Slashdot Mirror


Apple CEO Tim Cook On Apple's US Manufacturing Move

We mentioned a few days back the "Assembled in America" tag showing up on some models of Apple's iMac. Nerval's Lobster points out that in a new interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Apple CEO Tim Cook offered some details on what that means: "'Next year we are going to bring some production to the U.S. on the Mac,' Cook told the magazine. 'We've been working on this for a long time, and we were getting closer to it. It will happen in 2013. We're really proud of it. We could have quickly maybe done just assembly, but it's broader because we wanted to do something more substantial.' He also had comments about Android and current litigation against Samsung and others."

266 comments

  1. Smart PR move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may reduce their margins (minutely), but it will give them an immediate response to any allegations of massive offshoring of labor or anti-American sentiment. It's a relatively small investment for them that could pay tremendous returns. Smart, Apple, very smart.

    1. Re:Smart PR move by Dupple · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Watch those corners
    2. Re:Smart PR move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best part is the knowledge that somewhere out there, the ghost of Steve Jobs is exploding in motherfuckin' spectral rage at Tim Cook, after Jobs's blunt comments to President Obama that those jobs aren't coming back to the US, and to get used to it. Man, just knowing that makes me feel great.

    3. Re:Smart PR move by forand · · Score: 2

      This is not certain, furthermore, I see no reason to condemn Foxconn(any manufacturer) more than Apple(any design company using said manufacturer). Apple could demand better adherence to US standards in the Foxconn plants making their products. Foxconn could just buck the local trend and treat their worker better than their rivals. Why does neither Foxconn nor Apple do this? Money. Foxconn can't do it and survive and Apple wants to maintain their 30% profit margin on their products.

      However when you move the plant to the US things change. Foxconn MUST meet much more stringent working standards, not only because the US has more stringent regulations but they will not find workers to work in conditions similar to those in China. Finally, almost certainly what will happen is that the majority of the manufacturing work done in the US will be done by robots and only some small points will humans be used.

      One thing that hasn't been addressed in the news thus far is how Foxconn might use the robotics expertise they gain from operating in the US in China. This could have a major effect on the Chinese economy and what that effect will be is far from clear (IMHO).

    4. Re:Smart PR move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...they will not find workers to work in conditions similar to those in China.

      Sure they will - in the US we call them Mexicans.

    5. Re:Smart PR move by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a PR move to me, with all the bad press they've generated lately, they must be desperate for some good PR. Besides that foxconn plant in China seems cursed, can't blame them for wanting to get away from that mess.

    6. Re:Smart PR move by sdsucks · · Score: 1

      That's right. Apple is not a manufacturing company. But obviously they do have an extremely deep relationship with their manufacturers.

    7. Re:Smart PR move by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Foxconn have been treating their (Apple production) workers better that rivals for years, even before the audit. Their standards may be abysmal by western standards but they're a great employer by Chinese standards.

    8. Re:Smart PR move by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2

      Why does that matter? It means more US workers will have jobs, and foxconn will still have to pay US taxes for the work done here. Still a win all around.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    9. Re:Smart PR move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a PR stunt. It is ONLY one line and it is ONLY going to assembled here. No surprise Slashdot is eating this crap up.
      http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/technology/apple-mac-made-in-usa/

    10. Re:Smart PR move by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Why does that matter? It means more US workers will have jobs, and foxconn will still have to pay US taxes for the work done here. Still a win all around.

      It's never a win in the eyes of a hater.

    11. Re:Smart PR move by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so they are making componants in other countries... and putting them together in america...

      I am sorry but to me, that is even worse than making it in china. Because to me that is playing on stupid people. "oh it was built in america, apple must really care" eventhough it was built elsewhere, and only assembled here.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:Smart PR move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is is a good move for "Made in America" but is this a good move or a bad move for Apple? If it is a good move why does Apple share price keep dropping? Maybe it is a bad move because Mac products will now cost more and become less competitive.

    13. Re:Smart PR move by albertlu · · Score: 1

      Every though it is a smart PR move by Apple, I think it will help to increase employment in America. Every investment is good for America no matter how small. For example, investing in a factory in America to make Apple products will certainly help to create more jobs not only in the factory but also the construction industry, the makers of robots, the makers of machine tools, the supplier of materials, the manufacturing subcontractors and many others in the chain. With the depreciation of the US dollar and the high productivity of US workers (due to automation), "Made in America" should be competitive. They say small drops of water make an ocean. If only all the big American multinational corporations would do the same. Think of all the jobs they would have created in America!

    14. Re:Smart PR move by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      Great to see a company like Apple employing more American workers. Steve Jobs would be proud. I wonder if this is in response to the February of 2011 silicon valley President meetup. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/02/this_evening_the_president_joi.html I am not saying it is or is not just a though.

  2. PR gimmic, if your cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If they bring "some" jobs back to the States.
    If the jobs come back to the States, certain politicians will owe Apple.
    If they are owed by the Government they can call in the favor.
    If they can get some political influence on their problems with Android and Samsung, it will benefit them.
    If they can get political action against Android and Samsung it will increase their revenue.

    Later on Apple can find an emergency that forces them to off shore their production again.

    If your cynical.

    1. Re:PR gimmic, if your cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's excellent grammar...

      If your an idiot.

    2. Re:PR gimmic, if your cynical by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they bring [...] jobs back

      I knew that Apple was an evil company, but I didn't know they dabbled in necromancy.

    3. Re:PR gimmic, if your cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:PR gimmic, if your cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your are an a idiot.

    5. Re:PR gimmic, if your cynical by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      If your an idiot.

      Oh the irony. And this folks, is why you don't criticize people's grammar.

      I think that might be "If you're an idiot" as in "if you are an idiot"

      Can we all just agree this is /. and not English class. No need to mention grammar unless you can't understand a post.

  3. Now Apple users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can feel better that they pay so much more for their goodies than everybody else. Although I sense a price hike in their future.

  4. Re: PR Move by hawks5999 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If this is a PR move, it's costly. As the news of the Made in the US concept spread, AAPL lost $30 billion in market capitalization.

    This needs to be a principled move because shareholders are going to complain greatly about any margin erosion for the sake of patriotism.

  5. Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just a good PR move, but also one that protects IP from Chinese industrial espionage.

    1. Re:Smart Move by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      Impossible!

    2. Re:Smart Move by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

      Their products are made in China and branded Apple.

    3. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be a Foxconn plant so no.

  6. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They don't say that. They've always said something like "Designed In California".

    Apparently some have already started saying "Assembled in USA" ... before that it was Made in China

  7. Drop was margin, not Made In USA by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The AAPL drop was most likely caused by trading firms requiring higher margins on large AAPL buyers - because some idiot bought a million shares right before an earnings release, the stock went south a bit, and he tried to claim he entered an extra zero wrongly... he's going to jail for about 20 years now.

    Today is the first day the Made in USA is really mainstream news, and the stock is up a bit.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Drop was margin, not Made In USA by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Made in the USA is old news to the stock. It is probably a 0.0001% factor in today's movement.

    2. Re:Drop was margin, not Made In USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      citation please

    3. Re:Drop was margin, not Made In USA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      some idiot bought a million shares right before an earnings release, the stock went south a bit, and he tried to claim he entered an extra zero wrongly... he's going to jail for about 20 years now.

      Wait, what?

      Since when are people imprisoned (I hope he's not awaiting trial for 20 years) for executing stupid trades?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Drop was margin, not Made In USA by Algae_94 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a fraudulent trade. He intentionally bought 1000x what he should have bought, and through some fast talking got another firm to short sell a comparable amount. I don't think the guy got beyond step 2 ???. He basically set up one firm to make a lot of money and the other to lose a lot, don't know how he expected to get any of it. Source

  8. May be related? by bobstreo · · Score: 2
    1. Re:May be related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup

      http://www.despair.com/made-in-usa-by-robots.html

    2. Re:May be related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But are the robots made in the USA?

    3. Re:May be related? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      Assembly jobs, just robot repair and janitors.

      Even if so it still keeps more of the revenue in the US, less trade deficit.

      Plus where are those robots made, maybe they are US made?

    4. Re:May be related? by Dupple · · Score: 2

      Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou, who founded the maker of iPhones, iPads, PlayStations and televisions in Taipei 38 years ago, wants to bring U.S. engineers to Asia to train them in manufacturing before deploying them back home, he said at a forum last month.."

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/foxconn-plans-american-expansion-as-clients-seek-made-in-u-s-a-.html

      --
      Watch those corners
    5. Re:May be related? by master5o1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But are the robots made by robots made in the USA?

      --
      signature is pants
    6. Re:May be related? by net28573 · · Score: 1

      And were the tools that made those robot's components made in the USA?

      --
      RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
    7. Re:May be related? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Assembly jobs, just robot repair and janitors.

      Even if so it still keeps more of the revenue in the US, less trade deficit.

      Plus where are those robots made, maybe they are US made?

      No, if the company is owned by Foxconn then the revenues leave the US. Unless all iP*d manufacturing moved here, it won't have much of a measurable impact on the trade deficit and no, most assembly line robots are not manufactured in the US, either.

    8. Re:May be related? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Robot repair job > assembly job in just about every aspect?

      I'd argue higher QC standards too, but apple hasn't really had a problem with that from a hardware standpoint.

    9. Re:May be related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they're FANUC of Japan.

    10. Re:May be related? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. Here's what will happen: That revenue will stay in the U.S. and be used to purchase other goods and services within the U.S. Bringing it back to China probably subjects it to all kinds of taxes. That's why Apple, Google, Microsoft, and every other large multi-national company have loads of money sitting around outside the U.S. Trying to bring it back in results in a lot of it being lost to taxes.

      The same may well not be true for China, but there's still a benefit for the company to leave some of their U.S. made profits in the U.S.

  9. AC: Master Of Bad Timing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Meh, their stock keeps falling

    Oh really?

    Still time to buy in cheap before the Cook interview gets wider coverage, and people realize once again the stock P/E is far lower than other tech stocks...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAPL 575+, NOK 0 by mid next year are my predictions.

      You're off your ass if you think Nokia is going to turn it around and Apple is going to shed 27% of its current value.

    2. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Oh really?

      Was it your intention to point out the 7% decline since Monday?

    3. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Was it your intention to point out the 7% decline since Monday?

      That was the AC intention.

      You seem to have missed that just after the AC posted (at the start of the day) the stock went up almost 2%.

      That's the hilarious bit, him claiming the stock is "always falling" just as it hits an upswing...

      Most of us know what the color green means when reading a Google stock page.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOK has gone from 1.7 to 3.7 so if you put money down 2 months ago you would of doubled it.

      AAPL just lost 30% of its value in the last 2 months, going from 700 to 540 so yeah, I must be off my ass.

    5. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by oztiks · · Score: 1
    6. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      The stock went up, but only enough to make up for morning losses - normal fluctuations, but not reversing the downward trend...

    7. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The stock went up, but only enough to make up for morning losses - normal fluctuations, but not reversing the downward trend...

      I knew you would post again. And what will you say when the stock is up $100 (or more) in a month? I'll not post again, I'll just shake my head and laugh at the people that missed an opportunity...

      Apple's stock price varies but is drug up inevitably every quarter to new heights by the income and growth they enjoy, this quarter looking to be especially spectacular. You can claim Apple's stock is on a downward trend by taking a tiny micro-sampling of movement, or you can observe the sweeping macro trend that shows no sign of stopping and gain from it (as I have and will continue to).

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:AC: Master Of Bad Timing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      You may be right. They're still raking in massive profits - investors should be pleased.

      On the other hand, eventually it'll go down - we may be seeing the beginning of that now or we may not. The current trend has certainly been continuing long enough to be worrisome - looks like a couple of months now, for the first time since it started its steady rise.

      Me, I wouldn't bet on a stock rising forever.

  10. What dividend promise? by perpenso · · Score: 1

    They didn't pay a dividend as promised ...

    They pay *regular* dividends. They did not announce a *special* dividend to get around the upcoming tax increases that will go into effect on Jan 1. When did they promise to do so?

    1. Re:What dividend promise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because they are so short of cash they need to conserve it right?

    2. Re:What dividend promise? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Instead they should pointlessly waste it?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:What dividend promise? by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes because they are so short of cash they need to conserve it right?

      Promising such a dividend, such a dividend being a reasonable thing to do, and speculators expecting such a dividend by year end to avoid a tax increase are entirely different things.

      Besides, such a cash horde helped them get through a bad *decade* in the past. If they were not so fiscally conservative they might not be here now. Plus they are in the position of being able to make massive strategic purchases or investments without going into debt. That puts them in a pretty strong position with respect to whatever comes "next". The engineer in me likes to see such flexibility and options rather than managing according to wall street expectations and norms.

    4. Re:What dividend promise? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      They didn't pay a dividend as promised ...

      They pay *regular* dividends. They did not announce a *special* dividend to get around the upcoming tax increases that will go into effect on Jan 1. When did they promise to do so?

      If they were concerned about the potential tax increases come January 1, they would have issued the dividends prior to that date so the shareholders would have been taxed at the lower rate.

      I have no clue as to why Apple would or would not announce a special dividend, but I do know that not announcing one has nothing to do with the expected tax increases.

    5. Re:What dividend promise? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      People are idiots when it comes to stock price. It is about the value of the company. *THAT IS IT*

      Giving dividends actually reduce the total value of the company. But companies do it because it gives their executives a bunch of cash that does not involve selling stock.

      Otherwise, why would a company do it?

      Apple should not even give a dividend, IMO.

    6. Re:What dividend promise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it to attract more shareholders. Plus, the market looks down on you if you have too much cash. They do.

    7. Re:What dividend promise? by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

      Just to step in here. A dividend to the share holders is not wasting the money. The share holders are the owners of a company, and like it or not, sometimes the owners want to get paid.

    8. Re:What dividend promise? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree, but if the uncertain tax situation means that Apple wants to wait on delivering the dividend until it's more sure of exactly what it's giving out, that seems reasonable. Maybe they'll do it next year once the whole fiscal cliff mess is over. My parent's point seems to that Apple has tons of money, so they shouldn't worry about what they do with it.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  11. China not as cheap by bhlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Manufacturing in China is getting more expensive and North America is becoming more competitive. The tax rate on repatriating money made outside of the US also makes manufacturing in the US more advantageous.

    1. Re:China not as cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      He said they will begin manufacturing next year for one of the Mac lines. If it was just "Assembling" don't you think he would have said that they are already doing that with the iMac?

    2. Re:China not as cheap by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      Actually there a federal legal designation in terms of just using "assembled" in the US were most of the parts have to ALSO be manufactured here too.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:China not as cheap by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The tax rate on repatriating money made outside of the US also makes manufacturing in the US more advantageous.

      No it doesn't. You only have to pay the difference in tax rates when repatriating money. Apple has to pay the US corporate tax rate on profits made in the US, but not on profits made in other countries, unless they want to bring the money back here and spend it here. Producing the products here will have basically no effect on the tax rates they pay.

    4. Re:China not as cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing in China is not getting more expensive---the Chinese makes sure to devaluate the Yuan to prevent that. All that is happening is the U.S. is getting cheaper as it's people accept lower (non-livable) wages for the corporations.

    5. Re:China not as cheap by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      That is what I was referring to-- bringing the money back here. Piles of money overseas is a problem for a lot of tech companies. One way to address the "problem" is to build in N. America.

    6. Re:China not as cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "becoming more competitive" as in "is starving and accepting anything".

    7. Re:China not as cheap by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. You have to pay the taxes where the money was made, not where the products were made. So if they build them here, and sell them overseas, they'll still have to pay the US tax to repatriate the money the same way they do now.

    8. Re:China not as cheap by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing in China is getting more expensive and North America is becoming more competitive. The tax rate on repatriating money made outside of the US also makes manufacturing in the US more advantageous.

      Multinationals dont re-patriate money. They keep it in shell companies and tax havens like Ireland. They claim the money on their books, but dont bring it into the US. Chevron who earns a crapload here in Australia doesn't send the money it earns here to the US, they keep it held in Australia (our high interest rate is a boon here though).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  12. The Insourcing Boom by terrab0t · · Score: 2

    This sounds like another case of The Insourcing Boom. Companies are finally seeing at the total cost of outsourcing. Cook mentioned that Apple already has to make some parts in the US and pay to ship them out to the manufacturing plants overseas, and that's only one of the common costs.

    The interview doesn't go into a lot of details on Apple's move to US manufacturing, but a big part of the outsourcing cost is what you lose when you separate your product development from the manufacturing process. This comment from Tim Cook speaks to that:

    In addition, we have hundreds of people that reside in China in the plants on a full-time basis that are helping with manufacturing and working on manufacturing process and so forth. The truth is we couldn’t innovate at the speed we do if we viewed manufacturing as this disconnected thing. It’s integrated. So it’s a part of our process.

    I'm guessing this move to insource is not philanthropic, it's a smart business decision in the long run, just like General Electric's.

    1. Re:The Insourcing Boom by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, more companies are starting to "in source". Fucking hideous, stupid, useless, meaningless, nonsense term. Its called "Made in the USA", stop acting like that's a bad word (or phrase). This is good news though. Apparently the capitolization of Asia was a great success.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:The Insourcing Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could be that Apple is tired of "handing" China patents which in turn becomes their competition. Remember if you build it in China, you hand their government the patents and place several government officials in the management chain as part of the business process. Could you imagine that happening in the U.S.?

    3. Re:The Insourcing Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      government officials in the management chain as part of the business process. Could you imagine that happening in the U.S.?

      In China, government puts officials into businesses.
      In America, businesses put officials into government.

    4. Re:The Insourcing Boom by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It's not a bad word (or phrase), it's just inadequately descriptive. Similar things are happening (to lesser a extent, due to the economy) in Western Europe. It's more of a generic move to reverse some of the "outsourcing" of the last 20 years; hence "insourcing". this particular article is about returning to the "made in the USA" label, but the overall trend is global, and thus larger than just the US.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:The Insourcing Boom by terrab0t · · Score: 1

      I think so too. The article from theatlantic also mentioned protecting proprietary technology.

      The addition of high-tech components to everyday items makes production more complicated, and that means U.S. production is more attractive, not just because manufacturers now have more proprietary technology to protect, but because American workers are more skilled, on average, than their Chinese counterparts.

      Aside from handing over patents, I've read that it is routine for Chinese factories to secretly sell authentic brand products to counterfeiters. It's hard to compete with counterfeiters when they're selling the real thing at a discount.

  13. Did you even read the summary? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Honest question.

    1. Re:Did you even read the summary? by Seeteufel · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you: Their products are made in China and branded Apple. According to Apple CEO Tim Cook new sweat shops would be build in the US which assemble the iPoop prefap pieces from China, put the iPoops in little boxes and add "manufactured in the US" stickers.

  14. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, another idiotic post that is simply incorrect. I have over boxes for Apple products within 20 feet of me, and not a single one claims the product was made in the US.

    Why are you spreading lies?

  15. Re: PR Move by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    The share value was not tied to this (or just to this report) There are other silly reasons out there which apparently fed this.. People continue to be short sighted and to be honest, these market fluctuations are normal and if people worry over these dips, then they should not own stock. Those who invest for the long term are quite fine with such things as stocks always fluctuate.
    Instead of focusing on the minor issues, analysts should keep in mind how much profit margin Apple has on everything they sell compared to other manufacturers. Look at the PC market. Apple has always focused on high quality and high margins. They have never been interested in the low margin purchasers and it has worked well for them. Look at smart phones and tablets and it's the same thing. I'd rather have stock in a company with a healthy profit margin than one which cuts it so low that they need to count on volume of sales to make it worth while. This makes for a far healthier company. If company A's margins are super low and a competing product hits the shelves which is superior and customers flock to that instead, Company A will suffer greatly.

  16. Re:Seriously, you are critical of Apple over this? by Jeng · · Score: 2

    Apple is the new Microsoft, but only because Microsoft is no longer relevant.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  17. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can get political action against Android and Samsung it will increase their revenue.

    How?

    If you're thinking that by eliminating Android tablets Apple's revenue will pick up, that may not be the case. I don't think it's a zero sum game - in other words a sale of an Android device doesn't mean a lost sale for Apple or vice versa. Eventually, Apple's sales growth will decline because everyone who wants an Apple tablet will have one and Apple's new sales are going to be for folks who want to upgrade.

    1. Re:Maybe by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It depends how well samsung can move into the high end market, but they certainly have their sights set on it.

  18. What would you have preferred to see? by Brannon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here are your options:

    1. Manufacturing in the USA, with manufacturing using robots, creating low thousands of well-paid jobs for Americans.

    2. Manufacturing in China using hundreds of thousands of low-paid Chinese jobs.

    3. Manufacturing in the USA without robots, but with hundreds of thousands of minimum-wage part-time jobs--and all Apple products increase in price by 30%.

    Apple is currently doing #2 and transitioning to #1. Are you really upset that they didn't pick #3?

    1. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here are your options:

      1. Manufacturing in the USA, with manufacturing using robots, creating low thousands of well-paid jobs for Americans.

      2. Manufacturing in China using hundreds of thousands of low-paid Chinese jobs.

      3. Manufacturing in the USA without robots, but with hundreds of thousands of minimum-wage part-time jobs--and all Apple products increase in price by 30%.

      Apple is currently doing #2 and transitioning to #1. Are you really upset that they didn't pick #3?

      Your choices all have the same outcome. It is not the number of american jobs that is important to the economy, it is the number of american jobs that provide a livable wage.

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Unless Apple intends to pay a livable wage to its employees at these plant(s), which would mean either a significant price hike in products or a reduction in profits, all they are doing is pandering to the populus notion of buy American.

    2. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma,
      You will need at least some jobs like that. Not everyone is capable of (or wants) higher education, some people just missed the boat, others like immigrants will take the opportunity to improve their children's station.

      Not everyone without an advanced degree can work in fast food joints, so #1 still gives you a boost to entry-level US jobs as well as a spectrum of jobs up the pay scale including design. manufacturing, engineering, maintenance and so on.

    3. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the maintenance, production set up, etc are all good skilled jobs.
      plus some others I'm probably unaware of.

    4. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your choices all have the same outcome. It is not the number of american jobs that is important to the economy, it is the number of american jobs that provide a livable wage.

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Unless Apple intends to pay a livable wage to its employees at these plant(s), which would mean either a significant price hike in products or a reduction in profits, all they are doing is pandering to the populus notion of buy American.

      Well, manufacturing is an unskilled job for the most part. In fact, factory jobs tend to be some of the worst around because they're utterly dull, boring and uninspiring work putting tab A into slot B and doing so in 750 milliseconds or less.

      Other unskilled jobs include janitorial, housekeeping, etc. These are unskilled because anyone who graduates high school has all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually perform them, and they pay low because well, anyone who walks off the street can do it.

      Robotic factories require far more skilled labor - you have to have technicians who can repair the robots, highly paid engineers who have to figure out how to make the product manufacturable by robots, supervisors to handle robot emegencies (and to manage human-robot interactions), engineers or techs to program the robots, etc. These require specialized training and as such, are much higher paying jobs. But of course there are far less of them - a robot tech can service multiple robots each work shift, likewise a manufacturing engineer designs the whole thing out before production begins, etc.

      It's why the average American is far more productive than their Chinese counterpart - you cannot simply move manufacturing from China to the US without redesigning your product around that fact. Because all that happens is you're replacing low-skill jobs in China with low-skill jobs in the US (most of which would actually be fulfilled by illegal immigrants and such - just like in other low skill jobs).

      Apple probably will pay just over minimum wage, because really, that's all the job demands. Unless you think putting stuff in boxes demands more pay than flipping burgers, cleaning toilets or other stuff.

      And knowing Apple, if you're making tons of the stuff, they probably won't have a human hand touching it - just robots all the way into sealing the box. The only humans in the actual line are probably there to keep it going - receiving parts into inventory and stocking the part carriers for the robots, and shipping out the finished pallets of product.

    5. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Isn't final packaging also normally robotic? Putting something in a box isn't hard to automate, and from what I've seen of modern packaging it'd be hard for manual workers to do. Lots of nitpicky little folds and things fitting exactly into slots. That's just using boxes, not fused clamshells.

      As the ACs mention, you have the maintenance and adjustment of the robots, and that's a skilled job that justifies a 'living wage'.

      US manufacturing has grown every decade, even as it's experienced a shedding of jobs in line with what happened to agriculture back during the industrial revolution. IE production going up an OOM even as you drop OOMs in worker numbers.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Other unskilled jobs include janitorial, housekeeping, etc. These are unskilled because anyone who graduates high school has all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually perform them, and they pay low because well, anyone who walks off the street can do it.

      There was a time, not too long ago, that anybody who graduated high school had all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job, even start and run their own business, like Microsoft.

      Back in the day, most business leaders, even , weren't college educated, but instead rose through the ranks to get to their position (with the exception of maybe medicine and engineering). Today, you spend $100,000 to get a degree so you can work in an entry level position. A generation or two ago, you just graduated high school for the entry level position and somebody with a college degree want into a junior management or mid-level position.

      Face. it, most work fits in the category of being unskilled and monotonous. We just don't like to think about it wheny it applies to our own field.

    7. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Apple probably will pay just over minimum wage, because really, that's all the job demands. Unless you think putting stuff in boxes demands more pay than flipping burgers, cleaning toilets or other stuff.

      Depends on the position. As you just noted, 'manufacturing' in the USA tends to be second order - less doing the actual assembly and more maintaining the lines and robots that do the assembly. Robot maintainer is still a skilled job that demands better pay, and it's easily justified by the increased production that robots allow.

      Sure, there will be some minimally skilled janitorial jobs that will probably receive close to minimum wage. Still, I support the importation of as many skilled jobs in highly automated factories as practical. I still remember an ancient film about productivity increases being the true enabler for higher worker wages. It was from disney, WWII time frame.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, but the problem is that the minimum wage is too low because people can't live reasonably on it. That leads them to do two jobs with no time left to look after the kids, or to be dependent on benefits/tax credits to survive, and to have little disposable income to drive consumer spending.

      There will always be unskilled jobs and people without marketable skills to fill them, but we need those jobs to offer a viable life to the employee or society breaks.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's because we push college for nearly everyone. You can't really expect top-paying jobs for everyone...well, outside of Lake Wobegon any way.

    10. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, but the problem is that the minimum wage is too low because people can't live reasonably on it

      Maybe you weren't understanding the conversation on this thread. Minimum wage is too high for many jobs so the end up being done offshore. So if you raise the minimum wage even more you just cause more jobs to move offshore. How does that help?

    11. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There are other ways to fight against jobs being moved offshore than just surrendering all the hard-earned gains that workers has extracted from big businesses 100 years ago. For example, hefty tariffs on any products made in countries with non-existent or non-enforced labor laws (which would include minimum wage laws).

    12. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Your choices all have the same outcome. It is not the number of american jobs that is important to the economy, it is the number of american jobs that provide a livable wage.

      You're not thinking into this deeply enough. The goal isn't a livable wage. The goal is increased productivity per person. A livable wage is a consequence of that goal - higher productivity per person means increased standard of living and higher wages.

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Transitioning over to (1) a few thousand Americans operating robotic plants is most preferable. Operating those boxing robots may be no more difficult than boxing up products manually. But if the robots can box up 100 products in the time it takes a person to box up one, that's a 100-fold increase in productivity. That means the company could increase each worker's salary 10x and they're still coming out 10x ahead compared to boxing up products manually. (In reality, most of that productivity gain goes to decreasing the final cost of the product instead of increased wages - you may not be paid much more, but you can buy more with each dollar because prices are lower).

      (2) A few hundred thousand Chinese workers doing menial labor is second preferable for us (it's most preferable for the world as a whole, up until option (1) becomes cheaper), since that'll raise the standard of living there, increasing their wages (they're people too, and raising their wages is also a good thing). And more importantly for us, the cost of manufacturing there increases, making it more viable to manufacture domestically again.

      (3) Hundreds of thousands of minimum wage jobs here in the U.S at a 30% price increase is the least preferable option. If you're not careful, it could even result in less productivity (since Apple will have less money to spend on other things which could generate more productivity) and thus cause a decrease in the standard of living. Remember, standard of living only increases when productivity per person increases. If you try to raise wages without a corresponding increase in productivity, all that happens is prices rise to cancel out the wage increase. So the key goal has to be to raise productivity, not wages.

    13. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The important thing is that they are jobs, period. The employees are being paid, but more importantly the company is paying payroll taxes. Every job created is one less person on welfare. "Living wage" is good and all, but let's be honest with ourselves. Even a "poor" person in America has a higher standard of living than a large portion of the world enjoys.

    14. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by swillden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you increase the minimum wage you may increase the income of some people, but you'll decrease the income of many as well -- to zero. There are two mechanisms that make this true.

      First, an absolute one: If the marginal income to the business for employing a worker (what they business can take in by selling the results of that worker's efforts) is less than the minimum wage, then it makes more sense for the business to forego both the income and the expense, since they're a net negative. This isn't all that common, at least not where our current minimum wages are set, but it does happen. In particular, people who have some disabilities, particularly mental capacity, are often made completely unemployable by minimum wages. The more you increase the minimum wage, though, the more people you'll put out of work because the labor they're capable of just isn't worth the wage. Another common solution is to replace the workers with illegals which can be hired for less than minimum wage because they don't dare turn their bosses in for violating the wage laws.

      Second, an incremental one: Raising the cost of labor reduces profitability. If it's too low, then it makes sense for the owners to take the money they have invested in the business and put it into another one that produces a better return, which results in 100% unemployment for that company's employees. A more common choice is to take action to restore profitability. There are basically two options: increase prices or increase productivity. Increasing prices is only possible if the competition is doing the same thing... and in the short term that is probably what would happen, but only for a while because some competitor would decide to invest in increased productivity instead. Increasing productivity generally involves one of two possibilities, making workers more productive by increasing their skills, or making them more productive by increasing automation, which usually means doing both. Both, however, tend to change the jobs that were formerly unskilled minimum-wage jobs into jobs requiring skilled labor -- and, even more importantly, they result in needing fewer workers to achieve the same output. End result: Some percentage of the minimum wage workers will lose their jobs. It's not uncommon that all of them lose their jobs. That's what's happening here: Apple is basically firing the low-wage Chinese workers currently producing their devices and replacing them with a much smaller number of highly-paid workers plus lots of machines.

      The fact is that numerous studies in many countries around the world have shown time and again that minimum wages have the opposite of the intended effect. Increasing the price of labor reduces the demand for labor, which creates a labor surplus. It's no accident that the countries that have the highest minimum wages and the strongest job security laws have the highest unemployment rates. Economic theory says that's what you should expect, and in fact it's exactly what happens.

      Another problem with notion of a "living wage" is that it's generally discussed at a level necessary to provide for a family, but hardly anyone making minimum wage has a family. I can't find the links right now, but IIRC, 90+% of minimum wage earners are less than 25 years of age, and very few of those people have families. The median income for 25-34 year-olds is over 50K, over three times the minimum wage, and for 35-44 year-olds it's over 60K, 4X minimum wage. The vast majority of people who have families to support make far more than the minimum wage already -- which makes sense, because they've had years of work to accumulate skills which make them more valuable to employers.

      The good thing is that increasing the minimum wage probably won't hurt families much, because their earners are already above that. Well, it might hurt them a little if it increases the cost of stuff they buy. The bad thing is that increasing minimum wage will put some younger people out of work, making it harder for the

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      I believe they're doing this due to the negative PR the stories of those foxconn plants in china have caused them. People don't want something made by some little kid in a sweatshop, or finance a company that disregards the lives of its employees.

    16. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by radish · · Score: 2

      The problem is that if you increase minimum wage you create an upward pressure on all wages to maintain differentiation (why should someone with a degree working as a programmer get paid the same as an unskilled burger flipper? what's the incentive to get the education?). That just creates inflation and you're back where you started.

      I don't have a great solution, but I'm a little concerned by assumption that you should be able to raise a family on minimum wage. That doesn't seem sustainable to me. I certainly support a strong welfare system to help those who find themselves in a hole. But there is an aspect to living within your means, and seeking to better yourself and thus benefit your family. A welfare system can actually help that, by removing the need to work 3 low paid jobs to feed the kids you can maybe give someone the time to get some training for a real career.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    17. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      There was a time, not too long ago, that anybody who graduated high school had all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job, even start and run their own business, like Microsoft.

      This is just stupid. There are still kids fresh out of high school with the ability to start their own companies. There are kids who haven't even finished high school who are taking masters-level courses (I am friends with one). Making the assertion that anyone is capable of starting and continuing a successful business just because they had one thing in common with Bill Gates doesn't mean they had everything else necessary to be as successful as Bill Gates.

      Some kids have the knowledge and ability. Most didn't care enough to develop those skills, instead relying on sports or the promise of the benefits of post-sec education or maybe not even relying on anything to help them along, just coasting through because they don't see the benefits.

    18. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Apple, so the Slashdot hive-mind will find problems with it no matter what. Now if Google did the same thing...

    19. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Face. it, most work fits in the category of being unskilled and monotonous. We just don't like to think about it wheny it applies to our own field.

      Hah.. speak for yourself.

      Do you really think that companies are requiring people with high education for no reason, and they could just as easily get anyone in at far lower prices to do the high skilled jobs?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    20. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      There was a time, not too long ago, that anybody who graduated high school had all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job, even start and run their own business, like Microsoft.

      Well, Gates dropped out of college, so he did have some college education.

      Plus, do you actually think that Gates or other people who have started businesses without a (completed) college education DID NOT LEARN TONS OF STUFF THEMSELVES?

      I think you are implying that people had "all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job" directly FROM their high school education.

    21. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Today, you spend $100,000 to get a degree so you can work in an entry level position. A generation or two ago, you just graduated high school for the entry level position and somebody with a college degree want into a junior management or mid-level position. Face. it, most work fits in the category of being unskilled and monotonous. We just don't like to think about it when it applies to our own field.

      A generation or two ago most jobs were simpler. No, I'm serious a lot more jobs have moved into the "skilled and monotonous" category. Let's take for example being a lumberjack, not that many years ago it was mostly manual labor with axe and saw. Even after you got decent chain saws, it was a lot of hard labor. Today most logging is done with lots of machinery like feller bunchers, harvesters, forwarders and other heavy machinery. You can't just get into one of these and work it, you have to learn it. Of course once you do it's the same thing over and over again, chop trees and transport trees day in and day out. There's a lot of work like that, boring as fuck but you still couldn't grab a kid fresh out of high school and make him do it.

      What does that mean in practice? That there's a real barrier to entry, you won't learn it unless there's jobs available that justify the investment and you can't do it as a short time gig for some quick cash. In practice the unskilled worker who'll pick up stray jobs have had slimmer and slimmer pickings, the number of "warm body" jobs you can perform with a minimum of training have been decreasing sharply being replaced first by machinery and later with robots or electronics. And the few jobs that are left like taxi drivers, retail clerks, fast food clerks etc. have a constant draft of people seeking in-between jobs until they get a new job in their field of work, so the "career" unskilled worker is pretty much boned.

      This future is not going to change, we're going to need more and more highly skilled labor. Tough for all the people that don't really can or want to be all that highly skilled and want to drop out after high school, but I don't see how we could change that without simply creating busywork like in this story:

      The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren't there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman's response: "Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?"

      I'm sorry but we don't need many people with shovels. We need people with a degree to even find an entry level job for them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Why does a teenager need a living wage? He lives with his parents, he needs an opportunity, not a living wage.

      That fucking leach. What would Mother Rand say about this?

    23. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unskilled not stupid people. Most jobs an average intelligence human could pick up 90% pretty quick.

    24. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Here are your options:

      1. Manufacturing in the USA, with manufacturing using robots, creating low thousands of well-paid jobs for Americans.

      2. Manufacturing in China using hundreds of thousands of low-paid Chinese jobs.

      3. Manufacturing in the USA without robots, but with hundreds of thousands of minimum-wage part-time jobs--and all Apple products increase in price by 30%.

      Apple is currently doing #2 and transitioning to #1. Are you really upset that they didn't pick #3?

      Your choices all have the same outcome. It is not the number of american jobs that is important to the economy, it is the number of american jobs that provide a livable wage.

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Unless Apple intends to pay a livable wage to its employees at these plant(s), which would mean either a significant price hike in products or a reduction in profits, all they are doing is pandering to the populus notion of buy American.

      Why should you get a well-paying job simply for (1) having a high school diploma and (2) putting things in boxes?

      The problem is that, since these positions require no qualifications or skills, there are too many workers for the number of these positions available. This drives the price down in our capitalist economy. It also highlights why it is essential for workers to develop a specialized skill in order to achieve higher pay and job security.

      If you are really worried about American jobs, you should be lobbying the government to stop letting in non-citizens (legal and "overlooked" illegal) work in the US at these basic jobs. The current excuse is that "Americans won't take those jobs because the work is hard and the pay is too low." Well, if companies can't fill the jobs at the current payrate, they'll have to increase it, go out of business, or move out of the US. The Republicans will complain that by forcing companies to only hire Americans would ruin the economy by raising prices and the Democrats will be afraid to lose the Hispanic vote. The amusing thing is that currently both of those parties are implicitly screwing over the unskilled American worker, who constitutes many more votes than the company owners and (non-voting) immigrants who benefit from this policy.

    25. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?

      Really? Are you really making that argument?

      Considering how many various independent steps there are in making a phone long before it reaches the "put it in a cardboard box" stage of manufacturing, claiming "most people will just be putting crap in boxes and making low wages" seems somewhat ingenuous. Based on my understanding of, oh, how GE and various automotive companies are re-insourcing their employees and facilities, there really aren't all that many people making poor wages. Most of them are highly specialized, yes - but there are quite a few people making well over national median wage.

      Even those button pushers and pushers-of-phones-into-boxes people are probably making somewhat more than straight minimum wage. (Eg. I made $12/hour in a beef jerky plant in 2001, and that's in a state where the median income was probably around 32k/year back then, if that. I know the plant is still a 'preferred' employer, too.)

    26. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And knowing Apple, if you're making tons of the stuff, they probably won't have a human hand touching it - just robots all the way into sealing the box.

      No, goodness no. If humans touched the product anywhere near the manufacturing robots, it may cause the robot to lose its control signal. We couldn't have that.

      (There's really nothing all that special about how Apple packages its products these days, and wasn't years ago either, except for how much excessive packaging they used. And Apple, of all companies, is not exactly known for being successfully innovative in manufacturing processes, either.)

    27. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      If you don't pay a living wage at the bottom end you just end up paying the same amount through tax breaks and benefits like subsidised rent. The only difference is that instead of the employer paying and the amount being transparent to everyone the government (i.e. you via tax) pays and the amount is hard to calculate and varies by circumstance.

      I agree that people should live within their means. However I think you have to accept that we will always need people to collect the bins, mop the floors, flip the burgers etc. Should those people be denied a family? What if they accidentally get pregnant? What if you have children and then fall on hard times and find your previously marketable skills are no longer in demand?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There will always be unskilled jobs and people without marketable skills to fill them, but we need those jobs to offer a viable life to the employee or society breaks.

      Which suggests the idea, perhaps it's time for society to break. It appears to be designed to fail. Of course, only conspiracy theorists think that; naturally, it evolved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only do that sort of thing when you view yourself as King of the World. But what eventually happens is that, like the internet, the world sees you as a problem and routes around you. You cannot simply "impose" your prosperity on everyone else. How about getting your own fiscal house in order before telling the rest of the world how to behave?

    30. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, you think the experience of a 15 year old starting in his first job commands a liveable wage for some reason?

    31. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There was a time, not too long ago, that anybody who graduated high school had all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job, even start and run their own business, like Microsoft.

      Well, Gates dropped out of college, so he did have some college education.

      Plus, do you actually think that Gates or other people who have started businesses without a (completed) college education DID NOT LEARN TONS OF STUFF THEMSELVES?

      I think you are implying that people had "all the requisite knowledge and skill to actually do almost any job" directly FROM their high school education.

      No, I am implying just the opposity - that they learned it from somewhere else, most often by moving up the ranks in a business itself.

    32. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Gates was just an example. The fact is that most CEOs prior to the 1970s rose through the ranks of business and were not college educated (only 20% of the population went to college).It still occurs today, but usually with family businesses that end up going public.

      Even for those who did go to college, it was different than it is today. Today, the emphasis is on job skills in whatever field. Previously, it was on liberal arts and philosophy, at least on the undergraduate level. Even degrees in chemistry or physics included significant amounts or literature and classical studies. College is where one went to become an intellectual, not to get job skills.

      College was sold to the masses by pointing out the earnings potential of a college graduate vs a non-college graduate over their lifetime. That was great marketing as it played into our sense of greed, but it also changed the purpose of college to become an expensive vocations school instead of its previous role of producing great thinkers, at least at the public universities. The private, elite schools, still kept their original plan, for the most part.

      What the marketing left out, is that yes, you do end up earning more in your lifetime with a college degree, however, most of that difference is used to pay off the debt accumulated to earn that degree so in the end, the difference is not as great as it first appears.

      Recent studies have shown, that given the low job prospects for college graduates, many of the current generation are returning to starting their own businesses (something the Gen Xers did not do). Many are also going into the service industries - mechanics, plumbing, carpentry, etc. Why? Because, all of the baby boomers who filled all of those slots are retiring and there is a large projected shortfall. A number of demographic studies predict the workforce by 2025 will look much like it did in 1965 - small businesses will proliferate and skilled and semi-skilled workers will dominate.

      The question will be whether or not the education system will return to its roots or will continue to turn out graduates for a workforce that won't have a place for them?

    33. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, you think the experience of a 15 year old starting in his first job commands a liveable wage for some reason?

      Why not? It's the same reason a single mother on welfare doesn't bother getting a job.

      Why would a 15 year old get a low paying crummy job if it's better to just keep leeching off his parents?

      Only poor kids are forced to go out and work. Rich kids can live in their parents' basements forever. Sure if you actually LIKE working nobody is stopping you, but for more rational people, they wouldn't work if they can help it.

      And thanks to government wealth distribution, everybody in America is adequately rich enough that the majority can stay jobless. The few rich people paying taxes essentially became everybody's parents, paying for everybody else to live in their basements forever

    34. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are right, it did evolve, but in the opposite direction to the one you are suggesting. At one time we did allow people to be exploited with incredibly low wages and it lead to all sorts of problems, so we evolved society to make rules that look after workers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Not in either of the places I work..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    36. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Really? Explaining the standard and well supported economic theory around artificial wage restrictions is flamebait?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    37. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans would love to decrease the minimum wage. Democrats would love to increase welfare. The right solution? Both. Imagine if there was no minimum wage, but more welfare. And this welfare requires you to have an actual job first. Many new jobs would open up that pay well under current minimum wage, but with the welfare would help insure those people can survive. This also allows incentives to work for better job, since better jobs = more money, if you make the formula correctly there'll never be a point where making one more dollar means you lose one dollar in welfare, so it is ALWAYS beneficial to make more money.

    38. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you take economies of all Western countries together, they are the "king of the world".

    39. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single mother on welfare will not take a job that pays under 100K and even then it's not a guarantee at all that she would choose to take the job over staying on welfare.

      Welfare for a single mother amounts to about 45K in cash and benefits. Even if she is offered 50K salary this means that she gets a 100% marginal tax, she has to give up 45K of money and benefits to take 50K and then pay taxes on 50K and on 45K of benefits she didn't have to pay any taxes.

      Even when the offer is 100K it's not clear cut case of taking the job at all, her tax is about 25K for instance, so she gets 75K and that's only 30K more than what she was getting on 45K worth of welfare.

      Now, is 30K more worth it? Because now she has to get babysitting for her kid, that's maybe 12K right there. She has to go to work, she has to look presentable at work, maybe new clothes must be bought, there is a travel expense, maybe she spends another 10K a year just to maintain the job, so this leaves her with 8K more money than what she was getting on welfare and at the same time now she gives up raising her child by herself, she has to actually work as well.

      OTOH if she just stays on welfare and takes some part time under the table job that pays her extra 15-20K a year, she gets 45K of welfare and another say 15K, that's 60K, that's an equivalent of getting like a 82K or 84K as a pre-tax salary.

      I mean for a single mother on welfare to take a job it has to be exceptional, it has to be something ridiculous, something that no single mother who is coming off of welfare will be able to command and this has nothing to do with minimum wage at all, it has to do with the welfare society, where the top earners are taxed to give this single mother this ENORMOUS benefit and what are they getting out of this deal? They don't even get to fuck her on the weekends. It's a rotten deal, it's robbery.

      A single mother shouldn't be on any public welfare, there shouldn't be any public welfare in the first place. If she was getting private charity, at least the incentive for the charity wouldn't be to keep her unemployed for any political gain.

    40. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we kill the sluts and their bastard offspring. It is a sign of a sick society that we promote such immorality.

    41. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you are finally being serious.

    42. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are right, it did evolve, but in the opposite direction to the one you are suggesting. At one time we did allow people to be exploited with incredibly low wages

      And at one time there was no such thing as "Wages".

      we evolved society to make rules that look after workers.

      Hahahahahahahahahahahah

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:What would you have preferred to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is that if you add a bunch of numbers together you can get a bigger number? Otherwise I don't see your point. They are not together.

  19. It's better than nothing . . . by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    . . . and it provides me with the excuse I need to switch over the an iPhone at the start of my next contract, given that the iPhone has significantly better HTML5/Canvas performance than the Android.

    1. Re:It's better than nothing . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, it's great that you've finally decided to come out of the closet but really doing it by showing people you have an iPhone? there must be a more appropriate way to break the news to your folks.

    2. Re:It's better than nothing . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched to Android so the screen would be big enough to Read/Type on.

  20. from the fire to the frying pan by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    Foxconn won't be able to be quite as horrible in the US, but it is a Foxconn plant and conditions will still be horrible. Even so, this is proof that corporations respond to publicity and pressure.

    1. Re:from the fire to the frying pan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn won't be able to be quite as horrible in the US, but it is a Foxconn plant and conditions will still be horrible. Even so, this is proof that corporations respond to publicity and pressure.

      From what I've read and heard, Foxconn factories in China may be abysmal compared with US standards, but they are better than other Chinese factories.

    2. Re:from the fire to the frying pan by micheas · · Score: 1

      ... this is proof that corporations respond to publicity and pressure.

      Either that or customers like apple are concerned about import bans in the patent war and want to not be importing into the large markets.

      Yes, I am cynical.

  21. We'll see about substantial by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    "Substantial" pretty much reflects the amount of technology, manufacturing and production facilities the USA has lost over the last decade or so to off-shoring (and moved to China, India, Korea and Taiwan).

    I'll be watching to see if Apple re-starts the furnaces in Pittsburgh to mold all it's aluminum cases.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:We'll see about substantial by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Making the aluminum cases in the U.S. makes very little sense, since the U.S. has very small reserves of aluminum ore. It makes more sense to manufacture the aluminum parts close to where the aluminum is mined than it does to ship the ore somewhere else to refine it and manufacture the parts. I do not know enough about the process after the aluminum is refined to know whether it makes sense (cost, energy usage, quality of workmanship in the finished product, and probably a few other factors into that equation) to refine the aluminum at one place and ship ingots to a location closer to other manufacturing for forming.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:We'll see about substantial by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I thought the ore was shipped to a place with cheap power via rail or some other cheap transport mechanism. Are there places with access to cheap power and substantial amount of bauxite mining?

    3. Re:We'll see about substantial by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the world's top producers of Aluminum. You don't know what you're talking about.

    4. Re:We'll see about substantial by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Australia has the largest reserves of bauxite.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:We'll see about substantial by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      According Wikipedia the U.S. produced 30,000 tonnes of bauxite in 2010 compared with Australia which produced 68,400,000 tonnes.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:We'll see about substantial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According Wikipedia the U.S. produced 30,000 tonnes of bauxite in 2010 compared with Australia which produced 68,400,000 tonnes.

      Bauxite is not aluminum; it is the raw ore from which aluminum is produced.

      The USA is a minor producer of bauxite, but it is the 4th-largest producer of aluminum, slightly above Australia. (China is by far the largest.)

  22. Fewer components were ordered supposedly by perpenso · · Score: 1

    As the news of the Made in the US concept spread, AAPL lost $30 billion in market capitalization.

    To put $30B in context Apple's stock lost 6%. The "Made in USA" story was not really cited in the mainstream financial press. One of the things that were cited was a report claiming that orders for components that go into devices are down, suggesting they are slowing manufacturing of devices. Also cited were changes in margin rules for owning Apple stock.

    1. Re:Fewer components were ordered supposedly by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Also, a lot of companies are offering special dividends right now. When investors learned that AAPL wouldn't be, a lot of people took their money out of AAPL to capitalize on the trend. They'll likely buy it back up at the end of the year.

  23. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by jonr · · Score: 1

    This is getting more complex.

    "Designed in California, manufactured in China, assembled in Texas, marketed in California, budgeted in New York...."

  24. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the most valuable company in history. With over $100billion in cash reserves. They are not hurting for anything.

  25. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by jythie · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that just because your boxes do not have it that none do? That is kinda the point of 'some'. In fact: example.

  26. Screw Apple by koan · · Score: 1

    2011
    "Reporters Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher begin their lengthy piece with an unsettling anecdote set at a 2011 dinner for Silicon Valley big wigs that was attended by President Obama. At one point the president asked the late Steve Jobs why Apple couldn’t bring back to America the tens of thousands of jobs it had outsourced, mostly to Asia, where its iPads, iPhones and other products are engineered and assembled.

    “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” Apple’s CEO reportedly replied. End of discussion.

    According to Duhigg and Bradsher, Apple’s brass believes the American worker, besides earning too much money for his or her labor, just doesn’t possess “the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers.” Last week Frying Pan News writer Jon Zerolnick described the “flexibility” of Apple’s subcontracted Chinese workers, with their 34-hour shifts and 12-foot by 12-foot dormitories, and their skill at sliding into coffin-sized beds at night. Victorian Manchester was a worker’s paradise by comparison."

    2012
    "'We've been working on this for a long time, and we were getting closer to it. It will happen in 2013. We're really proud of it. We could have quickly maybe done just assembly, but it's broader because we wanted to do something more substantial.'"

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Screw Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those jobs aren't coming back, don't be obtuse. They aren't going to be manual labour jobs, the jobs coming will be the people who build and maintain the robots that build the equipment.

    2. Re:Screw Apple by sdsucks · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And a Foxconn spokesperson agrees: “Supply chain is one of the big challenges for U.S. expansion,” Woo said. “In addition, any manufacturing we take back to the U.S. needs to leverage high-value engineering talent there in comparison to the low-cost labor of China.”

      - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/foxconn-plans-american-expansion-as-clients-seek-made-in-u-s-a-.html

  27. Apple to build at FoxConn in U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading between the lines, doesn't this really mean that Apple will be "assembling" their products in the U.S. using Asian components in an Asian owned factory (Foxconn) on U.S. soil?

    1. Re:Apple to build at FoxConn in U.S.? by jimbo · · Score: 1

      More than simple assembly. Also some of their parts are actually manufactured in US.

      Look it up:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_USA#Assembled_in_USA

  28. Thanks to the efforts of our congress... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    We are now a competitive labor market for third world slave wages! That is one way to bring jobs back to America.

    1. Re:Thanks to the efforts of our congress... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's more like the costs for shipping and china/Indian wages have increased to the point, combined with shipping delays, increased stock expense(you have to keep an extra month or two of stock around between shipping and staging from China to the USA) that making the stuff in the USA using sufficient automation to compensate for the increased wage cost.

      China:
      High shipping, low labor, low automation.
      USA
      Lower shipping, high labor, high automation to compensate for the high labor.

      A US robotic plant can literally produce hundreds of times as much per man hour as a Chinese sweat shop manufactury. Now, it's likely to cost 5-10X as much to build the factory, but it's still possible.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  29. Re:Assembled in America means... by na1led · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Stuffing the Mac in a box doesn't mean it's Made in America. I see the BS all the time, and when you look inside the package, China is written all over it.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  30. Re:Assembled in America means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it means they UPS a little Asian kid as part of your new iDevice. After you unbox him he pulls out the soldiering iron and assembles it before your eyes. Kind of like the French how they send some guy over to your table when you're at the restaurant to flambe crepes.

    ANNNNND still cheaper than hiring Americans!

  31. Re:Assembled in America means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for spamming. Or do you think what you have to say is so important that it needs to be pasted up multiple times?

  32. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

    "Made on Earth"

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  33. Wow by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    Wow, I'm good with this. It may be a PR move, but it's one a find myself surprisingly happy about. I may consider actually buying (a new) one now.

  34. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the most valuable company in history.

    No, they're not ... they're the most valuable company in term of market capitalization and ignoring inflation.

  35. Re: Necromancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bone white has always been a dominating aspect of most of their products.

  36. Tighter supply chain by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It may reduce their margins (minutely), but it will give them an immediate response to any allegations of massive offshoring of labor or anti-American sentiment.

    Actually with the volumes Apple does they can automate the heck out of things so their margins probably won't be affected much. The biggest challenges are getting the components to the assembly plant for reasonable cost as well as flexibility but again, Apple is a big enough player that they are in a reasonable position to make that happen. Tim Cook being a supply chain guy I'm sure understands this well. US manufacturing is very competitive unless there is a very high percentage of labor cost in the product, particularly if it is unskilled labor or if the competition enjoys subsidies US companies do not.

  37. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not in history, in present day yes. You factor in inflation and its still quite shy of MS's reign.

  38. This is good news! Good for Apple. by sdsucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) So what if it's a PR move? It's still a good move for Americans - no matter what.
    2) So what if it's a Foxconn factory? Of course it will be one - Apple is NOT a manufacturing company, but they do work *very* closely with their manufacturers.
    3) So what if it's a mostly robotic factory? This IS the future of manufacturing in all countries - accept it, and accept that even robotic factories are better than none for the local economy.

    Seriously, how are so many of you trying to spin this negatively? And why?

    1. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be placed in Colorado, and the managers will sometimes bear the title coyote.

    2. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how are so many of you trying to spin this negatively? And why?

      Hatebois have an addiction to Hatorade....

    3. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      3) So what if it's a mostly robotic factory? This IS the future of manufacturing in all countries - accept it

      It is the future, but how is this future compatible with capitalism? When things are so efficient that we only need a small fraction of the population to fill the needs of everyone, how does that economy work? What do the displaced workers do? Not everyone can have a high tech job designing robots.

      Robotic factories would be a great idea in an economy that follows the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". But under capitalism the benefits from efficiency accrue almost entirely to the capitalist. What is the working class to do?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolt and destroy everything.

    5. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by ugen · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. There is no way to scale classic economy where every person is required to provide some sort of "labor" in exchange for goods and services he needs, not anymore. We are at a point where needs of entire humanity can and will be served by ever decreasing amount of labor.
      The only options are:
      1. Reduce total number of people to match that required for production, more or less. That'd be great - but difficult to do politically (except if contraceptives became mandatory part of cheap food and beer).
      2. Provide some amount of goods and services to majority of people without requiring any labor.
      3. Create token "jobs" that require nominal labor, and provide goods and services in exchange for that.

      Note that we are apparently implementing some mix of 2 and 3. World would be a better place with 1, but it is highly unlikely.

      Either way, a factory in US is probably a good thing for *some* people - but almost irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

    6. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, how are so many of you trying to spin this negatively? And why?

      I will preface that I have not intentionally used an Apple product since the 2e.

      This is a PR move, but one that I want companies to see as successful. Not so much for some fear of losing manufacturing ability, or having yet more foreign employees who have an even worse grasp of english than Slashdot, but for one, much more significant purpose.
      That purpose, more robots. Current US manufacturing is heavily tilted toward complex design, small numbers, robots aren't practical for that. Even the automobile assembly lines are not as suitable for robots as some old advertisements would imply.

      Support Apple's latest PR stunt, with words if you (like me) can't stand to use their products, because it leads to more robots.

    7. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      1. Reduce total number of people to match that required for production, more or less. That'd be great - but difficult to do politically (except if contraceptives became mandatory part of cheap food and beer).

      That won't work. The fewer people you have, the less production you need. If you can sustain 10 billion people with the labor of 10 million, then you'll be able to sustain 10 million people with the labor of 10 thousand.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Seriously, how are so many of you trying to spin this negatively? And why?

      They aren't actually making anything in the US, they are assembling it in the US. There's a big difference there. It's like Holden shipping over the Daewoo Cruze (Chevy Cruze over there) in pieces, assembling it in the Elizabeth plant and claiming it's "built in Australia" were as all they did was assemble a kit car built in Korea. Basically they're lying to you but that's par for the course for Apple, also the majority of their manufacturing remains in China.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to know how this can be a negative thing? Do a google search for 'dell ftc assembled in usa' and you get a page full of apple stories. The RDF is affecting search algorithms.

    10. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Look around you. You already live in such an economy. More than half the people in a modern western economy are engaged in selling things to each other, playing games with paper and other things that aren't really necessary. The farmers and miners and ditch diggers that actually do things people need are a small minority.

      Yet we get along just fine. The people who are freed up from watching horses pull ploughs invent new toys for us, or discover cures for cancer or write algorithms to steal pennies from investors. Ultimately most of them make the rest of us richer.

    11. Re:This is good news! Good for Apple. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you can sustain 10 billion people with the labor of 10 million, then you'll be able to sustain 10 million people with the labor of 10 thousand.

      Perhaps, but not at the same technological base.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. another nail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An even bigger better reason not to get within a million miles of apple crap.

    Maybe this will finally knock the final nail in the coffin lid.

  40. simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H8rz gotta H8!

  41. Re: PR Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the news of the Made in the US concept spread, AAPL lost $30 billion in market capitalization.

    This needs to be a principled move because shareholders are going to complain greatly about any margin erosion for the sake of patriotism.

    Are you serious?

  42. Can't block imports that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the weapons used in the patent wars is to block imports of infringing products. If the [allegedly] infringing products are built in the US[of]A, then they can't be blocked from import very well, can they?

    Gives them a tactical advantage...

  43. I agree... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It is probably a 0.0001% factor in today's movement.

    In retrospect I can see how my post might have read as there being a connection, but I agree with you - they are totally separate things.

    The movement is because people suddenly woke up and realized Apple still has waiting lists for almost every product, a ton of cash, and some competitors are not doing as well as expected.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Not just PR by mschaffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a move to help keep their products from being restricted from import if/when they ever lose an IP lawsuit.

    1. Re:Not just PR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a move to help keep their products from being restricted from import if/when they ever lose an IP lawsuit.

      WHAT?!? NO! YOU FOOL! We all KNOW that, but we don't say it out loud! If that idea gets traction, then the current state of the patent system and IP law would quickly get picked up as a GOOD thing that helps American jobs, and then we'll never get it reformed, EVER. What is WRONG with you?

    2. Re:Not just PR by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's a move to help keep their products from being restricted from import if/when they ever lose an IP lawsuit.

      Yeah, because bring restricted from manufacturing them would be so much better. Or do you actually believe that breaking IP laws locally gets you a better standing in a lawsuit?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  45. Apple is doing this by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple could demand better adherence to US standards in the Foxconn plants making their products.

    Apple is doing this, they already demanded less overtime of workers and better enforcement of restrictions against child labor. And then they brought in an independent firm to audit this happening and asked FoxConn to allow them access.

    The real question is, why is NO other company doing this.

    Things are obviously not perfect at FoxConn but Apple is trying to make them better, in a way that anyone can keep track of. No other company is providing any kind of visibility into these issues.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Apple is doing this by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      Why are you bring facts to this debate? Come on, you're supposed to just spout talking points about why Foxconn sucks (Fox that cons you?? WTF?!)

      And why Apple sucks because Apple uses Foxconn.

      And we will ignore the fact that nearly every other major brand's electronics also come out of Foxconn factories (or other similar outsourced manufacturers).

      Come on man, keep up with the times - bitching about what you imagine Apple to be abusing is the theme of the day!

    2. Re:Apple is doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is doing that to protect it's brand, which at this point, is far more valuable than the overpriced products they sell. If enough people start thinking 'suicide nets' when they see those earbuds, the cool kids won't wait on line for the new phone, and nobody will pay $600 to buy one. Capecce?

  46. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1

    That's not a photo of a box, it's on the back of the respective iMac. ;)

    --
    this sig is useless
  47. Re: So they aren't made in the US now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some new iMacs are labeled as 'Made in USA'

  48. Re:Assembled in America means... by sdsucks · · Score: 3, Informative

    This lie again? Why are you misleading people?

    An “Assembled in USA” claim requires a product’s “last substantial transformation” happen in the United States even if the components of a product are manufactured overseas. However, this requires more than a “screwdriver” assembly of the parts at the end of the process. For Apple to be putting “Assembled in USA” labels on some new iMacs, the company is claiming that it’s doing more than slapping together components into a finished whole.

    - http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/does-assembled-in-usa-mean-anything-for-apple/

  49. Put it in Detroit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclosure, I'm not from Detroit, but it would be a huge boon to an economy that's already manufacturing based.

  50. Probably Mac Pros by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    My bet on which line will be "Made in the USA" is the revamped Mac Pro due out next year. First, the numbers are far smaller than that for iPads or iPhones. requiring less capital investment. Second, they're not as challenging to assemble. Third, the added labor cost will be a smaller percentage of these more expensive units.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Probably Mac Pros by geek · · Score: 1

      Second, they're not as challenging to assemble.

      Until Jon Ive whips out his glue gun and decides to make them "thin"

      I think Ive has lost his touch.

    2. Re:Probably Mac Pros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they used glue for the LCD?

      Last time I checked they don't make anything for the enthusiast market. Why did you assume that new iMac was for that market?

  51. Read before commenting. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    The article specifically says that these won't be "assembly only" factories, but will do other manufacturing as well. It's a short article, you should read it before commenting.

    1. Re:Read before commenting. by mevets · · Score: 1

      you must be new here...
      When discussing Apple, rabid hyperbole is the norm.

    2. Re:Read before commenting. by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

      Fixed that for you: Their products are made in China and branded Apple. According to Apple CEO Tim Cook new sweat shops would be build in the US which assemble the iPoop prefap pieces from China, put the iPoops in little boxes and add "manufactured in the US" stickers. Also the factories organise dancing contests of inmates to be distributed exclusively over iToons video store for royalty-free downloads.

  52. Nope. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Foxconn isn't a Chinese company.

    1. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn isn't a Chinese company.

      Did you even read the article you linked to? Oh, I guess not.

      From the article:

      Taiwan, officially the Republic of China

  53. This is like Sony movint to the States by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    for manufacturing. Well its still a parasite of a company.

    Hey look that serial rapist is going to church now. We'll good for him maybe we can bring him to dinner now.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:This is like Sony movint to the States by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hahaha my thoughts exactly.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  54. Made in the USA = marketing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Thing is, 'Made in the USA' is a marketing term, along with buzzwords like 'Proudly', 'Union', etc...

    "Insourcing" means that you're not doing it to be patriotic. It means you're doing it because it makes sense on the balance sheet. It's cheaper to do the work here.

    It doesn't even have to be a 'made' product - telephone support is a constant service, and the tendency to 'in-source' the work from where it was 'outsourced' to India a decade ago has been around for the last five years.

    Made in the USA tends to imply a product that has always been made here - now often restricted to building materials, food, and such. 'Insourced' tends to mean that it used to be made overseas, and is now made(at least partially) here in the USA.

    Terminology can be as specific as you make it - warm vs hot, cool vs cold. SNAFU vs FUBAR. Snow, flurries, hail, sleet, blizzard, all describe somewhat similar meteorological conditions that are actually very different. In this case 'Made in the USA' is less accurate than 'in-sourcing'. Heck, 'insourcing' could refer to BMW bringing some production home in Germany.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  55. ASSembled in America? by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    you know America is plural, dont confuse America with the USA because all the following nations are included in the Americas

    Canada
    Mexico
    United States


    Belize
    Costa Rica
    El Salvador
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    Nicaragua
    Panama


    Antigua
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    Cuba
    Dominica
    Dominican Republic
    Grenada
    Haiti
    Jamaica
    Saint Kitts/ Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent
    Trinidad/Tobago


    Argentina
    Bolivia
    Brazil
    Chile
    Columbia
    Ecuador
    French Guiana
    Guyana
    Paraguay
    Peru
    Suriname
    Uruguay
    Venezuela

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:ASSembled in America? by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's great kid, but the text on the iMacs involved specifically says "USA" and it is explicitly stated that a new line will be made in the USA.

      I know "haters gonna hate" but you're grasping at straws.

    2. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know- Everytime I read USA it reminds me what an idiotic name for a country it is.

      Seriously, it's if I decided to name a city "United Neighborhoods of New Jersey"

      FFS.

    3. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "America" is singular. "Americas" (as in, North America + South America) is plural.

      In any case, in English, the well-established meaning of the word America is the short name for the country of the United States of America. I very much doubt that anyone could get away with labeling their product "Made in America", and manufacturing it in, say, Mexico.

    4. Re:ASSembled in America? by dindi · · Score: 1

      So you are the one making those region drop-downs that are missing the region where a couple of us live: Central America.

        Central America consists of seven countries: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

      You can sometimes read "Central America and Panama". So according to some here Panama is not officially Central America.

    5. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not one of them. You seem to be assuming that North and South Americas are regions - they're not. They're continents. Central America the geographic region is the southern isthmus of North America the continent.

    6. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well established meaning IN THE US.

    7. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, it's well-established meaning in English in general, regardless of where you speak it. All native speakers agree on this usage. And non-native speakers simply don't have any say in this (and what they call the country in their respective languages is irrelevant).

    8. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. There are more non-native speakers than native. Your forefathers should have thought that before building their silly empires.

    9. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The point is that non-native speakers do not define how the language is spoken - they learn to speak it the way native speakers do, including meaning of the words. If you start giving English words different meanings because they somehow offend you, then you're learning something else, not English.

      I'm not an American, and I'm not a native English speaker. I just know better than to tell native speakers how they should speak their own language; and when I learned it, I left my inferiority complexes at the door.

    10. Re:ASSembled in America? by dindi · · Score: 1

      Nooo, the sites seem to : "Select your region:" North America, South America, Europe, etc :)

    11. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that non-native speakers do not define how the language is spoken - they learn to speak it the way native speakers do, including meaning of the words.

      People who speak the language don't define how the language is spoken?

      If you start giving English words different meanings because they somehow offend you, then you're learning something else, not English.

      You mean like U^HAmericans or Australians do?
      Besides, they don't offend me. It's generally the terms I use that offend others.

    12. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      People who speak the language don't define how the language is spoken?

      They don't define the standard, normative language, no. At best, it's a local dialect.

      You mean like U^HAmericans or Australians do?

      Can you give an example of some word that was redefined in American English or Australian English for the sake of political correctness, but which remained in its original form in other dialects?

      Anyway, this is going way off the tangent. Are you seriously trying to claim that people who call Americans "United Statians" or whatever represent a legitimate dialect of English?

    13. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't define the standard, normative language, no. At best, it's a local dialect.

      We are almost agreeing now. Europe is full of local dialects and many of them are even codified. I expect that eventually the most spoken language there will be as well. It might take a few decades though.

      Can you give an example of some word that was redefined in American English or Australian English for the sake of political correctness, but which remained in its original form in other dialects?

      First of all, it's you who brought up political correctness and secondly, cunt, fag.
      (there are probably better examples but this is a case where being native or even living in the brits would help)

      Are you seriously trying to claim that people who call Americans "United Statians" or whatever represent a legitimate dialect of English?

      Not really, I'm using it to annoy people. However, I DO claim is that "America" has a definition that doesn't refer to United States and that the issue is cultural rather than lingual since in much of Europe the number of landmasses considered as continents differs from American view.
      Naturally, this is because Americans are stupid and can't see that North America and South America are connected while smart Europeans made red sea and mediterranean actually flow into each other so that separation of Eurasia from Africa would be justified.

    14. Re:ASSembled in America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      However, I DO claim is that "America" has a definition that doesn't refer to United States

      Sure it does, it's just not the most common definition, and not the one assumed by default in English outside of any context.

      In any case, the vast majority of foreign language speakers who do speak English don't try to correct it for their own reasons, but rather just pick up the established uses of words, including "America". I've yet to see anyone use "United Statian" or equivalent from any native Spanish speaker talking English, unless it was used deliberately to annoy, like you claim to do (and even then, far more often the people who use that term are themselves Americans).

      that the issue is cultural rather than lingual since in much of Europe the number of landmasses considered as continents differs from American view. Naturally, this is because Americans are stupid and can't see that North America and South America are connected

      To the best of my knowledge, most of Europe uses the seven-continent model with separate North/South America and Europe/Asia, same as US and China. Most of Eastern Europe uses six-continent model, but it still keeps NA/SA separate, merging the other two into Eurasia (which makes most sense, pragmatically speaking). Apparently, the only countries that treat the Americas as a single continent are Spanish-speaking American countries... who would have thought. ~

    15. Re:ASSembled in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "claim to do": I usually stay away from this debate until someone implies that the only proper way to refer to the whole landmass is "Americas" and that the singular refers to the US of A and nothing else. If you are careful, you'll notice that I haven't used "United Statian" or similar in this whole damn thread (with the exception of ^H-joke and admittance that I have used that in the past to annoy people since it seems to push some buttons).

      I have to forfeit the rest of the argument since the proper term is, well, landmass. Just that that concept is more common around here and people tend to use the terms interchangeably in common speak.

  56. trades jobs are also needed as well by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    trades jobs are also needed as well and higher education is not just degrees it's tech / trades as well.

    Manufacturing Production Certificate at the Community College level.

    http://goforward.harpercollege.edu/academics/areas/manufacturing/mpc.php

  57. Because the jobs aren't coming back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your point? The jobs aren't coming back.

    Foxconn employs hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers just on behalf of Apple, and I'd be surprised if this new US operation employed even one thousand Americans. Mostly because this is a small plant that will only be producing certain models of Macs, not huge volumes of iphones or ipads. And also because it will no doubt be more heavily automated than the Chinese plants.

    My guess is that there will be 200-500 manufacturing jobs at this plant, with maybe double or triple that in secondary jobs.

  58. It's not... by ayvee · · Score: 2

    It's not altruistic, and it's not just Apple. The Atlantic had an article recently about how a lot of companies (e.g. GM) are doing the same thing, for two reasons: (a) Chinese wages have been rising at about 18% per year since 2000, (b) oil is very pricey now, meaning shipping stuff over from China is more expensive. So, yeah, Apple aren't doing this because they've suddenly discovered patriotism. This is based on a cold cost calculation, just like the original decision to move their manufacturing to China. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the spin they're trying to put on this is more than a little disingenuous.

  59. Following Lenovo? by kullnd · · Score: 1

    Guess they want to follow Lenovo's lead ... Of course, Lenovo is a Chinese company who is going to be manufacturing some of their products in the US, I like that even better than the US company who is moving a few things back to the US.

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  60. Re: PR Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this just a hedge against a potential ITSC ruling banning the import of Apple products? If they are assembled in the U.S. the ban would not apply to their US production line.

  61. Helps with Product Leaks Too by DaveOrZach · · Score: 1

    Part of Apple's charm was the unveiling of the products. Recently, Apple products are regular leaked before their unveiling. The leaks usually happen overseas. A US manufacturing supply chain would dramatically decrease these leaks.

  62. Re:Assembled in America means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do I smell FUD? A better article to link to would have been to someone trying to investigative reporting on this. Like, you know hanging outside the Elk Grove facility and asking someone:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2012/09/07/headcount-rising-apple-elk-grove-campus.html?page=all

      What incentive would apple have in claiming something was "Assembled in America" if there isn't a realistic portion of assembly work being done here? They already have the entire world knowing that their flagship products are wholly a Chinese product and the press, the customers and the investors all don't mind that one bit. Even if they're only assembling 10% of the system in America, they're one of the few tech companies that can say they're bucking the trend, and that's meaningful. /before the fandroids jump on me, yes Google did this too with Nexus Q

  63. yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    assembled in america = mexico factories

  64. I was hoping for option #4 by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Bring all manufacturing to the US, hire UAW workers for $75/hr, refuse to utilize any and all automation and grind out a shitty product that costs 3x what it does now and has a 20% field failure rate.

    Option #5 is let Obama build nationalized factories and hire eleventy million civil servants to do that work. In 40 years they'll be making 7 iPads a day.

  65. No, Smart Money Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Import tariffs on parts versus fully assembled electronics. They've realized it would be cheaper to bring in the parts and pay Americans to assemble them here. Its a cost saving move for them because of the high retail value of their imported devices.

  66. Re: PR Move by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Maybe they think that they still lose less than by letting their Asian manufacturers copy their technology.

  67. Increasing workforce and decreasing labor demand by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    EXACTLY. Already been happening; this was part of the reason for the move to China. In the race against machines, man has to lower his quality of life and push harder to compete. As history has shown, man eventually loses to the machine in the long term every time. Chinese are cheap human resources that are highly adaptable with far less upfront costs than automation and perform close enough to the machines for many tasks. Our CEOs never viewed human resources as people like themselves so switching them out for human cogs that were cheaper and more disposable was not a problem for them. Neither is the slow transition to machines.

    Increasing workforce and decreasing labor demand = big trouble

  68. Racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is capable of (or wants) higher education, some people just missed the boat, others like immigrants will take the opportunity to improve their children's station.

    Why the fuss about pinpointing immigrants? They're no different from the guy down the street with an equally low profile.

  69. BIG FAT IDIOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..that's what you are. A company issuing shares must at one point either pay dividends or buy back some of their shares, otherwise IT IS A SCAM. There have been plenty of this type of companies around, they are dead now and their management have lined their pockets to the detriment of the owners and the economy as a whole.

    Would you give me a dollar if you knew you would never, ever get that dollar plus interest back ???

    We can discuss all day what a "proper" interest rate is and when it is due, but if we start to claim that no interest at all is OK, then you are basically advocating theft.

    Apple is a very mature company sitting on tons of cash and they now have to give money back to investors, exactly the way they got money which was invested in GM, AT&T, IBM and mom's coffee shop in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether they use dividends or share buybacks is just a detail in this discussion.
    At one point we all have to grow up and be proper members of the capitalist system or relocate to North Korea and enjoy the happiness of communism. According to latest reports, even they started to fudge their way into capitalism.

    1. Re:BIG FAT IDIOT by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      stupid anonymous idiot without a brain that is capable of thinking.

      A company's stock price is driven by its worth.

      Would I rather buy stock of a company that is doubling and tripling its worth, or a stock that is offering dividends but actually dropping the value of the company?

  70. Wait by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Their screens are still assembled in Asia.
    So is their memory.
    So is their cpu.
    etc. etc.

    So what does "Assembled in the USA" actually mean?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  71. win-win by dindi · · Score: 1

    Whether they create low paying factory jobs or high paying engineering jobs they are doing you guys (in the U.S.) a favour: they create jobs. And this is something you need right now.

    So yes, I own more Apple devices than I probably need, I think their products are great for work and leisure, and probably I am a "fanboy" or "iSheep", but I have to say, that any American (U.S. American) who criticizes this move is a total moron.

    Is this a marketing move? Maybe a touch of it. But from a company who provides good products, being virtually the ONLY company caring for producing more environmentally friendly products (unibody vs pvc and many others) I can imagine that they care for their own country a tidbit.

    PS: I would tax the CRAP out of companies who outsource everything in favour of higher profits. You should support your own country's people where ever you are.
    Just my 2c ...

  72. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    They don't say that.

    Apparently some have already started saying "Assembled in USA"

    You are awesome.

  73. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Again, another idiotic post that is simply incorrect. I have over boxes for Apple products within 20 feet of me, and not a single one claims the product was made in the US.

    Why are you spreading lies?

    I don't see how it's idiotic.

    http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/12/03/2124209/some-apple-imacs-assembled-in-america
    "Some Apple iMacs assembled in America"

    Assembled. Made. Whatever. That wasn't the point.

    The point was that they said "in America" but this news post made me wonder whatever they made that claim before the changed had already happened.

    Lame-ass AC. If you are going to claim someone is an idiot do so under your own name.

  74. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And wtf are "over boxes"?

    Over NINE THOUSAND boxes?

    Assembled or made doesn't make much difference to me and the question was whatever they maybe was going to assemble them in the USA but had already started typing assembled in the USA in some cases.

    But it's hard communicating with Apple zealots. The force are weak^Wdead in them.

  75. Naturally it'll be in the slavery loving South. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Since the South knows the same kinds of "know your place" slavery that is only ratcheted up in China, one can only expect that they won't go anywhere that a worker has the advantage.

    Now if Foxconn would manufacture somewhere outside the South and Southern-aligned states(such as ALEC-controlled Michigan and Indiana) and choose the North/Northeast(excluding Michigan and Indiana) as well as the West Coast - it would provide a nice rejoinder to

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  76. Michigan can be written off due to ALEC control by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Not as long as Snyder's running the state.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  77. His specialty? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I recall news from when Cook became CEO that his focus was Apple's supply chain.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  78. Capisce This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capecce? Pesce means "fish" in Italian. Capisce is the expression you're looking for.

  79. Re:So they aren't made in the US now? by icebraining · · Score: 1

    manufactured in China

    Actually, I think most of the manufacturing is not in China, but in other countries, including the US.

  80. Samsung is doing this by Xest · · Score: 1

    "The real question is, why is NO other company doing this."

    and:

    "Things are obviously not perfect at FoxConn but Apple is trying to make them better, in a way that anyone can keep track of. No other company is providing any kind of visibility into these issues."

    Well, except they are:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20491086

    Sorry to burst your (reality distortion) bubble.

    1. Re:Samsung is doing this by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      If Samsung gave a shit about workers, they'd stop poisoning the workers at their own plants. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/toxics_in_the_clean_rooms_are_samsung_workers_at_risk/2414/

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  81. Re: PR Move by dwpro · · Score: 1

    Short term fluctuations of "market capitalization" oughtn't influence any business decisions nor be interpreted as rational responses to them.

    --
    Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  82. The value of a company is not its cash horde by perpenso · · Score: 1

    A company's stock price is driven by its worth.

    No. The assets that a company owns may help define a floor for its stock price but its price is heavily influence by expectations of future earnings.

    Would I rather buy stock of a company that is doubling and tripling its worth, ...

    Note that this is an example of price being heavily influenced by expected future earnings.

    Such growth is temporary. During such high growth phases it is common to not offer a dividend. However as a company moves from a "growth" phase to a "value" phase such increases in stock price stop. A company will typically offer a dividend to help compensate for this and help keep the stock attractive. Note that by attractive the company is thinking in terms of a large number of investors and these investors are not necessarily the same as before. Some investors prefer growth phase companies, high reward high risk, and others prefer value companies, low reward low risk.

    ... or a stock that is offering dividends but actually dropping the value of the company?

    The value of the company is not dropping. Dividends typically come out profits. In Apple's case they merely slow the growth of the the cash horde by a small amount.

  83. Tax Hedge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of clamouring (as there always has been) for companies to stop hiding funds overseas.
    What if a move is made in the tax code that actually penalizes sending jobs overseas?

    We've got a LOT of protectionist yahoos in Congress, and probably going to have more in four years.
    If nothing else, this move can serve as a valid test case of if manufacturing can return. Instead of rhetoric and speculation, we're going to have some evidence either way.

    "Made in the USA" sells -- if they can sell it at a profit, then others will do the same. Not that GM or Chrysler really make anything in the US anymore, or a profit :)

    1. Re:Tax Hedge? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Pure protectionism is likely to run into all sorts of issues with trade law, treaties, etc. and can lead to a lot of issues.

      Instead, I would like to see "protectionism" based on humanitarian and environmental issues. It really levels the playing field (and incentivizes good treatment of workers) if you slap a tariff on any product manufactured/assembled* by workers earning poverty-level wages, working more than x hours/week under substandard conditions, etc. Environmental issues would likely have to be tackled on country-by-country compliance, but this could be done in a non-arbitrary, transparent, and predictable way.

      Raising the selling prices of sweatshop goods will hurt the consumer a little bit, but this seems like a much better way to right the economy while still allowing industries to move with the market.

      *Products with numerous subcomponents manufactured in different locations creates obvious challenges. As do some other issues, including fraud. However, these can be worked out... and enforcement and PR mechanisms can have very sharp teeth.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  84. Not even close to the same by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    All Samsung has done is ONE audit, and done nothing like what Apple has done as far as telling suppliers they must meet certain labor standards.

    Sorry to burst your bubble that let you rationalize using a device built by slave labor who is doing nothing to improve working conditions, but you really can't get off that easily.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not even close to the same by Xest · · Score: 1

      Oh so you did know about Samsung doing the exact same thing is Apple then, and are hence admitting you lied when you said only Apple is doing it?

      It's okay you don't have to pretend to be all high and mighty with me, I've seen your game on Slashdot long enough to know you're full of shit. It's just amusing watching your desperate attempt to grasp for excuses when you get called out on it.

    2. Re:Not even close to the same by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Oh so you did know about Samsung doing the exact same thing is Apple then

      I know you are on some powerful drugs that prevent you from writing comprehensibly.

      Seriously, what were you even trying to say there?

      It's okay you don't have to pretend to be all high and mighty with me

      Oh but I do, because unlike you I actually care about worker conditions and don't engage in baseless attacks on companies out of irrational hate (as if ANY company is worth hating or loving!).

      I'll let you have the last response, in the meantime enjoy your fruits of child labor. Nice attempt at the strawman misdirection from THAT elephant in the room. Be we both know what is really going on and it eats you up inside that Apple is morally superior to the people that make the devices you prefer.

      My advice for you: don't get wrapped up in any company, love or hate. Neither is worth it. Keep dispassionate about technology and your head will be much clearer.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Not even close to the same by Xest · · Score: 1

      You're funny, it's like you actually believe your own bullshit, morally superior? no company worth loving or hating?

      Oh, and that first sentence you struggled with? It's perfectly valid English, I guess you're not very well versed in the English language.

      But the really funny thing, the most incredible thing about your posts is you say what makes sense- that you shouldn't love or hate any company, but then you completely fail to practice that by being the worst Apple fanboy in the history of Slashdot.

      Have you really not noticed that in stories about Apple doing wrong, genuine, inexecusable wrong, you're about the only one defending them? That isn't because Slashdot has an anti-Apple bias, it's because you're the most rabid fanboy of them all.

  85. Who cares WHY by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Apple is doing that to protect it's brand

    Possibly (I don't think so), but even if that is true WHO CARES. The end result is the same, workers being treated better.

    Shouldn't other companies ALSO want to protect a brand as well?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley