standards will do to them. It is the same thing they did to us: shift manufacturing elsewhere. That is not to say they should not raise their standards; but it is hard to ignore the costs of doing so.

      Placing this on the shoulder of American consumers ignores the fact that if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America.

      Or how about stockholders demanded more profit, so they moved manufacturing to a cheaper foreign country that doesn't care if they kill their own people to make the rest of the world shit.

      You can blame consumers, but it's not the consumers who makes the decisions on how stuff is made.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    60. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You do have a choice - it's called 'not buying'. If enough people felt strongly enough about the problem that they were willing to make even a small sacrifice (OMG! can you believe I can't get a tablet!), you can bet some company (either an established company or a start-up) would take notice and start manufacturing here.

    61. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning the flag is a protected act of free speech, kittens and babies not so much.

    62. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Forced? I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads. I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.

    63. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Imagine two people sitting at an airport terminal. One person, with business attire, opens up his laptop. It's a Lenovo. Another person, dressed casually but with taste, opens a Apple MacBook Pro. Which of the two would you expect to be more affluent? The answer to that question decides if you buy Apple for looks or for usability/service, etc.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    64. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      As per your link, the people responsible for that melamine thing were executed. The Chinese government tends to take these things very seriously, at least some of the time. Your example sucks.

    65. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by node+3 · · Score: 0

      Other than your belief that people only buy Apple because it's trendy, or that maybe anecdotal evidence suggests that superficial high school kids treat it as a status symbol ... do you have anything which supports this assertion? Or is this merely your own perception or something you've just heard from other people? Because, quite frankly, I hear this a lot but without anything to support it.

      It's because, like many nerds, he's blind to the whole "user experience" aspect. He just sees hardware specs. Due to this, the only reason he can come up with is that people are buying Apple products as a fashion item.

      Even though that's laughably absurd, it's the only thing that makes sense to him.

      There are a few other options for user-experience-blind nerds, such as the users are "stupid", "fooled by marketing", or "locked in by the evil Steve Jobs".

      Fortunately, all of the above really just account for an extremely small fraction of people, and even of nerds. Most people either like, own, and use Apple products, respect but don't use Apple products, or just really don't give a fuck either way.

    66. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked the iPhone was one of the most expensive cell phones money can buy.. specialty jewel encrusted gold phones notwithstanding. I don't think I'd call that low prices.

      As are all of the top-teir Android phones (many of which cost more than the iPhone, and generally have less storage, which is one of the parts that has a significant impact on price).

      And the iPad, where are all the lower-priced, but similarly specced Android tablets? Or the low price iPod touch competitors?

    67. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it... you already made the choice.. the fact that no hard drives (for example) are produced in the US isn't the choice you're being offered -- it's the consequence of the choice you already made.

      You were given a choice -- over the course of many many years; about a decade ago -- and you chose the Chinese made drives.

      You think companies want to go to China? Where they are required to enter into a 'partnership' with a Chinese company (foreign companies are not allowed to own more than 49% of a business in China); Where they are required to hand over all of their tech to their 'partner' so the goods can be manufactured. You think GM wants to teach Cherry autos (the largest manufacturer in China) how they run their assembly line, and hand over all of their EV and battery tech? Then Cherry turns around and uses that to produce cars under their own name and compete with GM. Cherry used to manufacturer 3rd world quality shit.. now they produce cars that are on par with Ford and GM. And they did that in less than a decade.

      And that's just one example. They do that with every industry that goes over there.

      Manufacturers don't WANT to go over there. They are forced to go over there to compete. To meet the prices that US consumers demand. Because if they don't do it, then some other US company will -- and their customers will go to that company because they are cheaper.

    68. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Imagine two people sitting at an airport terminal. One person, with business attire, opens up his laptop. It's a Lenovo. Another person, dressed casually but with taste, opens a Apple MacBook Pro. Which of the two would you expect to be more affluent? The answer to that question decides if you buy Apple for looks or for usability/service, etc.

      Asking that question says more about you than whether Apple products are status symbols. Because I don't think about the relative affluence of total strangers.

      I see the guy in a suit, and I think of how awful it is to have meetings right after a flight. I see screaming children, and I hope they're not on my flight. I see people with those stupid little doggy carry-ons, and I wonder why the hell they let people bring their pets into the cabin of an airplane. Other than that, I just want to be left alone to suffer the indignity of air travel in peace.

      Just because there exists a subset of humanity who are superficial idiots, does not mean that if you see some of those with a given product you can make generalizations about all people who use that product.

      Now, Monster Cable, there's a status symbol. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    69. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      True, but consumers validated the choice and perpetuated the practice by continuing to give those businesses their money.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    70. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      People are being slaughtered all over the planet for all sorts of reasons. Liberty is not for some it is for all, equally without regard to group memberships.

      As for your quoted article, can you, without going back to the reference, tell me exactly what they said that was so "horrible" that you would construe it to mean they are in favor of child labor? If you can't you're just a parrot for leftwing loons. Oh wait, it is a leftwing loon website

      I ask people for the quote they supposedly base their entire hatred upon, and often (more often than should be) they don't know, they just "heard about it".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    71. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      A decade ago, or two decades ago many of the people now complaining were children. The boomers made these decisions, and like everything else they fucked it up.

    72. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by stanjo74 · · Score: 1

      >.... if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America. > More like "if Americans did not demand low prices, shareholders would have demanded more profit and the jobs would have gone to China anyway."

    73. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Most people either like, own, and use Apple products, respect but don't use Apple products, or just really don't give a fuck either way.

      It it possible that some significant percentage of people have given Apple products an honest chance, and dislike the always-assumed-to-be-flawless usability? Or that they buy them for lack of credible options, but are pining for an alternative?

      That Apple is only disliked by nerds who don't understand the "common man", poor people and other assorted fringe "haters" is no more credible than the "only status-seeking sheeple with money to burn like Apple" arguments.

      I have several Apple products, some that I bought, some provided by employers, and some hand-me-downs. They are all serviceable, but also suffer from idiosyncrasies and constraints that reasonable people could have perfectly legitimate but vastly different opinions about.

    74. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      They probably DID demand they be manufactured under the same (or at least tighter) rules. Someone in China decided to make more money and cut corners. You really can't put all the blame on Apple for this, there's the gap between US manufactured stuff and China manufactured stuff, and there the gap between China manufactured that follows the rules and laws and those that don't. The latter is much bigger, I suspect.

    75. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Really? Care to guess a guess at the cost of an iPhone that had everything it is made from manufactured in say California a state that has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the entire world?

      California also has one of the highest costs of living and highest minimum wage (which increases the starting salaries). If the iPhone were to be made entirely state-side, they would do fabrication in a lower-cost region such as Michigan, Ohio, and the South (which coincidentally is where they build Fords and Hondas). It'd still be expensive, but power and labor is much cheaper there.

    76. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Imagine two people sitting at an airport terminal. One person, with business attire, opens up his laptop. It's a Lenovo. Another person, dressed casually but with taste, opens a Apple MacBook Pro. Which of the two would you expect to be more affluent? The answer to that question decides if you buy Apple for looks or for usability/service, etc.

      I would assume the Lenovo owner because obviously he's important enough for work to buy it for him. The guy with the Apple clearly doesn't make as much as he's working at a small company with no IT department. Or he majored in Liberal Arts.

      Disclaimer: I own / use machines with OS X, Windows XP/7, and Linux.

    77. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by brkello · · Score: 1

      People base the opinion on the fact you can get superior product at a cheaper price. This was more true in the PC days where Apple was not even closely competitive in a dollar to performance comparison. Now there is just a rabid following that buys anything that is Apple. I own Apple devices and still think they are fairly trendy and over-priced. Then again, that's why I buy pretty much anything that is Android based now.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    78. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      Probably only 25% more (yes, I work in the industry). But with very thin margins, 25% means the world. And that also assumes that we still remember how to make the components of an iPhone. I don't know of a single high volume LCD manufacturer in the USA. I'm not talking about the small government program funded companies. The IC's we can still make, but not for too much longer. There is a price in outsourcing manufacturing.

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    79. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by leenks · · Score: 1

      Americans did not demand low prices. Low life company directors and shareholders bent on profits did.

    80. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Do you want China dictating policy here? How about Russia?

      We should dictate policy at our borders, not beyond. You want to sell products here, these are the conditions ... obey our laws and regulations. That gives them the choice, so we can't say we're dictating anything.

      What good is all our environmental regulations in the USA if China is polluting the world to sell to us cheap products?

      It makes it about what THEY choose, not us dictating to them. Lead by example. We're not leading anyone and we're being dragged down to the gutter in the process.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    81. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Let see what you can do. For the next year, do not buy anything from China. Ever. Let see if you can

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    82. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by lennier · · Score: 1

      Same thing goes for all Apple products. Apple is well known for having extremely high prices.

      And massive profits despite low, low manufacturing costs based on near-slave labour. Coincidence? Yes of course it is! Why do you ask?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    83. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yes, foreign commerce (and commerce with Indian tribes for that matter) is listed in the same sentence as interstate commerce

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    84. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Aruguing that federal regulation of something is unconstitutional is not at all the same thing as arguing in favor of that thing. This is so typical of you so called 'liberals' today. A republican argues that something is outside the purview of the fed and should be handled by the states and you post something along the lines of 'Perry in favor of 150,000 children being slaughtered'

    85. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. Immediately stopping all purchases from China is impractical and unnecessary, although it is exactly what you would get with your 'deny entry' proposal. However, it would be extremely easy to pick a company or product that is not necessary for daily life, and refuse to buy it. Apple is a perfect starting place. You don't think Apple would be putting the screws to it's suppliers (or moving manufacturing elsewhere) if Apple's revenue suddenly took a nosedive while a well-publicized boycott is occurring? You don't think that would put the entire electronics industry on notice? Do the same for a different industry, say apparel. Don't buy any American Eagle clothing made in China.

    86. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the corporations will get the message quite quickly, if the message you mean is to launch a massive PR campaign to lie about where the products are being made, raise prices accordingly and funnel the extra profits into offshore accounts.

    87. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While I agree completely with everything you said, the one that sticks out for me is the Macbook. Everything else? yeah you can understand them, different CPUs on custom hardware plus Apple UI so I can see an argument for them even if I don't personally care for them.

      But there is NOTHING to be for with the Macbook. it is bog standard Wintel parts at truly INSANE prices. geeks here love to talk about the "MSFT Tax" but frankly that is pocket change compared to the Mac, I mean have you SEEN what they are charging? $1000 for an i3 with INTEL graphics and only TWO Gb of RAM? WTF?

      So as TFA shows they are dumping the toxins out the back door so they don't even have to pay for cleanup. With the iShiny one could argue they are doing custom chips but the Macbooks are just the same shit that everybody else sells. God i'l love to see their profits margins on the Macs, they must be making out like fucking bandits! But why anyone would buy one, especially any geek here that has enough sense to be able to read a howto, is beyond me. If you hate Windows so much just run Linux (Vector Linux is good on laptops I'm told) or do a Hackentosh and save the 40%+ markup, its just nuts.

      The only thing I can figure is like another poster said, its like Prada. it is people paying for the logo. Considering the fact I can't picture WinPhone or Android selling any "I have money!" apps frankly it wouldn't surprise me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    88. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That does not matter. It took quite a while to get to this state, and it is going to take a while to get out of it. Instead, we need to set an example. Let's take Apple for instance. Here we have a hugely successful company, enormous market cap and profit, brand recognition like no other, etc. What do you think would happen if, instead of meaning 'I am the coolest dude on the block', the Apple logo started to mean 'I support child labor and environmental destruction'? How long do you think Apple would be able to sustain that loss in customers before it got it's act together and effected real change? What do you think the effect would be on the other manufacturers when they see what happened to Apple?

    89. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      People base the opinion on the fact you can get superior product at a cheaper price.

      Horseshit ... for the simple fact that "superior" is subjective, and is the crux of the point being talked about here.

      You believe a faster machine with more memory or that allows you to run Linux (or whatever) makes for a "superior" machine. Other people believe that a better designed user experience and interface is superior for them.

      The whole point of this is that you don't get to decide that the entire factual basis for "superior" is the conditions you choose. Apple has never tried to compete on CPU speed or memory ... they just made less work "better".

      Because everybody I know who has ever owned a Mac (and I haven't and haven't used one in years so I don't know) say they like it better because it's less frustrating and mostly sticks to doing what they want. I've known guys with Master's degrees who had a laptop they could code on ... but when they went home in the evening, it was their Mac they used.

      For me, I find the interface of my iPod to be better than most other music players I've tried out; I actually find iTunes for managing the content on both my iPod and iPad exceedingly convenient and just works; and I like the fact that my iPad has been really nice to have, doesn't require a lot of mucking about with it, and has been optimized for being used in a different way than I use the desktop machine I'm typing this from. But the things it does well, my laptop can't even come close.

      I could say your wrong based on the fact that I disagree with you ... but then I'd be making the same logical fallacy as you did.

      The fact of the matter is, we are using totally different criteria to arrive at a choice ... and really, that's what it is. Feel free to make your own choices ... and, please, get over mine. There's more than one set of "right" in this equation.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    90. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Suppose that someone happened to "find" an unreleased version of a new iPhone and decided to not play by the rules that require them to return it to Apple, but instead they took it apart and published info on its design for all to read. Would Apple just shrug its shiny shoulders because they demanded the return of their property but, what can we do after all, the guy just wouldn't heed our demands?

      I guess you can see where I'm going with this ..

    91. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Lies, Lies, and Damnable Lies. It is lies like these that give life to the fallacious arguments that Americans are grossly overpaid.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/how-much-would-the-ipad-2-cost-if-it-were-made-in-the-us-about-1-140/238508/

      Average U.S. manufacturing/mining/construction compensation is $32.53/hour as of December, according to the BLS. Research firm iSuppli estimates the iPad 2 costs $10 to manufacture, which - using the $1.11/hour rate - works out to about 9 hours each to complete. If assembly and manufacture took the same amount of time in the U.S. as it does in China (another possibly unrealistic assumption), the cost of making each iPad 2 comes out to $292.77!

              Again, according to iSupply, the material cost for the 32gb iPad 2 WiFi + 3g - which sells for $729 - is about $325, or $335 including labor, which puts Apple's gross margin (ex shipping/handling) at 54%. Just using the simple math above, if the iPad 2 was made in the U.S it would cost $617.77, bringing Apple's gross margin down to 15.25%! Of course, Apple is not in the business of self-immolation, and given their relatively substantial pricing power, they could just make the iPad 2 more expensive, let's say, increasing the price to the point where their gross margins stayed intact, from $729 to $1,144.02!

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    92. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > You want to fix the problem fix the two party system that enables it.

      What makes you think simply changing the political system is going to make the difference? Look at the countries around you.

      > refuse entry for all products that do not comply with US Law [by demanding all US laws apply to manufacture of items being imported].

      Are you willing to accept ALL the implications of that?
      1) Imported products include foodstuffs. Laws include minimum wage. No more winter tree fruit. No more tropical fruit at all. No more Argentinean beef (or Chilean Sea Bass... :) ) Do you really think that Brazil will adhere to all USDA and EPA regulations during production?

      More, oil stops. Who's going to win THAT game of chicken?

      2) Reciprocity: Are you willing to submit to the same level of regulation for exports? Say, follow Russian laws about workers-per-X-square-feet? Saudi laws about women in particular jobs (say, driving)? That's precisely what you're begging for with this plan.

      3) Who bells the cat? The FDA doesn't have enough people to inspect the quality of all foodstuffs coming into the country today. They spot check as best they can. Who pays for the additional inspections? Who pays for the inspections of those foreign manufactories and farms? Who ensures that those inspectors don't fall to corruption?

      Just as an aside, I find it interesting that you complain about politicians not caring about LIBERTY (your emphasis) in the same breath you want to compel people in a foreign country to obey your own laws (and the regulations that go with them).

    93. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I've had iPods for over a decade, because they did what I want then, and continue to do it now ... contrast this with, oh, a Zune or any number of defunct devices.

      The question is, did you actually compare the Zune to the iPod? Or did you just follow the crowd and go get an iPod because that's what your TeeVee told you to do?

      Don't get me wrong--I'm much the same way. I like Apple products and I bought an iPod nano. It's a nice little device that I use to listen to music. The interface is well thought out, it does what I want it to do (play music) in a direct way. I have no complaints with it.

      I never used a Zune. I read some good things about the later versions (Zune HD). At one point, it was the top selling hard-drive-based music player on Amazon, outselling the older white iPods.

      So did you compare the iPod to the Zune and come away choosing the iPod? Or did you, perhaps, just buy what the other people are buying?

    94. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Whats interesting is even in the 80s Apple was outsourcing a lot of their production to places like Singapore (My Apple IIgs was built there) while companies like Commodore were manufacturing it all in the USA and were competitive on price.

      The NeXT factory was in Fremont, CA. It was mostly automated, if I remember correctly.

    95. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Pretty much the same price. Let's be honest those apple products are sold a prices the market will bear. They are produced overseas in the cheapest nasties place to increase profits, not reduce the price to the consumer. Apple is the 'fashion' company of electronics, all marketing, bluff, bluster and a growing more annoying by the day very bad case of histrionics.

      Apples share price is based upon the size of the gap between what their products cost and how much they get away with as the sale price. When it comes to actually caring about how they are produced and how that affects local populations, they is nothing but marketing bullshit. If they actually cared they would produce locally and take the smaller margin in "highly automated' production facilities.

      Truth is, thanks to gross and disgusting exploitation of labour in China, that labour is cheaper than automation and robots. People tied to menial sole destroying repetitious tasks because they are cheaper and more disposable than robots.

      Apple is utterly indifferent beyond marketing and uses a whole host of forum trolls to attack anyone that says different. Why is Apple so forum aggressive because they are a fashion company totally reliant on marketing image, an empty shell (no manufacturing plants, no chip plants etc.) which makes them extremely vulnerable to loss of marketing image (the reality is it happens every time to every fashion image based company, they oversell the lie).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    96. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Phil06 · · Score: 0

      Chinese people do not get to make a choice.

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    97. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by dzym · · Score: 1

      Because historically boycotts don't do shit on their own. And what you suggest is less than a boycott. We're dealing with and in global forces that are many millions times more powerful than you or I and have so many fingers in so many pies that boycotts are completely beneath notice, even if you can get one started. We have a representative government to represent us. If they're no longer representing the interests of Americans as a whole then yes, we blame them and change them. Unfortunately, changing them is apparently not going to happen either.

    98. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-huh. If you're okay with every other country in the world insisting that products imported there are manufactured under their conditions.

      That means, for instance, if you want to ship a bottle of Floridan orange juice to Europe, you have to show that the workers who grew and picked the oranges have not only free health care, but also a minimum of 25 days' annual paid leave, a maximum 48 hour working week, generous maternity/paternity leave, and sundry other benefits too numerous to mention that are taken for granted in Europe.

      There's a reason why free trade is fashionable - because this sort of regime is massively, enormously, monumentally inefficient, as well as containing scope for corruption on a scale currently undreamt-of in the first world. I mean, you might think Soviet-style centrally planned economies are inefficient, but they're like a smoothly oiled machine compared to a world in which every country tries to dictate working conditions in every other country.

    99. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I agree with your conclusion, that labor standards in offshore countries must rise to some minimal international standard.

      If it does not rise, then where is the incentive to bring back manufacturing jobs home. With manufacturing jobs come engineering jobs, and abilities of families to return to living a better life, particulary when full employment comes.

      As long as jobs are exported, there will not be full employment, and the economy will continue to be in the doldrums.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    100. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.

      So did the Chinese.

      They turned a blind eye to America's post-industrial pollution problems and chose to profit while creating the same toxic environment (but on an epic scale) in their own backyard. Now they are losing jobs to Vietnam and having to deal with an angry and sick population.

      I guess those who cannot remember the past really are condemned to repeat it.

    101. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice in theory doesn't work in practice. You can't get products made in the US or elsewhere in many if not most cases. Clothes? Yea-- you try it. Unless you custom order t-shirts from stores in the US and even then... Chances are the fabrics, etc are made elsewhere. Try electronics? What on earth is made here? Not typical consumer electronics. Most of this stuff is produced in multiple countries. You might be able to get a computer put together in the USA. The actual manufacturing though (which does the environmental damage) is done elsewhere. About the only thing manufactured in the USA any more are space related. Airplanes. Everything else has gone overseas.

    102. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people think Macs have good user experience. They have no eject button, chicklet keyboards, and you have to pay extra for a non-glare screen. OSX has the godawful dock with cryptic icons and no distinction between programs that are running and those that aren't, and the global menus which manage to a 2560x1440 display useless for multitasking. And the worst part of it is everybody else is following Apple off the cliff like they were the Prophet Muhammad. It's a fucking disgrace.

    103. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Placing this on the shoulder of American consumers ignores the fact that if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America."

      I beg to differ: even if consumers are willing to pay whatever they are charged, manufacturing would still be outsourced somewhere else, since no company would say no to an even higher profit margin.

    104. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do have a choice - it's called 'not buying'"

      Great! That can solve the debt issues of so many Americans at the same time, but wait, how is the American economy fuelled by? Consumer spending. What do companies do when the economy contracts? Cut costs, limit investment.
      How do companies cut costs these days? Kill the jobs in the "first-world" countries and move somewhere else.

    105. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Relayman · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Other manufacturers are having trouble matching the price of the iPad 2 and the MacBook Air.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    106. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Consumers aren't demanding anything.

      It's the CEOs and people in the corporations that is demanding higher profits, that's why this is happening. If there wasn't this greed at the executive level, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

    107. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've had iPods for over a decade, because they did what I want then, and continue to do it now ... contrast this with, oh, a Zune or any number of defunct devices.

      What exactly was it that other devices didn't do that your iPods did? I honestly can't think of anything. Storage space, sound quality, ease of use, robustness, looks, video playback... I suppose there is web browsing over wifi but it seems rather redundant if you have a smartphone. Oh, except that the iPhone's storage can't be expanded so if you want 64GB+ of music you need a separate MP3 player.

      On the other hand an iPod does force you to use iTunes, but some people would argue that is a feature.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    108. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is why we need to have laws that prevent companies polluting overseas. If making a product causes pollution that wouldn't be allowed in our country then it should not be sold here. We already go some way to doing that with things like RoHS requirements, but we can do more.

      As a bonus it would remove the biggest incentive to move manufacturing to China. We can actually be quite competitive at making stuff because wages and taxes are only a relatively small part of the equation, and can be offset against things like import duty and shipping from the Far East. Several European economies do it well, Germany being the biggest, and Japan also manufacturers quite a lot of stuff too.

      Of course business would come out with dire predictions of price rises but the reality is they won't be followed through. Price is rarely based on the cost of manufacture. Instead it is based on what the market is willing to pay, and since that won't change at worst profit margins will go down a little. Very little.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    109. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      See, I recognize GPs capitalization as an emphasis of certain words. If I was saying this as a speech, the capitalized words would be audibly emphasized, too.

      Yours. OTOH, does actually make you look insane.....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    110. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by CapuchinSeven · · Score: 1

      In fact, almost all of the people I know who own anything by Apple are at least 40, have worked in tech for at least 10-15 years, and typically have at least an undergraduate degree in computer science.

      I have to agree, it cracks me up when I hear people yap on about Apple products being status symbols, I know Computer Science professors, members of the IEEE using iPhones and MacBooks to do their work. I know people in many different technical environments using MacBooks and iPhones, I myself have a masters degree in computer science and I can say with no lie that my iPhone 4 and MacBook Air are the best phone and laptop I've ever owned.

      I know someone a few months back, who whined that an Apple laptop could never be a real nerds toy because you need a "special Apple screwdriver" to open it up, I think the reality of that is that if you don't already own or know about torx screwdriver's (in a common size no less) then you are not much of a nerd

      How about this, how about everyone that uses an Android phone like to THINK they are crackers, like's to pretend when they "hack" their phones WITH SOMEONE ELSES firmware, they are being hardcore. I think it was shown in the past that most of the whiners on here use Windows PCs anyway, I likely use *nix and Linux more often than most of them.

    111. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fantasy talk. You go out and try to buy something these days that isn't made in China. It is next to impossible. For most goods, there aren't any non-Chinese options.

    112. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So Boycott Apple who ostensibly is trying to help fix the problem, and leave those that use more atrocious factories running. That makes sense.

      Also, many people don't have Apple products, so boycotting Apple products is easy for them (and appearently you). Which kind of shows that you're all for boycotting a company that you don't like, or don't use (American Eagle, which I never heard of).

      If you want to IMPACT policy, you're going to have to make changes that IMPACT you. I know, kind of inconvenient.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    113. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      This isn't the 50's. The marketing Apple does acts mostly as background noise and subconsciously influences you to, for example, defend and recommend them on an online forum where your ranked solely on what you say. It also influences you to buy their products yourself.

    114. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak without knowledge.
      Chinese people DO care. What they lacked, in the past while American companies were offshoring their industrial pollution

        (what you call factories are really just pollution machines. Let me ramble a bit. When DDT was banned in the US and the west in general, the chemical companies did not abandon those production facilities, they dismantled them and shipped them to Asia. There they set them right back up and returned to production for Asian markets. Since this supported the companies and therefore OUR economies by keeping corporate profits, stock prices and consumer prices low -- we didn't have to pay for the loss of the factories in product price increases-- we turned a blind eye to it. This was the pattern that heavy industry used when the offshored our factories. It was NOT just labor, it was all the cost of working in a country that insisted on clean water, clean air, and end to industrial cancers and other pollution caused diseases. )

      what they lacked, to repeat myself, was the understanding that what they were doing was dangerous to themselves and their families. Now they are becoming aware and they are rejecting the dangers. This study was done by Chinese industry, Chinese government and Chinese people. Now they know the danger and they are refusing it, just as we did 50 years ago.

      Where will the factories go next? Southeast Asia? Africa? Brazil? they will go though and take their destructive and dangerous effluvia with them, leaving behind a superfund of cleanup to be done by the survivors. This is a SciFi horror show.

    115. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The profit margin is where all the action happens. if there were no percieved profit in it then Apple would not offshore their production. You think a control freak like SJ really wants to have production happen on the other side of the planet?

      FTFY. Simply put, unless you're talking about the really cheap throwaway stuff they typically sell at dollar stores and wal-mart, there's really only a narrow difference between China and our "rural" areas in costs for manufacture- when you have someone making stuff here stateside. Even with Apple's higher demand for quality the return rates and substitution rates for materials, etc. from China and similar places cause a loss that mostly negates the margin differences they think they're getting.

    116. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The one action that the Tea Party followers aren't to clear about is Contemplation, maybe because it has too many syllables.

    117. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Arguing Constitutionality is a requirement to be an American Citizen. But why do Tea Party types think its OK to drain America's prosperity to the tune of over $50 Billion dollars a year to the likes of China, and India? And while we're on the topic of Strength of Character, why to the Tea Party types attack the weak, while they're being hunted by bigger grinning predators? I believe that if Tea Party followers demonstrated more factual awareness, then their enlightenment would have more credibility.

    118. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Actually I meant Queue, not Cue. For the very reason you stated; good job!

    119. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Its both the consumers and manufactures/suppliers fault. If there was no alternative source, the consumer has no choice but to buy the domestic goods. But at higher prices the volume moved is low. Then the cheap imports start to cut into the domestic sales. At first it looks like the domestic product is far superior in quality and then over time the import junk is no longer junk. Then the domestic manufactures are suddenly faced with either selling goods on a razor thin profit margin or take the "if you cant beat em join em" approach and begin to also import goods. From there its a race to the bottom. The consumer sometimes isn't even aware their goods are imported. All they know is brand X is cheaper than brand Y. And even if they are aware, the import prices are sometimes so low that people look at the goods as disposable.

      If the wiz bang you bought from a domestic supplier costs $200 but will last 20 years has to compete with the $50 import wiz bang which may or may not last 5 years, what do you think the consumer is thinking when they go to make a purchase? People look at the short term and say hey I can save 150 bucks now and worry about spending 50 later if this thing breaks. So blame the consumer for wanting what every human wants to do: pay less.

      Hell i am guilty of the same thing. I buy cheap hand tools because I can pay a few bucks for a tool set that may or may not be crap instead of hundreds for a top quality tool set that is geared toward professionals and expected to survive daily use and abuse. If I use them a few times a week or month they will last.

    120. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it?

      Ahh, so now I have to miss out on just about every consumer electronics product ever made. Sounds fun!

      This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us.

      Nope. We were never given the choice of a US made product.

    121. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads.

      We're talking about everything. Both basic items and luxury items. It makes no difference.

      I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.

      Not in the least. Remember, China still manufactures A LOT of non-luxury items, too.

    122. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      We would have no problem getting the production line up and running, the issue is can we do it without running afoul of patents for chips or displays.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    123. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by node+3 · · Score: 1

      It it possible that some significant percentage of people have given Apple products an honest chance, and dislike the always-assumed-to-be-flawless usability? Or that they buy them for lack of credible options, but are pining for an alternative?

      I said "most". Which clearly means it's possible for what you wrote to happen (ignoring your idiotic hyperbole about "always-assumed-to-be-flawless usability"). In fact, that most certainly happens.

      But what I'm referring to are the jackasses who claim that people only buy Apple products because they are "trendy" or trying to impress others. At no time have I ever made the claim or implied that everyone likes Apple products.

      They are all serviceable, but also suffer from idiosyncrasies and constraints that reasonable people could have perfectly legitimate but vastly different opinions about.

      This is exactly my point. People have different opinions. And these opinions aren't merely either "I'm smart and don't buy Apple products" or "I'm shallow and only buy Apple products to impress others" as the fool a few posts up claimed.

    124. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by node+3 · · Score: 1

      But there is NOTHING to be for with the Macbook. it is bog standard Wintel parts at truly INSANE prices.

      You are only comparing the electronic components, and completely ignoring the way they are assembled and encased. In fact, you are really only comparing *some* of the electronic components, and ignoring many like FW800, Bluetooth, 802.11n (though less unique these days), IPS and otherwise higher quality displays, thunderbolt ports, longer battery life, better trackpads, magsafe power adaptors, backlit keyboards, etc, etc... These things aren't magically free just because they are "bog standard" (even though most of them actually *aren't* "bog standard").

      No, you're just looking at "Core i5 + 4GB RAM + ATI XXXX + XXXGB HD" and stopping there.

      And you're also ignoring OS X. Even if all Apple did was buy Dell PCs and preload them with OS X, they could sell them for more than Dell sells them with Windows.

      The only thing I can figure is like another poster said, its like Prada. it is people paying for the logo.

      So, let's take it as given that you really can't figure it out, other than fashion. Just look at the millions of Macs sold every quarter. Do you honestly think that these people are only buying them as a fashion accessory? Does that even make any sense? Do these people *also* have Prada or LV products? Some, sure, but most, absolutely not. And Prada and LV can be acquired for much less than a computer.

      So, given that people aren't likely to fit with the "only thing you can figure out", wouldn't it be more realistic and more honest to accept that you just *can't* figure it out, and that people are caring about things that you simply ignore, rather than shoehorn in an explanation that doesn't even make any sense?

      Show some intellectual honesty for once and admit that people can like things you don't like without them having to be some sort of idiotic fashion zombie. You're a nerd. Most people aren't. That should make it clear enough that you will have different opinions on the same things without having to resort to superficial or even entirely artificial values.

    125. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And like the cheap crap PCs which many run Windows or Linux on are low footprint, either. They're all greedy liars, people, that's what it takes to be a capitalist these days, Apple have no mortgage on it. Every electronic device you own is an environmental disaster which exists because of greed. Wake up! Apple's not the problem, capitalism is the problem.

    126. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Yep, pass the buck and wash your hands of the situation. That's the American way.

      Being passive-aggressive never solved anything. 'Lead' by helping them to find economical ways to tighten up their environmental regulations, not turning a blind eye to the situation. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    127. Re:Low prices or pollution in China. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I agree, I've disliked most apple products for a while, but recently they have led the market. the trackpads are much better (and I'm comparing to a high end vaio, not some piece of crap dell or hp), the screen quality is miles ahead, I like having multiple desktops built it (and yes, I know, I had them on fedora like 8 years ago), and I like that the laptop keyboard doesn't flex when I type and the case is solid. and then what sold me is when apple says 8 hours of battery life, I've gotten 7+ many times. When sony said 15 hours of battery life if you buy the sheet battery, I was dying around 5. wtf? 33% of claim vs basically 100% of claim? and with the mac I'm surfing the web over wireless with around 40% brightness while with the vaio I was doing nothing, wireless off, no programs open, and the screen 1 level above black.

      and yeah, it cost about 500 bucks more, but then, I got a warranty on the parts that travels internationally with me and as I'm likely to be posted to 1 or 2 different continents over the next 3 years (outside the US), this is huge. especially because vibration damage happens when traveling as much as I do.

      oh, and the multiple users being so seemlessly switched vs windows is just huge between my wife and I, who have huge differences in tastes.

      I had a macbook in 2006 and it was a piece of crap. I hated and immediately, built my own windows box 6 months later, and swore I'd never buy a mac. this generation is lightyears ahead. I actualy bought the vaio and returned it when I saw how terrible it was in use. then broke down and tried the apple, took me about 10 minutes to be sold on purely technical needs.

      now, if anyone knows how to build a hackintosh desktop at the top end, I'd be interested to read up on it. because I think I'm done with windows now.

  2. After Jobs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, just like in the bible, after Jobs, flood.....

    1. Re:After Jobs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, just like in the bible, after Jobs, flood.....

      DO NOT FEED THE BIBLE TROLL

    2. Re:After Jobs.... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Amen!

  3. Apple cares only about profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Apple doesn't care about the planet or slave labor so long as they can make a profit. That has been the goal of Apple since Steve took over, and that's part of the reason I don't buy Apple.

    1. Re:Apple cares only about profit by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple doesn't care about the planet or slave labor so long as they can make a profit. That has been the goal of Apple since Steve took over, and that's part of the reason I don't buy Apple.

      A good and proper reason to boycott a corporation. The problem is ALL corporations are like that, you have to get your hardware somehow, so bending your principles with Apple or some other equally guilty company is six of one...

    2. Re:Apple cares only about profit by mabhatter654 · · Score: 0

      As Tim Cook was the COO I dont see that changing much.

      Besides, China is supposed to be Communist... They still have The Party... It would seem like if the workers complained about conditions and evviroment the party would do something for them. It's the PEOPLE'S Republic so they must be fine.

    3. Re:Apple cares only about profit by nicholas22 · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no, not all corporations are like that. In fact, there are many corporations that put environmental and social responsibilities first. And also no to your second argument, voting with your wallet actually does work. I don't know if you're an Apple consumer or just naive, but these are facts.

    4. Re:Apple cares only about profit by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      Corporations don't care about the planet or slave labor so long as they can make a profit.

      FTFY. This is not unique to Apple in the slightest, and I somehow doubt that these suppliers make goods strictly for Apple and no one else. It's like people bashing Apple over Foxconn and completely ignoring that the entire damned computer industry gets their goods from either Foxconn or other cheap Chinese labor.

    5. Re:Apple cares only about profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All corporations are like that because those that weren't have gone out of business, because no one would pay their prices. Of course all that happened in the buggy whip days, but the lesson stuck.

      Slashdot loves to blame companies for all the world's ills, but aside from a minor amount of taste making, individual purchasers made all those decisions a long time ago. This is the same group that didn't buy HP Touchpads upon release, but when gonzo crazy when they were $99.

    6. Re:Apple cares only about profit by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Besides, China is supposed to be Communist... They still have The Party

      China seems to be fascists for most things, and then unregulated capitalists for their economy.

      So, the worst of both possible systems seems to be what they've evolved into. I don't think they can be truly called Communists in any meaningful sense of the word.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Apple cares only about profit by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they can be truly called Communists in any meaningful sense of the word.

      Well, except in the 'what communism means in the real world rather than some happy fluffy fantasy where human nature doesn't exist' sense.

    8. Re:Apple cares only about profit by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      Sorry but no, not all corporations are like that. In fact, there are many corporations that put environmental and social responsibilities first. And also no to your second argument, voting with your wallet actually does work. I don't know if you're an Apple consumer or just naive, but these are facts.

      I have a Macbook Pro, but it belongs to the office so I had no vote. In general I am not an Apple consumer.

      I vote with my wallet whenever I can. I'd be interested to hear what responsible manufacturers you recommend that I buy my hardware from.

      I rarely buy COTS computer systems, so the field is wide open for me. I'm sure others would like to hear who the "many" are and how responsible they are.

      Please, do help us become less naive.

    9. Re:Apple cares only about profit by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, except in the 'what communism means in the real world rather than some happy fluffy fantasy where human nature doesn't exist' sense.

      Well, at a minimum, you need to have state controlled ownership of industry. Their economic system bears no resemblance.

      I'm not defending Communism in the happy fluffy fantasy sense of it ... no more than I defend pure Capitalism as being something which works in the way its adherents claim.

      Neither of them work in the "magical unicorns and perfect results" that the people who promote them blindly believe -- they both have massive shortcomings, and don't live up to the idealogues.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Apple cares only about profit by shentino · · Score: 1

      Corporations cannot afford to have a conscience unless the government forces both them AND their competitors to.

    11. Re:Apple cares only about profit by shentino · · Score: 1

      The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you are out numbered a hundred to one by sheeple that don't give a shit about anything but their own pocketbook.

      Doing what's right costs money, so having a conscience is expensive.

      Both for companies and for consumers.

    12. Re:Apple cares only about profit by bmajik · · Score: 1

      Environmental activists are going after Apple because there's a chance of doing something about it.

      By _far_ the worst polluter in China is the Chinese government. Nothing a thousand Apples and a thousand Wal-marts could do would ever compete with what state industry and military has done and continues to do there.

      I think a really, really important thing to understand is this: the ideal amount of pollution in a given area is not zero.

      Pollution of some kind is the price of progress. People like beautiful clean lakes. People also like paper and food.

      The goal is always to find the tradeoff of "as much progress as we want" for "as little pollution as we're willing to pay to mitigate". It's always possible to reduce polution in a variety of ways:
      - slow progress
      - improve the process to be inherently less polluting
      - research and implement polution mitigatino strategies

      All of these either reduce peoples standard of living directly (i.e. slowing progress) or indirectly, by increasing costs.

      Each region of the earth must choose its priorities according to its preferences. There are a lot of people in China who are experiencing prosperity and a life different than that of their ancestors.. and this excites them. And they are willing to pay _some_ cost of increased pollution.

      You and I may not be willing to make that same tradeoff, or you and I see only the pollution they have but not what they're buying with it, and from our positions of 1st-world priviledge and with 150 years of iterating on balancing industrialization with ecology, we are ignoring the fact that people in China want our comfort and prosperity as badly as our ancestors did.

      The evil here is not some objective measurement of pollution that says "Apple's factories pollute too much for our Sierra Club Standards", but that the Chinese people aren't necessarily ok with the "deal" they're getting.

      In the USA this happens, and in China to a much larger extent, the government, even when it isn't the direct polluter, indemnifies local businesses from repercussions when they polute. This means that even if the affected people would be fine with higher costs or less luxury because they'd rather have _safe_ water (not even pretty or nice smelling water!), that choice isn't available to them.

      In any case, the main points I wanted to make here are:
      - non-pollution is at odds with efficient and cheap production
      - different people at different stages of the progress treadmill will anneal around different tradeoff levels. And these will of course change over time.
      - What Apple is doing is not intrinsically good or evil unless it is violating the expressed desires of the people affected. If they _want_ a 1% cancer rate because for the first time in 6000 years, people in that region can do something other than subsistance farm, it's inappropriate to overlay your wealthy-western values framework over their choices..

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    13. Re:Apple cares only about profit by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      What's your point? The HP was vastly overpriced out of the gate. 99 bucks is about all it's worth. If it was so great then people would have bought it.

    14. Re:Apple cares only about profit by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you are out numbered a hundred to one by sheeple that don't give a shit about anything but their own pocketbook.

      Then it's up to people you and I to rub their noses in it as best we can. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes, but eventually, people do listen.

    15. Re:Apple cares only about profit by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      Yes, all of them are like that. At least all of them that make electronics. The only way to "vote with your wallet" would be to have no electronics at all.

    16. Re:Apple cares only about profit by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is exclusively an Apple issue. Every single Dell component I have received for replacement is from foxconn in China. This is more about Foxconn being a bunch of unscrupulous bastards along with Apple and most other corporations.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    17. Re:Apple cares only about profit by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yes, since Tim Cook's background is in Apple's supply chain, this looks particularly bad right about now.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    18. Re:Apple cares only about profit by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      - Reduce population.

    19. Re:Apple cares only about profit by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      but eventually, people do listen.

      Either that, or they punch you in the face.....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    20. Re:Apple cares only about profit by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      - What Apple is doing is not intrinsically good or evil unless it is violating the expressed desires of the people affected.

      You say this with the assumption that the only people affected are the, what, 60 people in this particular village.

      They're releasing hazardous gasses into the atmosphere. Not "this village's atmosphere," but "the atmosphere." There's only one atmosphere for the entire planet to share at.
      That means this pollution affects these villagers, some monks on a mountain in Tibet, the vacationers on beaches in Australia, Carnival revelers in Rio de Janeiro, you, wherever the heck you are, me, and even the workers who are continuing to clean up and improve safety at Chernobyl.

      Environmental damage is not limited to a local area. It spreads over the entire planet.

      Case in point: Did you know that Berlin has a markedly higher background radiation than the average, due to the Chernobyl explosion? Berlin is nearly 1150 km away from the site of the accident. Virtually all of Europe has higher background radiation than North America for this reason. There's no reason to believe North America isn't higher than it was pre-Chernobyl, either.

      It certainly does affect everyone.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    21. Re:Apple cares only about profit by bmajik · · Score: 1

      I live in North Dakota, which has the highest air quality in the united states. Despite the fact that we love coal and oil here.

      As a practical matter, our ability to detect minute levels of contaminants increases every year. People do not understand very small or very large numbers. I am sure you can find irradiated substances here in my own state from every nuclear test done anywhere above ground.

      But I don't care _at all_, because the answer to pollution is _dilution_.

      It's fine to say that contaminants released into the atmosphere elsehwere are _detectable_. It's overreaching to the point of uselessness to say that they are categorically impactful.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    22. Re:Apple cares only about profit by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I live in North Dakota, which has the highest air quality in the united states. Despite the fact that we love coal and oil here.

      I'm sure you also have significantly better pollution controls on those coal and oil burning engines/factories/plants/etc than China does.
      You've also got, what, 50 people in the whole state? (I kid, I kid)

      But still, you're getting pollution from neighbouring states. Although South Dakota's population of 75 probably negates that somewhat for you.

      But my point still stands: The toxic gasses and other pollutants being released from this factory are affecting a lot more than the 60 people that live in this village.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  4. Likely some are suppliers? by bioster · · Score: 1

    Apple declined to say if the companies named were in fact its suppliers"

    Well, that seems like a fairly damning statement. I'm sure Apple (or any other company) would be falling over themselves to deny they were involved with the named supplies if they could.

    1. Re:Likely some are suppliers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why Apple's PR didn't do a blanket denial. Apple might use that company as a supplier but not necessarily the factories in question or one of the companies could be a subcontractor (so Apple might not list them as their immediate supplier).

      The accusations are pretty horrifying and Apple needs to do more than issue PR statements.

    2. Re:Likely some are suppliers? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not Apple. Apple plays everything that isn't specifically outlined on the marketing and image.

      Look at green computers.

      Apple has the greenest computer in the world; however that wasn't in the marketing and image policies, so they didn't mention it until green peace called them the dirtiest computer. Why did that joke of an organization call Apple computers the dirtiest? because Apple didn't talk about their process on their web site.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Likely some are suppliers? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      One of the traits of Apple is they don't talk to the press unless they are launching a product immediately. Apple is notoriously secret about many things; it wasn't a priority for them to disclose future plans of anything. Now bear in mind, Greenpeace cited Apple not for that they were doing or not doing in terms of environmental concerns. It's that Apple didn't publicly announce what they were going to do in the future concerning the environment.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Likely some are suppliers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I remember that one. Greenpeace publicly blasted Apple for not having a plan to reduce the amount of a certain chemical (a type of plastic, IIRC) in their products. When the smoke cleared, it turned out that Apple *couldn't* have a plan to reduce the amount of that chemical in their products because the had already *eliminated* it from their products. (For several years, IIRC.)

  5. The Question Is +5, Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Apple blend?

    Yours In Beijing,
    Kilgore Trout

  6. How does this compare to the US? by Alcimedes · · Score: 2

    From the article.

    "Apple does this by regularly conducting audits and working with suppliers to correct violations, according to the company's 2011 supplier responsibility progress report. In 2010, the company audited 127 facilities and found that 89% of them had waste water management practices in compliance with Apple's requirements.

    The same audits, however, found that only 69% of the facilities were in compliance with air emission management standards. Only 70% of the facilities were in compliance for environmental permits and reporting. When violations are found, Apple requires the supplier to complete plans to resolve the problem 90 days after the audit."

    Do we have 100% compliance in the states? How does this compare to US rates?

  7. Again Apples business by networkconsultant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Fabricate an Icon 2. Market Said Icon 3. Move all manufacturing of said Icon to the lowest (and therefore dirtiest place) on the planet. We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with; china has some regulations but it's always cheaper to bribe the party member than pay the bill. I wonder if the Chinese people know they are poising their own back yard? that's why we have said expensive regulations.

    1. Re:Again Apples business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Chinese people know that their backyard is being poisoned. Its however not the bribed official's backyard and just ask amnesty international how protesting the government is working out for the average Chinese citizen.

    2. Re:Again Apples business by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with.

      That's one reason, I doubt it's the main reason. It's cheaper to produce things in China for many reasons, mainly labour.

      So this is how Reagan's trickle down economics work, give companies huge tax breaks, many pay no taxes at all, and that money will trickle down, as we have seen above, to... China.

      So much for that theory.

    3. Re:Again Apples business by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we NEVER bribe party members here in the US. It's not bribery only because we call it a PAC, but it's the same thing. "Here congress critter, have some money, but only if you vote the way we want you to."

    4. Re:Again Apples business by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's one reason, I doubt it's the main reason. It's cheaper to produce things in China for many reasons, mainly labour.

      You'd be surprised. Labour is cheap in China, but it's also a very small part of the total cost. Foxconn is now moving towards using robotic factories instead of employing cheap labour, which makes the differential even lower. On the other hand, being able to dump your waste in the nearest river, instead of containing it and paying for it to be processed is a significant cost.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Again Apples business by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Your logic is missing. If labor is a very small part of the total cost, Foxconn would be looking at something other than robots to reduce costs.

    6. Re:Again Apples business by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's not a PAC, and that's not how ti works. It's not the same as bribary.

      “If you can't take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, screw their women, and vote against them, you don't belong here.” - Jesse M. Unruh

      Are their problem with a PAC? yes. Is it the same as bribary? no. If it was there wouldn't be an EPA, minimum wage, women rights, black voters, and so on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Again Apples business by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with;

      I find it hard to believe that nothing is manufactured in North America anymore given that the US is the largest manufacturer in the world (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_has_the_largest_manufacturing_industry_in_the_world).

    8. Re:Again Apples business by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      My last company (giant defense contractor) had a PAC and it was straight up bribery. They browbeat us to contribute a percentage of our pay to the PAC, then they use that money to give to politicians who promise to vote for things that are in the best interest of the Defense Industry. How is that not bribery?

    9. Re:Again Apples business by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It could be that robots provide something manual labor cannot like higher throughputs, lower error rate, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Again Apples business by shentino · · Score: 1

      Trickle down economics is a load of bull, because people are inherently greedy.

    11. Re:Again Apples business by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with

      Because things would be so much better if our country looked like China's?

    12. Re:Again Apples business by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, it's legalized bribery, straight up. We might have an EPA, but like all regulatory agencies since Reagan, they've been gutted, had their budgets decimated, and became headed by industry assholes who don't want to do anything.

    13. Re:Again Apples business by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with...

      I work for a company that designs, fabricates, and assembles our products in the US. We make a profit. We also do contract assembly. Manufacturing is not dead in North America, but much of it has moved inland from the coasts.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    14. Re:Again Apples business by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      People name check Apple because they are doing well. It would be Microsoft if they captured the peoples imagination.

      It's not like Apple don't audit these people. But they can't be there 24/7 and 365 days of the year.

    15. Re:Again Apples business by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      That's not a PAC, and that's not how ti works. It's not the same as bribary.

      Of course not - the last political bribery in the US happened when they bribed politicians into making a law that called it "lobbying".

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    16. Re:Again Apples business by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      No need to train replacements. I'm sure that while the labor itself is dirt-cheap, it takes time and effort and thus money to train replacement laborers as the turnover rate has to be ridiculously high. If a laborer falls ill, dies or otherwise quits, you have to spend time and money to train a replacement. If a machine breaks, you just replace it and continue with little downtime. Also machines can work 24/7/365 until failure, whereas human laborers will fail in less than a day with such a workload.

      Even if the machines themselves are expensive to procure, they'll likely still end up saving money in the long run.

      For added hilarity, wait for the inevitable sob stories of Chinese laborers going unemployed because they got replaced by machines.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    17. Re:Again Apples business by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      If you really worked for a defense contractor, then you'd know that government contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    18. Re:Again Apples business by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight.

      Since I did work for a defense contractor, I know that the government is consistently ripped-off year-in and year-out. The quality of work I saw in Defense (software, mind you, not the big ticket weapon systems and vehicles) was easily five times as costly and five times worse work compared to the work I'm in now (giant tech company).

      Look, in the Defense Industry the joke is something like this: "Our company isn't good at writing software, but we are good at winning contracts". That's the problem...the MBAs, Sales, and Procurement folks win billions of dollars of work that their companies can't possibly deliver on, then they turn around a year later to win more contracts by deferring the inadequacies of their current requirements and contracts.

    19. Re:Again Apples business by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      We don't manufacture anything in North America anymore because we have environmental regulations that cost billions of dollars to comply with...

      That is not true. We manufacture a lot in the US. We just ceded the manufacturing of electronic consumer items to the asian market because they enjoy a geographical advantage since most of the electronics and injected plastic foundries are located nearby. It's much cheaper to have the items assembled in Asia and shipped to the US, than shipping the individual parts.

      Automobile Manufacturers moved their automobile assembly plants to the US (the southeast in particular) and part manufacturers have relocated near these plants to supply them. A large percentage of commercial aircraft is built in the US again with suppliers located within the country to supply these plants. Sure the textile mills have closed and we buy way too much crap at Walmart that is manufactured overseas, but this doesn't mean the US has fallen behind in manufactured goods. It just means that we produce items with much larger markup than a piece of electronics.

      I like our environmental regulations. I guess I'm just old enough to remember all of those EPA superfund cleanup sites that were all over the fucking place during the late 70's and all through the 80's. Anyway the environmental regulations are only a small portion of the manufacturing costs and are being used as a scape goat to gain political points to weaken or even eliminate the EPA. The Kohke brothers are behind this lobbying campaign. Not because they are upset about all the chinese crap at Walmart, but because the EPA had the nerve to tell them not to discharge pollutants into the rivers from their paper plants, or stop clear cutting huge tracts of old growth forests. Kohke brothers own Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster Carpet, not to mention some oil refineries.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    20. Re:Again Apples business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will all of you people stop spreading FUD that America doesn't manufacture anything. Until some time THIS YEAR, the US manufactured more goods than any other country in the world. Only recently (possibly not yet, but most likely) has China bested the US in manufacturing output source. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that due to the population difference, per capita manufacturing is still higher in the US than in China.

    21. Re:Again Apples business by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      We're still making stuff.

      http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/manufacturing-surprise-the-us-still-leads-in-making-things/2134/

      Hrrm, the US also has the largest military in the world by far, and they don't buy that abroad - beg that Obama doesn't cut military spending, and better start a new war or two.

      Yup, procurement in 2010 $140 billion, US manufacturing segment in 2009 was $1,717 billion, with China a close second with $1,608 billion.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    22. Re:Again Apples business by lennier · · Score: 1

      It's not like Apple don't audit these people. But they can't be there 24/7 and 365 days of the year.

      Then they shouldn't be using them in their supply chain, should they? It's not like Apple have a problem with being obsessive control freaks about everything else, like the App Store.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:Again Apples business by tftp · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that nothing is manufactured in North America anymore given that the US is the largest manufacturer in the world

      Who is the manufacturer of iPhones? Apple, a US company.

      Who actually manufactures iPhones? Foxconn, a Chinese company.

      You see the problem?

    24. Re:Again Apples business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even after the financial crisis, America manufactures more goods now, both by value and by volume, than it did in 1980. It just takes many fewer people to do it. So more people are freed up to write software or make lattes or write ill-informed comments on internet forums.

      Please cut down the hyperbole. "We don't manufacture anything in North America" is as far from true as it's possible to get without actually making a political speech.

    25. Re:Again Apples business by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      If it was there wouldn't be an EPA, minimum wage, women rights, black voters, and so on.

      Bread and Circuses my friend. Bread and Circuses.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  8. Of course they're going to deny it. by idbeholda · · Score: 2

    With a phrase like "Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base," that's basically a free ticket to PR/Plausible Deniability, whether their company is linked to the supplier or not. Of course, none of this really matters, because the parts have to come from somewhere, and China happens to have the largest concentration of rare earths.

    1. Re:Of course they're going to deny it. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      not true, they can just mine them in a way that's cheap.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Of course they're going to deny it. by idbeholda · · Score: 1

      I never said the method of extracting rare earths was expensive. I'm just saying that Apple (much like any other company) would deny ties with the supplier for parts when something like this comes to light. It's called "Bad PR" for a reason.

  9. They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many computer or electronic device makers have Chinese plants producing their circuit boards for them? Last I checked, Apple was only one of MANY. Yet this article makes it sound like Apple, alone, is at fault here for not making good on their claim that they're committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout their supply base.

    Let's face the facts. Only *China* can take care of pollution in China. If their government doesn't consider it important for businesses operating there not to dump hazardous waste into their ground-water, that's the decision they've made on behalf of their citizens.

    When you do business with China, you accept many pros and cons. For example, as Apple is finding out, China also has little regard for intellectual property and copyright -- so plenty of jobs are being created by way of counterfeiting Apple's products and tarnishing their reputation/good name. Again, as much as Apple may be committed to ensuring their intellectual property is protected, they can only do what the Chinese government is WILLING to do for them in those regards, in their nation.

    1. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Kenja · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Let's face the facts. Only *China* can take care of pollution in China."

      Yes, wer'e all powerless to be informed consumers. All we can do is give companies money for shiny things and leave the consequences up to others. Its clearly unpossible for tech companies to move manufacturing to countries with regulations or to just not act like asses when they set up their foreign subsidiaries.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      The point he was making was that yes, you are indeed powerless, as all companies do this. In fact, I would bet heavily that most companies don't have the auditing process apple has set up that's mentioned in TFA.

    3. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      The only Foxconn employees who committed suicide were working Apple parts, or so /. tells me.

    4. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Companies go after Apple because in the past Apple has actually taken steps to fix the problems. They put pressure on Foxconn after the negative publicity a couple of years ago. It's the same reason people go after Starbucks about Fair Trade Coffee, because those companies have an image and a consumer who actually care about those issues. They're not going to try to raise a big stink about Acer for instance, because it's not going to get much traction.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, wer'e all powerless to be informed consumers. All we can do is give companies money for shiny things and leave the consequences up to others.

      Actually, we are fairly powerless.

      For instance: Let's say there are 10 suppliers of consumer desktops capable of running my software of choice at an acceptable level of performance. Now, all those suppliers need a supplier of memory chips, so they all go out to the free market looking for memory chip manufacturers, and find that they're all, quite independently, talking to the 2-3 vendors of memory chips. Each memory chip manufacturer, in turn, is looking to keep the costs down, builds their factory in China because of the business-friendly laws and regulations and giant supply of workers. The factory management, trying to keep costs down to look good to their bosses, skirts and breaks even the loose environmental and labor laws that China imposes. Now, when I as a consumer go to buy a desktop to run my software of choice, I can choose from any of those 10 vendors, but all of them depend on the same 2-3 factories in China, so it doesn't matter at all (from an environmental and labor rights perspective) which one I choose.

      Now, you might argue "well, somebody else could set up another environmentally-friendly factory elsewhere." And in theory they could. But in practice, they'd be driven out of business by somebody who uses the same low-cost factories as everyone else and performs a rubber-stamp audit that doesn't look too carefully so they can claim that they're environmentally friendly.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Chibi · · Score: 1

      Let's face the facts. Only *China* can take care of pollution in China.

      I have some in-laws in South Korea. They've said that there is a yellow dust (smog? Something else?) that blows from China into South Korea. So, their pollution issues has an impact not only on themselves, but their neighbors as well. China isn't the only one guilty of this, but they're probably considered one of the worst offenders of this /anecdotal.

      --
      If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
    7. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by timholman · · Score: 2

      How many computer or electronic device makers have Chinese plants producing their circuit boards for them? Last I checked, Apple was only one of MANY. Yet this article makes it sound like Apple, alone, is at fault here for not making good on their claim that they're committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout their supply base.

      The reason that they are focusing on Apple is because Apple will not pay protection money to organizations like Greenpeace. When other computer companies are criticized by an environmental organization, they make large "donations" to that organization, and the press releases stop.

      Apple refuses to pay the Danegeld, and in fact actually tries to do something about cleaning up their supply chain. Any way you cut it, China is an environmental nightmare, and everyone is contributing to the problem, but Apple is the main target because they won't "cooperate" with Greenpeace and their ilk.

    8. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by maztuhblastah · · Score: 0

      Ok, smartass. You start: the computer you typed that on, where was it made?

    9. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple makes a huge effort to greenwash themselves, hence being singled out. Many people who believe they are environmentally conscious buy (cr)apple and believe they're doing the right thing. This is demonstrably false.

    10. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Because "Chinese companies supplying multiple US companies found to pollute the environment" doesn't have the publicity that "Apple suppliers found to pollute the environment" will.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by ZaskarX · · Score: 1

      We are powerless unless you consider living without technology an option. I can't think of a single motherboard, monitor, laptop, smart phone, or tablet available today that isn't manufactured in mainland China or Taiwan. I'll go out on a limb and say that 5% of consumers would be willing to pay extra for technology made in the USA or another socially and environmentally responsible country - hell people are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for hybrid cars with dubious evnironmental benefits. Combined with a slick marketing campaign I suspect this could be a profitable niche.

    12. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The consumers of Apple products have a certain image to maintain. They like to perceive themselves as progressive and socially responsible. Therefore any organization that wants to make an issue of the dirty business practices engaged in by Chinese manufacturing companies will look at a company like Apple and lampoon them. In theory, Apple's hip, socially conscious consumers are more likely to influence Apple than say HP's or IBM's corporate purchasing agents.

      Of course it won't work. One of the most socially responsible women I know, when making the choice between an iPad and a Samsung tablet and having been presented with information about how destructive Apple's manufacturing processes are, still went with the iPad. She professes to care about such things, but when the rubber met the road, she didn't really care. I'm sure most other consumers, even those who profess to care, really could give two shits less about what happens to the environment in China as long as they still get low cost iPads out of the deal.

    13. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Because Apples target audience just so happens to be one of the few consumers of electronics that might care enough about this subject to make Apple do something about it. That's why.

    14. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by shentino · · Score: 1

      We consumers aren't powerless.

      More often than not we either don't have a clue or just don't fucking care.

      The average uninformed consumer is at best simply ignorant, so all they see is $$ vs $$$.

      If we want consumers to start being "informed wallet voters" we need to educate them.

      Taking bets on if the elite that like things the way they are would fight the effort.

    15. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by shentino · · Score: 1

      My bet is that we only found out about it because it was an Apple supplier.

      Badmouthing the locals would probably have been squelched by the golden firewall.

    16. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Yes, wer'e all powerless to be informed consumers. All we can do is give companies money for shiny things and leave the consequences up to others. Its clearly unpossible for tech companies to move manufacturing to countries with regulations or to just not act like asses when they set up their foreign subsidiaries.

      Know where I can get a laptop that wasn't mostly made in the third world?

    17. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      They went after Apple because they're the biggest, and most visible. That's it. Nothing that Apple is doing that nobody else is doing.

    18. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most socially responsible women I know, when making the choice between an iPad and a Samsung tablet and having been presented with information about how destructive Apple's manufacturing processes are, still went with the iPad. She professes to care about such things, but when the rubber met the road, she didn't really care.

      Sure she cared, but she's apparently a lot smarter than you and knows that Samsung's manufacturing is no better than Apple's and is, almost certainly, worse for the environment than Apple's.

    19. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Pope · · Score: 1

      OK, now get those products into Wal-Mart and see how well they do against the cheap crap.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    20. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      How many computer or electronic device makers have Chinese plants producing their circuit boards for them? Last I checked, Apple was only one of MANY. Yet this article makes it sound like Apple, alone, is at fault here for not making good on their claim that they're committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout their supply base.

      That may be the case but you have to remember that Apple is one of the two largest corporations in the US (or was it the world?), they are extremely profitable, and they claim that they care about social responsibility in their supply chain. So this is not just any tech company we are talking about. They could afford to do it right, but have CHOSEN this path. They are not ignorant of the negative consequences of their business, these consequences are planned into the process. Why do they manufacture in China? Because labor is cheaper and regulations are looser. Why is labor cheap in China? It is due to very lax labor laws, lower standard of living, and a huge surplus of available labor. Apple exploits these conditions for the sake of profitability.

      I think it is utterly absurd to believe that Apple gives a rats ass about social responsibility in their supply base. That's just marketing hype, the truth is clear in their actions.

      --
      -- QED
    21. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, whatever the other corporations are up to, it's just important for people around here to know that Steve Job's evil will outlast him, and will live on long after he is gone.

    22. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any facts to back up your claim that Samsung's manufacturing is WORSE than Apple's?

      http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/aboutus/AboutUs_Profile.html

      According to Samsung they have a single IC production facility in China. They also have facilities in Korea and Austin, TX. Does Apple even make anything in the United States anymore?

      The point I was making is that even with bad publicity around Foxconn and environmentally destructive manufacturing processes, consumers do not care. Why you turned that into a personal attack is beyond me.

    23. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Funny that you chose to quote the part of Samsung that is a supplier for Apple, not the part making competing products.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    24. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by tftp · · Score: 1

      hell people are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for hybrid cars with dubious evnironmental benefits

      I guess you don't own a hybrid car. I do. I bought one not because it is "environmentally clean", whatever it means, but because it's a very good car to drive, both from the smoothness of the transmission POV and from the low cost of use. Price-wise, while we may argue that Volt is overpriced at some $40K, Priuses were sold for $21K new, and that is a reasonable price for a good new car.

    25. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is valid, but it was almost certainly typed on a component that was made in one of these factories, regardless of whether or not it bears an Apple logo - and that's the problem with this article. Blaming this on Apple is like blaming the state of American highways on General Motors - do they bear some responsibility? Yes? Enough to be singled out? Not at all.

    26. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      That is the part that showed up after a couple of Google searches.

      Of course your logic is flawed though. If that is the part of Samsung that is making parts for Apple, then that is also the part of Samsung that is making competing products.

    27. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      That is the part that showed up after a couple of Google searches.

      Of course your logic is flawed though. If that is the part of Samsung that is making parts for Apple, then that is also the part of Samsung that is making competing products.

      Nope, that would be Samsung Telecommunications, more specifically the Mobile Communications Division. What other parts of Samsung do you think compete with Apple, Samsung Life (Insurance that is)?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    28. Re:They love to beat on Apple, don't they? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Lets see. Samsung makes the A5 processor for Apple.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5

      They also make their own processor for the Galaxy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S#Processor

      Go find someone else to troll.

  10. china is the USA circa 50 years ago by alen · · Score: 2

    almost a century ago the europeans dumped their cheap manufacturing to the USA and by the 1960's parts of the USA were environmental nightmares. we fixed it with the EPA and a few laws, but a few morons actually want to bring this back to the USA.

      I live in NYC and parts of the city are still uninhabitable due to pollution years ago, the original polluters are long gone and anyone who builds will have to pay for the clean up. Jetblue paid tens of millions to clean up parts of JFK airport to build a new terminal.

    at some point the chinese will wise up and stop allowing us to pollute their country

    1. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by Kenja · · Score: 1, Troll

      Also 50 years in the future if the anti-regulation, pro-corporation, anti-union types get their way.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like, the salt lakes.....they are simply too polluted, and will remain this way for a long long time.

    3. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by tero · · Score: 1

      ...and that's when production moves to Africa.

    4. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese are already there.

      https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=chinese+investment+in+africa

    5. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, it is currently happening. Guess where textiles are produced? In the 60s they where produced in Japan, in the 90s in China, and now they move to Viet Nam and Africa.

    6. Re:china is the USA circa 50 years ago by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You may notice that the strategy worked remarkably well for the USA. Who do you think will be the world leader in 50 years?

  11. Surprised? by SoupGuru · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone be surprised? That's why we moved our manufacturing over there. That and the child labor. *We* care about the environment and fair labor laws. Those godless commies are the awful ones.

    Of course we're still the ones causing the pollution but it's ISEBY instead of our own.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  12. JE EXCUSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is that french ??

  13. Ungrateful peasants. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should be ashamed of rejecting Apple's gifts. iCancer is a truly aspirational lifestyle disease. The revolutionary unibody tumor construction, with the most advanced custom-vascularization in the industry(PC detractors might argue that these are just made of your own commodity cells these days; but it's the unique integration and superb resistance to apoptosis that really makes them special), and Apple's trademark 'It Just Hurts' UX design truly make this the disease to have.

    1. Re:Ungrateful peasants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "also found to have polluted a lake in the Chinese city of Wuhan with copper and nickel"

      Seriously dude, you wonder if those peasants even know how much value has been added to their water.

    2. Re:Ungrateful peasants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too soon before Steve Jobs' death to be making jokes about iCancer, dude. Too soon.

    3. Re:Ungrateful peasants. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Dude, do you honestly think it's only Apple that's doing this? Do you honestly think that none of the other computer manufacturers are doing the exact same fucking thing?

    4. Re:Ungrateful peasants. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Given that Apple's suppliers are the same set of OEMs as everybody else, I very strongly doubt that production pollution controls differ significantly. However, because most of the others have weaker brand identities, I couldn't think of appropriate analogs to 'iCancer' for them...

    5. Re:Ungrateful peasants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't.

      While I don't presume Apple are any worse than most other companies on this score. Steve was in a position to do something about this if he cared to. So he has cancer, that truly sucks, but he has the money to get the best care, the Chinese affected by this don't.

  14. In other news... by rogueippacket · · Score: 2

    In an effort to maintain their lowest-bid status with one of the world's most profitable technology companies, multiple Chinese manufacturers decide to reduce costs by cutting corners on safety. News at 11.

  15. Name dropping for hits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another example of "apple name dropping" for hits and sensationalism. Unimicron's clients include HTC, Motorola, Sony, Gigabyte, etc.
    Everything is made in China, and everyone of us -- Apple customer or otherwise -- is a party to whatever hells happen over there.

    1. Re:Name dropping for hits. by Shados · · Score: 1

      I dont see HTC flaunting how green and environment friendly they are.

      Apple however does that on occasion.

    2. Re:Name dropping for hits. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      The others write the occasional check to environmental groups, and sponsor pointless green initiatives in their own companies. But you can tell they don't really care. If they did, they wouldn't need to tell you so often.

      But Apple... Apple is the true believer, the full supporter, the staunch ally. Or at least they try damn hard to make sure everyone gets that vibe from their advertising.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Name dropping for hits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks now I'm torn between my hatred of Apple and my hatred of China (government)

  16. Re:How does this compare to the US? by Altus · · Score: 2

    In the US its more than just apple doing the audit. I don't know how Apple's standards compare to the EPA standards, but much of this would be illegal in this country and it wouldn't really be up to Apple to police it.

    It's good to hear about an active environmental group in China though. With time, hopefully there will be change. It will mean more expensive hardware, but that is inevitable.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  17. More "I hate Apple because" stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone says Microsoft is unfairly targeted but that's not the case. Reading the summary you'd think Apple was the only ones involved. Most companies go to China do to a lack of environmental standards just like they did with Mexico in the 90s. The worst industry is probably the "recycling" that goes on. If you want to know who is guilty head down to your local Walmart store. China is going to pay a heavy price for turning a 100 years of the 20th century into a decade. It's the price for cheap products because it's not just electronics. If you think we always lived like this and everything was always cheap look at TVs. In the 50s hardly anyone had one. In the 60s and 70s families had one on average. Today the average is probably one per person and some families have more TVs than people. What used to cost a month or twos wages now cost a day's. People used to pay over 5K for an Apple computer that had less power than your average cell phone today. They could make electronics here but they wouldn't make as much profit. Apple has as much cash on hand as many fortune 500 companies are worth by building in China but all the rest are building in many of the same factories. Remember Apple doesn't own any of them they are all contracts and they work for many of the same companies not mentioned. We need stories on what is going on in China just not more anti Apple venom. If everyone hates them then stop buying their products and they'll go away. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

  18. A Decent Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once an Apple fanboy invited me to see this documentary.
    http://icarusfilms.com/new2005/dec.html
    I recommended it for you see how factories in China are being managed.

    1. Re:A Decent Factory by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      The price on that movie's DVD is $398 plus shipping. It must have not been made using slave labor I guess. Seriously, do they want people to buy the movie or is that a joke?

  19. And... by plsenjy · · Score: 0

    SURPRISE!

    --
    Glad I could help.
  20. Re:How does this compare to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure we have 100% compliance in the states, except that would be 100% compliance at the 0 facilities still remaining in the US.

  21. Behalf of their citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If their government doesn't consider it important for businesses operating there not to dump hazardous waste into their ground-water, that's the decision they've made on behalf of their citizens

    You just said it was the chinese government that made the decision to allow pollution. But then you implied that it was the people themselves. So which is it? (Hint: A government and the people that government rules over are two very different entities, despite what governments have been telling us since the dawn of organized coercion.)

  22. Bit vague by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ' Since 2007, more than nine people have suffered or died from cancer in the village...'

    'More than nine'? So 10? 11? It seems like it wouldn't be difficult to include the precise number.

    1. Re:Bit vague by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Presumably those were just the documented cases, but the author has reason to believe that there were some number of cases that weren't documented (people without access to a doctor who just up and died from it undiagnosed).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Bit vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a very common mis-write I see in articles...after some investigation, it seems to usually come from an original source saying "at least 9" (as in, "9 documented, perhaps more"). In this case, where translation may have occurred, it seems likely that the "at least" could have been converted to the similar but not equivalent "more than".

      I liken it to the well known (at least here on /.) metric conversion faux pas which results in asinine statements like "the device, which weighs less than 2.205 pounds,..."

    3. Re:Bit vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ' Since 2007, more than nine people have suffered or died from cancer in the village...'

      'More than nine'? So 10? 11? It seems like it wouldn't be difficult to include the precise number.

      Could have been 9 and a half (almost dead)

    4. Re:Bit vague by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Presumably those were just the documented cases, but the author has reason to believe that there were some number of cases that weren't documented (people without access to a doctor who just up and died from it undiagnosed).

      That, and that one irritating gut that keeps dying and being brought back from the brink. It was either say 'more than 9' or '9.5', and they figured the former was less confusing.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  23. That's the beauty of globalization. by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    As long as we can continue buying cheap electronic devices, we won't give two shits what happens to the countries or people who actually produce the goods. That's the beauty of globalization. We're so far removed from the actual costs of our insatiable appetite for cheap consumer goods, it never dawns on us that our comfort comes at the cost of another's cancer or starvation.

  24. fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese have no self respect, they hold no pride in themselves or their environment. If they don't give a shit why should I

    yea I hope every single one of them poisons themselves with their own greed.

    1. Re:fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Americans have no self respect, they hold no pride in themselves or their society. If they don't give a shit why should I

      yea I hope every single one of them poisons themselves with their own greed.

    2. Re:fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you make a comeback it should at least try to make since.

  25. Bullshit article by mveloso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the summary: "suppliers that they believe are used by Apple"

    Trolling by using Apple's name is a time-honored tradition in environmental groups. Yeah, they may be used by Apple...but they may not be. Maybe they're used by Dell? HP? Lenovo? GM? Ford? Chrysler? Qualcomm? Panda Express?

    1. Re:Bullshit article by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 2

      Panda Express sells its toxic waste in malls throughout America...

  26. 9 out of 1,300,000,000? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Seriously? 9 people have died of cancer...in China, population 1.3 billion. 9 out of 1,300,000,000?

    1. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by jzarling · · Score: 1

      They mention a village of 60, which is not named in the article - so I inferred the 9 were form that village downstream.
      its a poorly written article.

      --
      It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    2. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 out of 60...says so above. Did you even read it? You probably own an iThingy.

    3. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? It was 9 out of the 60 that live in the small village, which is 15% of the population.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    4. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by pluther · · Score: 1

      ...more than nine people have suffered or died from cancer in the village, which has a population of fewer than 60.

      Seriously? 9 people have died of cancer...in China, population 1.3 billion. 9 out of 1,300,000,000?

      Were you actually unable to read all the way to the end of that sentence, or are you deliberately trying to mislead in the hopes that nobody else read the summary?

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    5. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well you inferred that I actually read the article ;-)

    6. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Nope. I can't get past sensationalist garbage summaries all the way to their end. My bad.

    7. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by jzarling · · Score: 1

      touche!

      --
      It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    8. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      When 9 people get cancer in a short span of time in a small area on top of a carcinogenic plume, yes, it's serious.

    9. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 out of 60.

      Remember kids, each factory can only pollute the resources it is near.
      No factory has direct Pollute-access to an entire country. Most can only hope for a river or a stream (ideally a tributary for a reservoir that serves a major city) that extends their influence.

      The example cited was the death of 9 people in an area being polluted by a factory. That one area is home to 60 people. (well, I presume it used to be 69 people).

      (captcha: eviller)

    10. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read the summary. 9 people, out of a village of 60. 15% of a village has died of cancer.

    11. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Right. It's so serious that it must be Apple's fault. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the government policies and lack of regulation and enforcement on the behalf of the Chinese government.

    12. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 out of 60 that live there in a small span of years. That is quite a lot. That is actually greater than a decimation. If you want to extend that statistic, you should scale it up to the total number of humans living on the planet, and also include others influenced by the environment.

      I'm sure that if they could poll the fauna/flora that died do to the pollution it would be far worse as they don't have filtering technology (not saying the local Citizens have much if any either) or the wits to avoid such issues (i.e., moving away from their territory) that the end result would look far worse.

    13. Re:9 out of 1,300,000,000? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Apple's choice to use an outsourced company to make its products is a convenience to Apple, not a get-out-of-jail-free card for whatever enviornmental havoc its outsourced employees produce.

  27. Same old story... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Whether or not American companies do their manufacturing in China, Chinese companies will continue their environmentally harmful practices. It's convenient to blame Americans and the West for everything but the Chinese were doing this sort of thing long before we set up factories there. They simply don't care, economic growth is more important than anything else.

    That said, it frustrates me to no end that American companies are not held accountable for what their manufacturers in China do. Every time some defective product pops up inevitably the American corporation foists all the blame on the Chinese manufacturer. Yes, the Chinese manufacturer screwed up, but why isn't the American company doing a better job of oversight?

    The thing is that if Americans were forced to face the consequences of outsourcing more directly some of them might be more inclined to keep that manufacturing here. I'm even inclined to believe that all products manufactured in China that could have made in the US should have tariffs applied to them. Equalize the cost so that outsourcing doesn't look quite so attractive to the dolts in management looking to cut costs because it will secure them a promotion.

    1. Re:Same old story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rah Rah American jobs for Americans! Hell Yeah! Wait a minute they all run/work in casino's whose going to sell me cheap crap in Walmart?

  28. iDontcare by curzen · · Score: 1

    Americans prefer low cost over retaining jobs, a clean environment and a clean conscience.

  29. Not surprised by nstrom · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised... I was in China in the summer of 2001, and one of the things I vividly remember was riding the train from Beijing to Shanghai, and looking out the window at a factory with smokestacks belching bubblegum-pink smoke into the sky. That cannot be healthy, or likely legal, but in general in China rules and regulations are one thing on paper, and another thing in practice.

    1. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was the Hello Kitty crematorium.

    2. Re:Not surprised by Pope · · Score: 1

      See? Even Japan has outsourced to China!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  30. Enjoy by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Over here you may observe the iphone enabled twit-verse moan about Cantor proposing rollbacks of environmental regulation.

    Environmental regulation without trade balance is international NIMBYism, folks.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  31. They aspire to be like Jobs by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

    Why else would they want to be part of the Apple right to fame and then get cancer. Goddamned copycats, if you ask me.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  32. You can't blame Apple...yet by gubers33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple bought products from these companies, they don't run the companies. That would be like me blaming you for buying a shirt made by slave children. It is Apple's job to monitor its suppliers business practices. I'm not an Apple fan at all and I have written posts where I think Apple is off base suing Samsung and HTC because they both make tablets, but I can be realistic. Apple deserves no blame in here and probably doesn't need to be in the article, but obviously it will sell more and grab more attention if it is in the article. Now that being said if they are Apple's suppliers it would probably be best for Apple to drop them and distance themselves from the story. If they continue to use these suppliers, now that they know of their shady bushiness actions, then maybe you can blame them.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:You can't blame Apple...yet by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      There is another option.

      Apple (and Dell, HP, etc etc) could work with these companies to clean up their act.

      Just dropping them as a supplier is probably the worst thing they could do. The company would probably just close down, move to a new city and open up under another name and carry on as if nothnig had happened.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:You can't blame Apple...yet by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      It is Apple's job to monitor its suppliers business practices.

      I'm guessing by the rest of your post that you meant to write that this is not Apple's job. Perhaps not in a strictly legal sense. From an ethical perspective I think it is (even if that is just my opinion). However, if the costs saved by a "not our job" mentality are ever eclipsed by the costs of bad PR, it will certainly become someone at Apple's job to make sure that their contractors are responsible.

    3. Re:You can't blame Apple...yet by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It is Apple's job to monitor its suppliers business practices.

      I doubt you meant to type it that way, but Freud made you tell the truth anyway.

      It is Apple's responsibility. Apple should understand why it's getting dirt-cheap pricing on something it couldn't make itself for three times the cost. Ignorance, especially in an industry Apple knows as well as this one, is no excuse at all.

    4. Re:You can't blame Apple...yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can disagree with you to a point, with an example: I'll never, ever, EVAR allow myself or anyone in my immediate family to spend money on products from Nike.

      Have they cleaned up their dirty laundry? Perhaps. Do I care after all these years of ignoring human rights? Nope. Nike is a forbidden logo in my house, plain and simple.

      Picking on Apple is a media-jackpot for environmentalists and human rights activists, as we already know Microsoft and a great many other American companies just don't give a #@$%. If Apple gets tossed around in the headlines, you are sure folks are going to read it, and react.

      If beating up on Apple is what it takes to get consumers *and* governments to wake up and see what is going on, then I'm all for it. Apple has an opportunity to set an example here, too. This is a group fail, people.

  33. That's why our industry has been moving there by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    No regulations on worker rights, human rights, or environmental rights. And, if you complain about it that makes you an anti-business, tree hugging, libtard. Now, get back in that Walmart line with your $3 t-shirt and STFU.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:That's why our industry has been moving there by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No regulations on worker rights, human rights, or environmental rights.

      What else do you expect from a bunch of commies?

  34. That's retarded. by Brannon · · Score: 2

    Does that make any sense to you at all?

    There are cars made in the US which cost less than $14,000. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

    1. Re:That's retarded. by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      There are cars made in the US which cost less than $14,000.

      They'd cost $100,000 if they had an Apple logo on the back.

    2. Re:That's retarded. by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      There are cars made in the US which cost less than $14,000.

      Errm, what's supposed to be the point of that? Cars aren't small electronic devices, there are much cheaper cars made outside the US - and American cars don't have such a good reputation either.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    3. Re:That's retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a nick like yours, your arguments are moot in this conversation. Not to mention today's cars have roughly the same amount of electronics that go into them if not more.

    4. Re:That's retarded. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My Camry was built in Kentucky...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  35. Name a single computer manufacturer by Brannon · · Score: 2

    who "puts environmental and social rsponsibilities" first.

    No? Then shut up.

    1. Re:Name a single computer manufacturer by vovin · · Score: 1

      It's worked wonders in the garment industry for years.
      Many tier 1 retail corps inspect and verify to ensure their products and good name are not trashed.

      I think Apple is an excellent example of the type of corporation that is very susceptible to open protest and well as the quiet protest of not buying from companies that do not work with reputable manufacturing partners.

      Make no mistake. We are hearing about Apple because they are one of the worst offenders, not just because they are popular at the moment.

  36. what's the true cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (What's the true cost) paid to hold this news 'till after he left...?

    BTW, child labor still exists in the U.S. - it's just been outsourced.

  37. Realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we want to stop polluting we need to get rid of people and any kind of innovation from the earth especially people who eat meat. What was wrong with a pencil and paper? Why do we need so many fancy gadgets? Letters were way more green than email. Get my point?

    1. Re:Realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we want to stop polluting we need to get rid of people and any kind of innovation from the earth especially people who eat meat. What was wrong with a pencil and paper? Why do we need so many fancy gadgets? Letters were way more green than email. Get my point?

      Maybe we can thin the herd by imposing the death penalty for strawman abuse!

  38. Great movie to watch on the subject... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Very interesting movie on this subject and the "recycling" of western technology Manufactured Landscapes (2006)

  39. There's no way that could happen in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops. "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

  40. Hypocrisy by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I can then conclude that all you Apple-haters have personally investigated the source of your motherboards, memory, GPUs, cases, and power supplies of the environmentally-perfect PCs you are using to bash Apple upon? Got a component made by Asus? Foxconn? Any other Chinese company? Yeah, they only engage in environmentally-destructive practices when they're building for Apple.

    By your logic, YOU are just as responsible for any pollution and exploitation from YOUR computer components as Apple. You don't get a free ride just because you don't have a black turtleneck.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Hypocrisy by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      So I can then conclude that all you Apple-haters have personally investigated the source of your motherboards, memory, GPUs, cases, and power supplies of the environmentally-perfect PCs you are using to bash Apple upon?

      No, we just don't care. We aren't claiming to be 'socially responsible', whereas according to the summary Apple apparently is.

    2. Re:Hypocrisy by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Actually, Apple is one of the few companies that is actually environmental conscious. I don't see Dell, HP or Asus with any Glass & Alu or BFR free products or hounding their suppliers for better work conditions. Dell charges the exact same price as Apple for cheaper, less environmentally friendly plastic stuff. China is stuck in the industrial age right now - 100 years ago we weren't any better - they will become better much faster (hopefully without blowing the now-closed hole in the ozone layer) thanks to the experience and technology we used to make living conditions better as well as both internal and external demands of environmentalism and fair worker treatment.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Hypocrisy by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'm not an Apple person, but I agree with you, and was going to take it a step further - there is a shit ton of hypocrisy going on here.
      How many slashdotters are boycotting products made by those evil corporations who pollute and slave drive? Not many I'd wager. We still buy all that stuff, creating and supporting the demand. We, or our kids, or both, all have our iPods and mp3 players and smartphones and flatscreens and computers and laptops and tablets and televisions and Nikes and everything else that is made in China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Pakistan, or any of the other industrializing countries that have cheap manufacturing run amuck. Ownership of the latest tech toys or "in" clothing becomes a status symbol that 1st world consumers are not willing to sacrifice.
      So being part of that system, we're all just as much to blame as the Chinese or the American corporations, but it's always easier to point the finger entirely at someone else.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:Hypocrisy by migla · · Score: 1

      Change for the better will not come through the diligence of every Tom, Dick and Harriet. The ingenious system has you believing consumers have the power. Technically we might, but come on...

      Some of us try being responsible consumers a little, some a bit more, but on the whole, we wont be investigating every minute detail of the history of every product be purchase.

      Instead, what we as consumers and members of democracies maybe could agree upon, would be more general rules stating that the big boys that commission and sell all the stuff should see to it that they don't fuck up the environment and don't exploit the workers too much.

      We should only ask if the majority of consumers really do want the planet poisoned and poor people exploited. If the majority says "no, that's fucked up" (or something equivalent) then that is what they want. If that is what they want, the corporations should adhere to that or pay dearly if they step out of line. That way consumers wouldn't have the burden of checking every fucking thing they buy.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that it takes a lot of energy to produce glass and especially alu. Making computers out of recycled plastic is a lot more environmentally friendly.

    6. Re:Hypocrisy by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      I would believe you if I saw that standard being applied evenly. But that's not the case. Apple is criticized for doing what every other tech company does, even though other tech companies commit more of the "evil" than does Apple. It's all deep-rooted hypocrisy and the ability of haters to justify absolutely anything in service of the hate. Facts will not sway a hater; truth will not sway a hater. The only thing that WILL sway a hater is their own ego, and if a hater is reviled and shunned and held not in praise but in open contempt, there is a chance that they will realize that the world doesn't revolve around their baseless hate.

      Yeah, I know, pipe dream. But what else are you going to do with haters? Can't shoot 'em without endless paperwork. Stupid bureaucracy...

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    7. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct... you need a black turtleneck to get a pass

    8. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I have a green turtleneck?

    9. Re:Hypocrisy by migla · · Score: 1

      Oh, I may have went off on a tangent just there... Sorry. I reacted on the part about the end consumer investigating products.

      That most other electronics brands are environmentally the same or worse is of course true.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    10. Re:Hypocrisy by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that it takes a lot of energy to produce glass and especially alu. Making computers out of recycled plastic is a lot more environmentally friendly.

      Recycling aluminium only takes 5% of the energy used to produce "new" alu. And who the hell uses recycled plastic in computers?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    11. Re:Hypocrisy by lennier · · Score: 1

      How many slashdotters are boycotting products made by those evil corporations who pollute and slave drive? Not many I'd wager.

      I tried to do that for a few years, and it was a soul-destroying experience. The huge amount of research trivia needed to get the slightest sense of "how much evil(tm) does this consumer product contain", and the ultimate frustration when most research just led to blank walls of corporate deniability, and then the fact that most consumer "choices" are utterly false McChoices between different brands which are merely swappable logos of the same company, who won't reveal their outsourcing chain because it's a trade secret, and changes randomly even within the same model - meant I ended up nearly going crazy with the stress. I tried to become an informed consumer, yet I knew I was still making bad, or even worse, just plain random decisions.

      Expecting the consumer to track the entire supply chain partner history of every product they buy is like expecting them to run a Linux where they compile every package from source, without the benefit of a package management system. It's just not feasible.

      But this is why the Linux world invented "distributions", so that we could delegate all those choices to a trustworthy group on our behalf. Fortunately, we have the same thing with the economy- we call it "government regulations".

      This problem should not be forced down to the consumer. It needs to be solved at the government level. It's cheaper and simpler for everyone. The problem is we've let a generation of right-wing activists tell us that government regulation is somehow bad - which is exactly the same thing as saying that "quality control is bad for business".

      It's not. Quality makes for satisfied customers. And an earlier generation understood this. But we now have a generation of CEOs who really don't believe that quality is their business. We need to get them out of power, fast, and replace them with managers who truly care.

      Do we have any of those coming through the business schools today? If so, we need to spot them - the Bruce Waynes rather than Lex Luthors - and back them.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  41. The problem is Chinese business culture by name_already_taken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know how Apple's standards compare to the EPA standards, but much of this would be illegal in this country and it wouldn't really be up to Apple to police it.

    It's illegal in China too!

    The cause of this problem is nothing to do with Apple, Western consumers, or anything else outside of China.

    In China, pretty much everything is illegal. They have laws against everything you can think of, including adulterating milk with melamine to produce false test results. The problem is that you can't do anything in China without getting permission from the government. Businesses that actually comply with all the Chinese regulations go out of business very quickly because their competition is willing to gain an advantage by cheating - i.e. bribing officials, whatever.

    The culture that has developed under this situation is such that nobody complies with regulations in China. It is simpler, faster and cheaper to pay bribes and to lie about compliance.

    Once in a while, they'll do something that results in people getting hurt or killed, like the melamine in the milk. The government will round up the head of the milk company and execute him, but nothing really changes that will make their food supply more trustworthy or safe.

    I have seen photographs of raw materials processing plants in China spewing huge clouds of colorful smoke into the air. It looked like a movie special effect. The same type of plant in a modern country like Brazil, for example, is three times the size of the Chinese plant - 2/3 of the Brazilian plant's volume is dedicated to equipment that captures the harmful byproducts given off by the process and prevents them from getting out into the environment. This is why the Chinese shut down a fair portion of their raw materials and manufacturing industry just prior to the Beijing Olympics - to allow the pollutants to dissipate and raise the air quality for the games.

    I know of at least one manufacturing plant in California that can demonstrate that they are actually discharging air that is cleaner than the intake air. They are required to meet environmental standards, and they do it. In China a similar plant would just pay off the inspector.

    Short of customers such as Apple stationing full-time inspection crews all the way down the supply chain (pretty much impossible), there's not much they can do. I have also seen pictures of expensive Italian quality control equipment in Chinese plants - everything in the plant looked dirty and worn, but the quality control equipment looked brand new. It was in place so they could pass their quality certification audit but it wasn't in normal day-to-day use, and nobody at the plant actually knew how to use any of it!

    Frankly we're lucky Chinese products aren't falling apart or killing people all the time. Go on Youtube and look for Chinese car crash tests if you want a real eye-opener.

    Almost any product made in China carries the risk of poor quality, false components, or pollution at some point in the supply chain. It's not an Apple problem. It's a China problem.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
    1. Re:The problem is Chinese business culture by wzinc · · Score: 1

      A society where bribery is a way of business will have short-term gains, but is doomed to long-term failure.

    2. Re:The problem is Chinese business culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and all of those colorful clouds ride the jetstream over here to the US!

    3. Re:The problem is Chinese business culture by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Just one more reason to stop buying Made In China.

      Right.

      Now.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  42. Microsoft goes after Apples supply chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    `In a report titled "The other side of Apple", published 20th, 2011, a coalition of environmental organizations brought to light problems of pollution and poisoning in Apple's supply chain in China. Yet to this day, Apple has systematically failed to respond to all queries regarding their suply chain environmental violations'.

    It would be interesting knowing who is behind this `coalition of environmental organizations'. And why isn't Microsoft similarly accused seeing as they do business with Pegatron Corp., the parent company of Kaedar Electronics.

    "During his keynote address at CES, Mr Ballmer .. showed off two other tablet computers - one made by Archos and the other by Pegatron Corp". link

    1. Re:Microsoft goes after Apples supply chain by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      `In a report titled "The other side of Apple", published 20th, 2011, a coalition of environmental organizations brought to light problems of pollution and poisoning in Apple's supply chain in China. Yet to this day, Apple has systematically failed to respond to all queries regarding their suply chain environmental violations'.

      So Apple hasn't responded to all queries/allegations, that's easy to accomplish. Just add as the last allegation: "Job's mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries" and you know Apple won't respond to it. Tada instant fodder for the Apple's a horrible steward of the environment, as in "Apple has failed to respond to all queries".

      --
      Sig is on vacation
  43. No shit sherlock. by Dunega · · Score: 1

    Why do you think it's so cheap to manufacture over there? hint: Less regulation. You get either environmentally safe expensive manufacturing or cheap earth destroying manufacturing.

  44. Re:How does this compare to the US? by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

    I know, I'm responding to the Anonymous Troll, but nonetheless this seems to be a common delusion on Slashdot. The company I work for makes a class of electronic equipment. We do not make our own PCBs, but neither do we get them made in China. Our PCBs are fabricated in a few plants scattered about the US. (Our PCBs are more complex than those found in PCs.) Once the PCBs are fabricated we assemble them in-house. Design, fabrication, assembly, test and QA are all done in the US. Not only do we do our own assembly, but as we have capacity we do contract assembly. US manufacturing is not dead, but a lot of it has moved to the Mid West.

    --
    Sig is on vacation
  45. I also discharge waste water and harmful gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also discharge waste water and harmful gas. Should I worry about being targeted by these watchdog groups?

  46. Low prices or pollution in China & US jobs los by drnb · · Score: 1

    American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.

    You left out the part about a loss of jobs in the US, American consumers are OK with that too.

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. that's why we have said expensive regulations. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Not really, but you go on believing that.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  49. False, Apple has done more... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Nothing that Apple is doing that nobody else is doing.

    Actually, that is not true. After the FoxConn issues, Apple helped give employees a huge raise.

    Foxconn makes stuff for many other companies besides Apple, but Apple is the only company that did this.

    From another angle, few other computers companies that I know of go to such great lengths to reduce use of toxic materials in manufacturing... that's party why they went to aluminum cases, to which are water cut.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. Energy CAN be environmentally friendly by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is that it takes a lot of energy to produce glass and especially alu. Making computers out of recycled plastic is a lot more environmentally friendly.

    Nuclear plants are very environmentally friendly. Plastic manufacture has many toxic byproducts you just can't work around (for case quality plastics). In the end you are far better off using a process that requires a lot of power, because power can be cleaned up much easier than dealing with a constant stream of toxic byproducts which is 100000 times as great as what comes from a modern nuclear reactor.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  51. Well two things there slick by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    1) It is in fact possible to source parts for your PC. You can find out where things are made, and made some choices. There are devices that you have no real choice, powersupplies would be one, final assembly for all brands I know of is in China, processors would be another, all 32nm Intel processors are made in the US, but you can look in to things and choose what you buy.

    2) The problem with Apple is the charge a premium price but use bargain construction. I expect, and for most goods I get, better construction including having it done in countries with environmental regulations. For example I own a high end Denon receiver. Unlike the cheaper ones, it is made in Japan, not China. Part of the the premium is better manufacturing. Or take the Bosch dishwasher I am looking at purchasing. Heck of a lot more expensive than a Haier, but in addition to having better features and being more eco friendly, it is manufactured in the US.

    Apple wants to charge these extremely high premiums for their toys, but then use the cheapest manufacturing they can get. They also want to try and deflect from it. Every device I own has a "made in" or "assembled in" thing stamped on it. It is required. It is the place of final assembly (even though often it contains parts form many other places). They all have it because the law requires it and that is that. Not Apple, they say "Designed by Apple in California. Computer Assembled in China." They don't like having to admit they make their shit in China, so they try and deflect with the "But we designed it California!" shit that is not at all required to be on there.

    If Apple starts going for cheap like most consumer electronics makers, then ok I'd expect them to be built as cheap as possible which often (but not always) means China. However if they want to play the "We are premium," game then they need to step up.

    1. Re:Well two things there slick by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can support your claim that they are using bargain construction where others aren't.

      One-piece milled aluminum chassis... can't be that.
      Highest resolution displays in phone screens... yeah, that's cheap.
      Laptop displays with LED backlighting and excellent color accuracy... no, keep looking.
      Intel processors? Same as everyone else.

      Seriously, I'd love to see an example of non-premium "bargain basement" construction. But I don't think you'll be able to come up with any.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  52. Blame the Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > almost a century ago the europeans dumped their cheap manufacturing to the USA, alen

    You're historical analysis is incorrect, in the pursuit of profits, the owners of your country rendered parts of it environmentally unhealthy. What's different now is such pollution can be offloaded to the other side of the planet.

  53. Expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This and forced labor are the heart of the Chinese economic miracle:

  54. Far more likely that America will do this, BUT ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China is starting to dream big. That is a good thing. Hopefully, the dreamers will take over their gov. and stop their cold war.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  55. The beginnings of the EPA... by bmo · · Score: 1

    There was a time when we did this, too.

    It took a few events to get the EPA enacted, one of them was a river that caught fire.

    When the Chinese set fire to a river, they'll be close to being motivated to set up their own EPA.

    --
    BMO

  56. Re:Far more likely that America will do this, BUT by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    duh. wrong story.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  57. Good Bye Apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't afford you anyway. Now get cleaning up that water.

  58. Nothing new. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Apple started out selling computers based on Motorola chips.

    Motorola used to dump chemicals behind its semiconductor plants, and the cleanup is still continuing today, but on the American public's dime.

    The environmental-negligence portion of Apple's profit margin didn't go away, it just moved overseas along with Apple's job-creation capability.

    1. Re:Nothing new. by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Apple started out selling computers based on Motorola chips.

      False.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  59. At first I was like... by chemosh6969 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm really shocked that a Chinese company is doing environmental damage. Then I read the real joke, 'Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base.' I guess that's what call the purpose of suicide nets.

  60. Damned if you do by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Having worked with China environmental industries for over a decade, I skimmed TFA and one thing jumps out immediately... These "violations" the report is built on are actual FINES and ENFORCEMENT of Chinese Environmetal Law. China EPA was NOT enforcing these laws ten years ago. This is actually what progress looks like. If you look up environmental fines and enforcements in the USA, you could write the same report. In the past, you could not have written this report about China.

    --
    Gently reply
  61. point source by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    It's like many things -- Us consumers end up having a skewed idea of the total environmental footprint of the products and services we buy because the majority of the pollution is occurring out of sight. I think it's called point pollution as opposed to total pollution, and applies to a surprising number of things.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  62. Not in America! by Relayman · · Score: 1

    Of course, companies are not allowed to do this in America. No fracking companies discharging radioactive water upstream from drinking water intakes. No coal-fired power plants dumping tons of mercury into the air every year.

    Even new plants come with their list of nasty things they will discharge and the politicians say, "Jobs, jobs, jobs. Of course you can pollute as long as you add jobs."

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  63. who's dying for your iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about the toxic conditions created every time you upgrade. You upgrade and another human is downgraded. Toxins are released from birth to death. Stuff never really dies, so think of the deat cell phone as an e-waste zombie. In this story it's about the birth. Someone should make a movie.

  64. rohs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Political correctness forces companies to use lead free solder resulting in half the production going to landfill immediately, half of the consumer product being returned under warranty and all of the product failing in ten years. So yes, lots of pollution. Fortunately my old lead-soldered products will still be working in 50 years, even buried under the landfill of politically correct products.