You're under the false impression that the user owns the phone; the actual owner (Apple) can choose to do with it as it wants, including letting their servers decide when your sensors are active.
They do own the phone. The hardware is theirs and Apple cannot get it back. The SERVICES and software the phone uses are not owned by the user. They license or subscribe to those and whatever terms come with them. Yes, these are necessary for the device to be useful but that is a separate discussion from who owns the hardware. This is yet another example of why Apple is a software company, not a hardware company. The hardware is just the pretty box through which they sell their software and services.
This is the reason the GMO scare craze is based completely on ignorance
Sort of. In many cases it is basically an argument from ignorance. Their argument is basically "we can't conclusively prove that nothing bad can happen therefore something bad must/will happen". It's the same sort of clumsy thinking we see in those people who see a UFO, forget what the U stands for, and therefore conclude that it "must be aliens from another planet".
But people arguing against GMOs sometimes do so from the basis of ethical or economic issues (like patents) which are not necessarily ignorant arguments. There also are people arguing that what we are doing is fine but that we should pump the brakes a bit so we don't do things before we fully understand the likely consequences. Reasonable people can be cautious about GMOs without necessarily opposing them outright in a blind panic.
They owe us one where the batteries can be replaced.
They owe you nothing. They are offering a product for sale. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't. Either choice is fine. I like user replaceable batteries too but I'm under no illusion that companies are under any obligation to provide them. I have declined to purchase products where I felt that servicing them would be a problem in the future. Nothing Nintendo makes is a life necessity so don't buy it if it doesn't meet your quality and durability standards.
Things like video game consoles are precisely the sort of thing where the government should be outlawing planned obsolescence in the form of non-fixable batteries.
"Planned obsolescence"? They don't have to plan it. It's going to be obsolete in 2-4 years with no planning whatsoever. That's just how fast the market moves. Now if your argument was that by making devices that cannot be serviced they are making unnecessary landfill then I think you might have a reasonable argument. Having a device fail because the battery went dead and cannot be replaced (by user or by manufacturer) is something that is a real problem.
"Send it in and we'll replace the battery or unit" should not be permissible on consumer electronics.
If you don't like it don't buy it. I think your complaint is a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy it. But if you fork over the cash for it then obviously it wasn't really a deal breaker for you now was it? I agree that the battery should be replaceable in some fashion but insisting that it be user serviceable is unreasonable for some products. If they provide a means to have it replaced by the manufacturer for some appropriate length of time (similar to automobile service parts) then that is fine. I can think of several products where having the General Public poking around inside to replace a battery is not the best idea. User serviceable is obviously ideal when possible but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Where's the value for Foxconn to use American workers?
There are numerous benefits. In no particular order: 1) Products made in the US for sale in the US do not have to worry about exchange rate fluctuations or import tariffs 2) Reduced freight costs and production lead times to the US market 3) Production flexibility - gives Foxconn the ability to produce products in the most sensible market for a given product 4) US worker productivity is among the highest in the world (it's how we compete) 5) US manufacturing workers are among the best in the world (the US has a $3 Trillion/year manufacturing sector) 6) Automation will necessarily be used extensively to offset labor costs 7) It gets Foxconn and companies that use them (Apple, etc) political points and the ability to lobby state and federal governments 8) For products with relatively low labor content US workers make tremendous sense, especially for products that are sold in the US.
Your question would apply equally to Honda or BMW or Siemens or any other large manufacturing concern. They make a products in the US because it makes economic sense to do so. Not every product of course but some will benefit.
They're expensive. Wisconsin is a union state too.
There is no such thing as a "union state". There are companies that have unions in Wisconsin but there are plenty more that do not. Just because a company sets up shop in Wisconsin does not mean a union will be able to organize that company.
Which means that Foxconn will have union labor issues just building the factory and keeping it running will just be a nightmare.
I'm sure there will be unions interested in organizing the plant just like every other large manufacturing concern. Unions mostly have been losing these organizing efforts in recent years so I doubt Foxconn is overly worried. There are things that worry Foxconn about such a big project but unions are pretty far down the list these days.
As for skills, Wisconsin the state has no fiscal responsibility, it has not fiscal stability, it has an almost 3rd world infrastructure.
Feeling hyperbolic today are we? Pretty much none of that is true. The rest of your post is just similar provocative nonsense.
Some Wisconsin Republicans blamed the company's change in plans on the election of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, to succeed Mr. Walker, a Republican, in November. In a joint statement, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and the Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald, said it was "not surprising Foxconn would rethink building a manufacturing plant in Wisconsin under the Evers administration." The lawmakers added: "The company is reacting to the wave of economic uncertainty that the new governor has brought with his administration."
Translation A: There is going to be actual oversight for this sweetheart deal for Foxconn (unlike before) and Foxconn management is worried about that Translation B: Certain republicans that negotiated this bad deal are worried about the bribes they took becoming public knowledge Translation C: Circumstances that have nothing to do with the current Wisconsin governor are being used as a political point scoring opportunity
Pick the translation that works for you. Probably some truth in all of them.
Because you didn't make a useful or thoughtful point in the opinion of the moderators. And that fact is the answer to why certain movies have high Rotten Tomatoes scores. So Black Panther evidently has the highest ranking by whatever metrics Rotten Tomatoes uses. So what? It's just a ranking by some arbitrary metric. If that movie happens to be Black Panther then so be it. That isn't a problem. Lots of people consider it to be a very good movie worth watching and it's super popular with some demographics. Other movies would top the list by other criteria.
The best movies of all time. Think about that.
Ahh there is your error. It isn't a ranking of "best" movies. Never was. It's just a consensus opinion of whether a movie is worth considering spending time to see. It's not some sort of Academy Award for best picture of all time. Don't confuse the two.
Apple already has many, many people working closely with China as far as suppliers of everything goes. They already have a shipping pipeline so I seriously doubt for Apple it's going to take 6-14 weeks to get parts... I'm sure they would of course have some buffer of supplies, but Apple can more than afford to build up a base of supply on hand.
I'm not just pulling that figure out of my ass. Yes it REALLY does take that sort of lead time after receipt of order in a lot of cases. Even for Apple. Yes Apple can do some things to expedite but ultimately it takes time (typically 4-8 weeks) to make product for a spot buy and the product is going to get put on a boat and it takes 3-5 weeks for a boat to get from China to the US minimum. No they aren't going to put the parts on a plane unless they absolutely have to because that costs FAR more per part. Products don't get made instantly so it takes another few weeks to actually make the product even if they are able to start immediately upon receipt of the order (rare). Even if Apple places a blanket order, that just let's the company plan production but it still takes time to make it and it still takes time to ship it.
Let me give you an example from my company. We build a wire harness that has plastic connectors on each end. The connector parts are made in China and then shipped to Mexico for final assembly. Then they are shipped to a US distributor and then on to us. We order them 50,000 pieces at a time under a General Motors pricing contract. The company making them is a huge multinational, the distributor is a huge company, and the ultimate customer is GM so we're not talking about dealing with sweatshops here. Lead time is a non-negotiable 14 weeks after receipt of order for what really is a rather simple and standard part. Even GM could not accelerate this.
We get the connectors for about $0.35 each - if you were to buy one yourself through distribution (think Digikey or Mouser) it would cost you over $2.00 each. And if they were out of stock it would take them... 14 weeks to get more. Why? Because the company that makes them has a finite capacity to make parts so it takes them 8 weeks to work through their backlog of orders and then another 4-6 weeks to get the product to us. This is TOTALLY normal in manufacturing.
It's not like everything has to come from China - Apple spend $60 billion last year American suppliers... No reason that cannot grow, as long as Apple is willing to let some component costs raise - which I'm sure they are for a Mac Pro.
No Apple is not going to be willing to budge much on component costs without very good reason. Apple has margins to protect to keep their stock price high. Big companies don't get that way by being lazy with component costs. That link you provided is just a lazy regurgitation of an Apple press release and is VERY misleading. That is Apple taking credit for any US based company they have a supplier relationship with and counting every job at that company in Apple's favor, whether or not the actual products are made in the US. You might consider getting your data from an independent source with something resembling objective analysis.
Apple does exactly that with the old Mac Pro, and presumably the new one.
That's just the exception that proves the rule. One high margin, low volume product made in the US (that Apple hasn't updated in years) does not a trend make. Apple is doing that more for the press value than because it makes economic sense. When they start assembling iPhones or MacBooks in the US then you might have a point. It's not just Apple either. Pretty much nobody does high volume assembly work of commodity products in the US unless it is something that can be heavily automated with a multi-year production run.
It costs less than $2,000 to import a 40-foot shipping container.
There is a lot more to the cost equation than just the cost of the container. If it were just the cost of a container it would be a no brainer but there is WAY more to it than that. Total landed costs for a typical product can easily make a $100 product cost $130-170 by the time it reaches its destination. I'm a cost accountant and I've worked doing global sourcing for a living out of Mexico, China, and India.
When I ran the math in 2015, it was $1,300, making the shipping cost of a pair of men's cotton trousers from China to the dock at the US six cents.
It's a LOT more than $0.06. Here is a very incomplete list of costs off the top of my head that will be incurred in getting the product from China to its destination in the US. Not all of these apply to all products but the point is that there is far more to it than just the cost of the container on the boat. 1) Packaging and dunnage 2) Inventory holding costs 3) Cartage costs to/from ports 4) Tariffs/duties/taxes 5) Order management costs 6) Lead time costs (must order products months in advance which ties up resources) 7) Capital opportunity costs 8) Exchange rate costs 9) Transaction/accounting costs 10) Insurance 11) Engineering oversight
You know how we make clothes in China?
How? Yes. Do you know why? Because why is the more interesting question. Those products are made in China instead of the US because making clothing is a labor intensive process which means that labor costs are paramount. Labor costs in China and other even lower labor cost countries are SO much less that it is cheaper to make it there in spite of the overhead and logistics hassles. Yes some of the materials come from the US (also elsewhere) but the actual weaving and sewing that goes into making large volumes of clothing is only cost effective in very low labor cost countries.
Manufacturing in the US is sustainable and it doesn't have be for slave wages either.
The US manufacturing sector is worth approximately $3 Trillion annually. By itself it would be one of the 6 largest economies in the world. The US is VERY good at manufacturing and anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. But what people fail to understand is that we don't make labor intensive goods here. (like screws) We make capital intensive goods (like jet engines). There are some goods which there is no economic to make in the US because the labor content is simply too high to be competitive. Custom screws in large volumes likely fall into this category.
Apple knows that. And those screws? They can get the material from China overnight.
No they cannot. Not without blowing up their costs. Buying in the sorts of quantities Apple deals in will add weeks to months to the materials lead time and they are NOT going to put them on a plane unless it is an emergency. Doing that for something like screws could easily cost more in freight than the screws themselves cost. It also means they have to order larger quantities and stock extra inventory to guard against supply chain disruptions. Plus there is the manufacturing lead time to make the component. I buy terminals from Japanese manufacturers all the time (JST, Hirose, etc) and lead times from them are typically 14 weeks for anything but the most common components. A lot of Chinese makers are the same.
Apple just doesn't know them because they lost connection with their own supply chain.
Apple knows their supply chain just fine. That's not the point. The point of manufacturing in the US is precisely so you don't have your supply chain wrapping halfway around the globe. You don't want to have to buy everything from China, ship it halfway around the world and then do final assembly in a high labor cost country. The point is that there are a lot of products that people never think of that just aren't made in the US anymore for very sensible reasons. The US manufacturing sector is robust and thriving but not every product can be economically made here. Conversely there are some products we make here in the US that China would struggle to make because they haven't built up the supply chain for them yet.
Couldn't they have just ordered the custom screws air-shipped from a Chinese factory or redesigned the thing to use a more ordinary screw?
Possibly but then they are adding cost to the product. You are missing the point. It isn't just ordering some specific screws. The screws are just an example of the broader problem. There are literally thousands of components with the same problems because the supply chain for them in the US has withered and it takes a long time to build it back up even when it is even possible. For high labor content work it's just not economic to make the stuff in a high wage country like the US. I do this for a living so I know. The problem is that the supply chain in China already has all this stuff figured out and engineers can easily get what they need locally over there.
Believe me if it were easy and economic to build this stuff in the US, companies would be doing it. NOBODY who does this stuff for a living (and I do) wants to deal with ordering components from halfway around the world if they don't have to.
I wonder what's so special about that particular screw. Is it a "tamper proof head" like Apple's 5-point "Torx" security screws to keep mere plebs from opening the hardware?
Don't fixate on the screw. The screw is just an example of a problem they will face over and over again. The point is that the supply chain just isn't robust for electronics manufacturing in the US like it is in China. Fixing this problem will not be easy or quick.
Soooo if you don't have enough screws produced locally, you just order more from China... exactly what Apple did.
When you have to do that often then it makes more sense to just assemble the product in China rather than blowing up your supply chain and incurring huge freight and logistics costs and hassles.
That kind of basic part seems like it should be easy enough to predict need of ahead of time, and cheap enough that pre-ordering a rough amount of material you might need would not cost much.
It's just an example of the sorts of difficulties that happen when you try to manufacture something physically far away from the bulk the supply chain. It's not just one component for one product - the screw is just an understandable example of the bigger problem. There are hundreds to thousands of components in the bill of materials for a typical computer and new products are being made all the time. These components are very often not made in the US because they have a high labor content so US firms aren't cost competitive on those parts. My day job is general manager of a small electronics assembly company. I deal with this every day. I don't think you even begin appreciate the problems with ordering stuff from halfway around the world for manufacturing.
It seems like lessons learned will mean that Apple will have been more careful about what they can produce locally vs. what they still need to order from China in order to assemble computers in the U.S. I'm pretty sure that is still a big goal for them.
Ordering from China isn't nearly as easy as you make it sound. I do this for a living. First off you immediately incur a 6-14 weeks of additional lead time (no they aren't going to ship it by airplane except in emergency - that costs a fortune) because it takes that long to make the product and send it on a boat across the ocean. So you end up stocking a lot of unnecessary inventory to guard against supply chain disruptions. Second, you have to have people working closely with your supplier in the foreign country or else you get serious quality and delivery problems. This adds a lot of cost and hassle. Yes there are plenty of Chinese suppliers who would think nothing of screwing even mighty Apple and Apple knows this. Third, you are grossly underestimating the advantage of having your engineers and supply chain people close to the suppliers. Problems happen and fixing them from half a world away is never easy. Fourth, when you cannot get components locally you incur a lot of currency risk. Fifth, a big part of the reason China produces so much of the world's electronics is because nearly the entire supply chain is nearby. This reduces costs tremendously.
I could keep going. If it were economically practical to assemble electronics in the US (even ignoring the labor price disparity), companies would be doing it. US companies would love to be able to buy their stuff locally but it's just not economic. I've bid on jobs where the target sale price was less than my cost of materials because the supply chain in China for electronics is that advantageous. Getting the supply chain back to this side of the pond will take decades to happen.
The "securing" is left to the owners (who usually cannot do it) and these will be notified months later, if at all.
That would be an idiotic idea. The proper way to handle this is to threaten device makers with gigantic penalties if their products are found to be insecure by default (measured against current good practice for duty of care) and/or not maintained/updated on a reasonable schedule to remain secure. There are FAR too many technologically impaired end users to expect them to adjust the default settings to be something reasonably secure or to update the devices regularly. If this makes the devices cost more then so be it.
It's probably ok in some cases to let advanced users tweak security settings but doing so should require special action on their part and probably a liability waiver (safe harbor) to the manufacturer of the device.
This does not involve any "hacking" into anything. It simply unauthorized access by attempting default passwords, not hacking. Please fix the title. Thanks.
Exactly how does the fact that the password is easy to guess change the activity that is being performed in any way? It's hacking. The fact that it is hacking a second grader could do doesn't change that fact.
(and please spare us the standard geek indignation about the word hacking not meaning whatever positive thing you want it to mean)
No lead in solder still means that within 3 years electronics will become less reliable due to temporary shorts (they burn out quickly) from something called tin-whiskers.
No it definitely does not provided the electronics are properly engineered. ROHS has been in effect since 2006 and most components and assemblies these days are ROHS compliant. There were fears of tin whiskers being a big problem and they have been in select products from time to time. But in actual fact they have proven to not be a particularly significant issue for most products. Leaded solder is not the only way to control them. Coatings and plating as well as product design all can mitigate the problem. ROHS did not result in any sort of widespread change in the reliability of products and claims to the contrary are unsupported by the evidence.
Tin whiskers aren't the only metal whiskers that cause problems. Silver, gold, zinc, cadmium and even lead all can have them.
EU actually regulated some of the materials involved in production of electronics some time ago in terms of heavy metals and some other things iirc. It resulted in quite a few changes, some of which were good (less of certain toxic materials) and some of which were bad (less durable hardware).
The regulations you are referring to are ROHS and they are a good thing. It required changing some product designs but when engineered properly (which most things have been) the evidence seems to show it does not result in less durable hardware. Tin whiskers were a concern but there appears to have been no significant increase in problems since the regulations went into effect 12 years ago. Most electronic components these days are ROHS compliant because it's easier to just go all ROHS than to try to juggle mixed parts. (Disclosure, my day job is managing a company that makes wire harnesses so I get to deal with this stuff daily) The EU regulations have effectively resulted in most of the industry going to lead-free solder for most products even outside the EU.
Most of the issue with ROHS in electronics manufacturing is using lead-free solder. This does introduce certain challenges but they are all manageable. And leaded solder is still available for the (not many) products that absolutely need it.
How eco-friendly is the production of integrated circuits and circuit boards?
Not very but also not relevant. They are going to sell products and those products need packaging. It's a sunk cost in a sense. It makes sense to make the packaging as eco-friendly as they can given they are going to be packaging something. Cleaning up the board manufacturing is an important but separate discussion. It's always irritated me how much unnecessary packaging products have these days so efforts to reduce the impact (and cost) of packaging should be applauded.
Wouldn't it be better to make products that last longer?
From Samsung's perspective the answer is not unless it equates to greater profits. There is unfortunately scant evidence that the buyers of these products (read you and I) care much about how long they last. People vote with their money and the money says people are ok with the quasi-disposable products.
Phones, tablets and televisions with software that can be updated?
If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number?
It says he filed the paperwork. It doesn't say the patent has been granted. Presumably he wants to keep it under wraps until he actually has the patent in hand which is reasonable.
Nikon does not fab their own sensors. They source them from Sony and some other companies.
This is true and ultimately it may be their doom. Sony has gotten into the high end camera market to the point where they lead the market in new camera sales passing both Nikon and Canon. Having to rely on one of your biggest competitors for such a critical component is a BAD place to be. Especially since the market for dedicated camera fell off a cliff courtesy of smartphones.
Apple cannot seem to figure out what business it's in.
Apple is pretty clear about what business they currently are in. A little too clear maybe. The problem they have is that they can't seem to figure out what business to go into next. Apple has the problem that any business they go into has to be enormous to really move the needle for them. The Apple Watch currently generates more revenue than the Ipod ever did (remember those?) and yet people think it is a failure for Apple because the market opportunity just isn't big enough. For Apple to grow just 10% in a year they have to create a new business the size of eBay from scratch. And then they have to do it again plus some the next year. That limits the markets they can seriously consider.
Making their own CPUs makes sense given their history and that they're using an ARM base design. But let's see:
Let's be clear. They don't make the CPUs. They design them and then another company (currently TSMC for the A12) makes them.
One of these days, they're going to finally try to get into the game market and notice that Microsoft and Nintendo have them outflanked now.
Seems unlikely Apple will do this. They've flirted with the idea but it's probably not a good fit for them. I think they'll just stick with doing games on the machines they already make.
When I saw the Switch, I said "Apple's done, they waited too long because that's the gaming tablet people will want."
Unlikely. There is scant evidence the the Switch is meaningfully disrupting iPad sales and the Switch currently is close to useless for anything but games. Those facts might change in the future but I think you are hugely overestimating the market overlap of the two.
The fact that you two are confused about the kind of company Apple is means they're quite successful at it. Apple are a marketing company
I'm sure that bit of nonsense sounded better in your head. You have classic conspiracy theory thinking. For whatever reason you don't like the company. You want to believe that Apple is some master manipulator because you can't quite wrap your head around the idea that they are simply providing good products that people actually want to buy. You don't have to like Apple or their products but spare us your notions that they are some sort of devious marketing company because you sound stupid saying it.
they license or buy other companies hardware and leach of the open source community for software.
"Leach the open source community"? The VAST majority of Apple's software is not open source and never will be and they've never pretended otherwise. The do utilize some open source software when it is reasonable to do so and under the terms requested by those who wrote that open source software. They even contribute back to some projects and have some of their own. If they are following the license terms of the software then it's not clear to me what your problem is. If the writers of the software had a problem with it they could have offered a different license.
As for buying and licensing other companies hardware, please find me a large tech company that doesn't do that and a lot of it. And there is nothing wrong with licensing or buying other company's technology. Not sure why you think this is a problem.
Then convince you that it's "unique" and "special" with advertisements.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that marketing give companies some kind of superpower of influence. In actual fact Apple spends less as a percent of revenue on marketing than most of their peer tech companies including Microsoft, Intel, Google and even Oracle. If they were a "marketing company" as you claim then they would be spending far more on marketing than they actually are. In actual fact they make good products that people demonstrably want and they have one of the strongest brands out there as a result.
The Democrats say Businesses have to much control of the government. The Republicans say Government have too much control of business.
This is a fair statement of their positions and the truth is they both are wrong. Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other. Businesses need to be kept in check by government so that their interests don't run too far contrary to that of the greater society. Governments need businesses to channel profit motives in economically useful ways that governments aren't generally well equipped to handle. Without businesses, governments cannot raise the capital needed to govern properly and without governments, businesses don't have a stable ecosystem in which to operate. Businesses cannot enforce contracts without government. Government isn't very good at raising large amounts of capital. Businesses need regulation to keep the Tragedy of the Commons from becoming real and to keep incentives aligned with those of society. Governments need guidance on when they cross the line to too much regulation. They need each other and don't work well without a good relationship.
There seems to be symbiotic relationship between a business and government. Which both sides thinks the other is actually being parasitic.
There IS a symbiotic relationship between them. The problem is that a lot of bogus political rhetoric and self interest has gotten in the way of a lot of people recognizing this fact lately. But businesses and governments in our modern understanding of them both don't really exist without each other. We need each to keep the other in check and we need both to have a civil and prosperous society.
What seems to be the problem, is really a good lack of a middle ground.
The middle ground is and always has been there. Honestly they've generally done a pretty good job of figuring out where it is. The US and other major economies reflect this fact in their economic success. The process isn't always neat and tidy and there is a lot of debate and messy politics but it tends to get figured out. The problem lately is that the government politics at least in the US has kind of run away from the bargaining table for a variety of reasons. Sound bite ideology gets political power even when it bears no resemblance to evidence based governing.
Apple has always relied on differentiating its products with unique hardware.
You mean unique software. Apple is at its core a software company. This seems counter-intuitive until you think about it for a minute. The hardware in most Apple devices is at best superficially different from the competition and Apple doesn't even manufacture it. Oh they make a big stink about their design as a marketing ploy but it isn't what really makes their products distinct. You can (and I have) put Windows on a Macintosh and the experience is not meaningfully different than on a Dell or HP. Apple differentiates their products primarily through their software. If a Macintosh was sold with Windows they would be unable to command the profit margins they currently do because their hardware is nice but it's not that different or better than their best competition. This is not my opinion either. Steve Jobs understood this thoroughly. I think the current management seems a bit confused about this point.
Increasingly their competitors are getting ahead now, with things like foldable screens looking like they will be huge and Apple mostly reduced to just removing stuff like the headphone jack.
Folding screens as they currently stand are a fad that is not ready for prime time. It's a solution looking for a problem. Have you actually seen any of these products? If they are big hits I'll be truly astonished. The idea of a folding device is a good one but the form factors they are throwing out there currently are crap. And if you think Apple isn't taking a hard look at this stuff you are crazy.
By developing their own screens, batteries, modems and other hardware they can differentiate themselves like they do with CPUs now.
Certainly they could do this but they'll have to take it a LOT further. And unless they can actually create an improved component (cost and/or features) then there is no reason for them to do it in house. I think carefully curated vertical integration is actually probably a very good idea for Apple like you suggest. Tesla and SpaceX have done this too good effect. Plus one of the problems Apple has is that they do such huge volumes that supply becomes a problem. It's easy to do a folding screen when you only sell a few tens of thousands of devices. Apple sells tens of millions of iPhones which means that simply getting enough of any given component is a huge problem. Vertical integration can be a very good way to handle this issue and I think Apple has outsourced perhaps a bit too much of their hardware manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
You're under the false impression that the user owns the phone; the actual owner (Apple) can choose to do with it as it wants, including letting their servers decide when your sensors are active.
They do own the phone. The hardware is theirs and Apple cannot get it back. The SERVICES and software the phone uses are not owned by the user. They license or subscribe to those and whatever terms come with them. Yes, these are necessary for the device to be useful but that is a separate discussion from who owns the hardware. This is yet another example of why Apple is a software company, not a hardware company. The hardware is just the pretty box through which they sell their software and services.
This is the reason the GMO scare craze is based completely on ignorance
Sort of. In many cases it is basically an argument from ignorance. Their argument is basically "we can't conclusively prove that nothing bad can happen therefore something bad must/will happen". It's the same sort of clumsy thinking we see in those people who see a UFO, forget what the U stands for, and therefore conclude that it "must be aliens from another planet".
But people arguing against GMOs sometimes do so from the basis of ethical or economic issues (like patents) which are not necessarily ignorant arguments. There also are people arguing that what we are doing is fine but that we should pump the brakes a bit so we don't do things before we fully understand the likely consequences. Reasonable people can be cautious about GMOs without necessarily opposing them outright in a blind panic.
Yeah, wait until they meet lawyers.
I'm pretty sure flesh eating lawyers are a real thing...
They owe us one where the batteries can be replaced.
They owe you nothing. They are offering a product for sale. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't. Either choice is fine. I like user replaceable batteries too but I'm under no illusion that companies are under any obligation to provide them. I have declined to purchase products where I felt that servicing them would be a problem in the future. Nothing Nintendo makes is a life necessity so don't buy it if it doesn't meet your quality and durability standards.
Things like video game consoles are precisely the sort of thing where the government should be outlawing planned obsolescence in the form of non-fixable batteries.
"Planned obsolescence"? They don't have to plan it. It's going to be obsolete in 2-4 years with no planning whatsoever. That's just how fast the market moves. Now if your argument was that by making devices that cannot be serviced they are making unnecessary landfill then I think you might have a reasonable argument. Having a device fail because the battery went dead and cannot be replaced (by user or by manufacturer) is something that is a real problem.
"Send it in and we'll replace the battery or unit" should not be permissible on consumer electronics.
If you don't like it don't buy it. I think your complaint is a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy it. But if you fork over the cash for it then obviously it wasn't really a deal breaker for you now was it? I agree that the battery should be replaceable in some fashion but insisting that it be user serviceable is unreasonable for some products. If they provide a means to have it replaced by the manufacturer for some appropriate length of time (similar to automobile service parts) then that is fine. I can think of several products where having the General Public poking around inside to replace a battery is not the best idea. User serviceable is obviously ideal when possible but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Where's the value for Foxconn to use American workers?
There are numerous benefits. In no particular order:
1) Products made in the US for sale in the US do not have to worry about exchange rate fluctuations or import tariffs
2) Reduced freight costs and production lead times to the US market
3) Production flexibility - gives Foxconn the ability to produce products in the most sensible market for a given product
4) US worker productivity is among the highest in the world (it's how we compete)
5) US manufacturing workers are among the best in the world (the US has a $3 Trillion/year manufacturing sector)
6) Automation will necessarily be used extensively to offset labor costs
7) It gets Foxconn and companies that use them (Apple, etc) political points and the ability to lobby state and federal governments
8) For products with relatively low labor content US workers make tremendous sense, especially for products that are sold in the US.
Your question would apply equally to Honda or BMW or Siemens or any other large manufacturing concern. They make a products in the US because it makes economic sense to do so. Not every product of course but some will benefit.
They're expensive. Wisconsin is a union state too.
There is no such thing as a "union state". There are companies that have unions in Wisconsin but there are plenty more that do not. Just because a company sets up shop in Wisconsin does not mean a union will be able to organize that company.
Which means that Foxconn will have union labor issues just building the factory and keeping it running will just be a nightmare.
I'm sure there will be unions interested in organizing the plant just like every other large manufacturing concern. Unions mostly have been losing these organizing efforts in recent years so I doubt Foxconn is overly worried. There are things that worry Foxconn about such a big project but unions are pretty far down the list these days.
As for skills, Wisconsin the state has no fiscal responsibility, it has not fiscal stability, it has an almost 3rd world infrastructure.
Feeling hyperbolic today are we? Pretty much none of that is true. The rest of your post is just similar provocative nonsense.
Some Wisconsin Republicans blamed the company's change in plans on the election of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, to succeed Mr. Walker, a Republican, in November. In a joint statement, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and the Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald, said it was "not surprising Foxconn would rethink building a manufacturing plant in Wisconsin under the Evers administration." The lawmakers added: "The company is reacting to the wave of economic uncertainty that the new governor has brought with his administration."
Translation A: There is going to be actual oversight for this sweetheart deal for Foxconn (unlike before) and Foxconn management is worried about that
Translation B: Certain republicans that negotiated this bad deal are worried about the bribes they took becoming public knowledge
Translation C: Circumstances that have nothing to do with the current Wisconsin governor are being used as a political point scoring opportunity
Pick the translation that works for you. Probably some truth in all of them.
Not sure why I am being modded down.
Because you didn't make a useful or thoughtful point in the opinion of the moderators. And that fact is the answer to why certain movies have high Rotten Tomatoes scores. So Black Panther evidently has the highest ranking by whatever metrics Rotten Tomatoes uses. So what? It's just a ranking by some arbitrary metric. If that movie happens to be Black Panther then so be it. That isn't a problem. Lots of people consider it to be a very good movie worth watching and it's super popular with some demographics. Other movies would top the list by other criteria.
The best movies of all time. Think about that.
Ahh there is your error. It isn't a ranking of "best" movies. Never was. It's just a consensus opinion of whether a movie is worth considering spending time to see. It's not some sort of Academy Award for best picture of all time. Don't confuse the two.
Apple already has many, many people working closely with China as far as suppliers of everything goes. They already have a shipping pipeline so I seriously doubt for Apple it's going to take 6-14 weeks to get parts... I'm sure they would of course have some buffer of supplies, but Apple can more than afford to build up a base of supply on hand.
I'm not just pulling that figure out of my ass. Yes it REALLY does take that sort of lead time after receipt of order in a lot of cases. Even for Apple. Yes Apple can do some things to expedite but ultimately it takes time (typically 4-8 weeks) to make product for a spot buy and the product is going to get put on a boat and it takes 3-5 weeks for a boat to get from China to the US minimum. No they aren't going to put the parts on a plane unless they absolutely have to because that costs FAR more per part. Products don't get made instantly so it takes another few weeks to actually make the product even if they are able to start immediately upon receipt of the order (rare). Even if Apple places a blanket order, that just let's the company plan production but it still takes time to make it and it still takes time to ship it.
Let me give you an example from my company. We build a wire harness that has plastic connectors on each end. The connector parts are made in China and then shipped to Mexico for final assembly. Then they are shipped to a US distributor and then on to us. We order them 50,000 pieces at a time under a General Motors pricing contract. The company making them is a huge multinational, the distributor is a huge company, and the ultimate customer is GM so we're not talking about dealing with sweatshops here. Lead time is a non-negotiable 14 weeks after receipt of order for what really is a rather simple and standard part. Even GM could not accelerate this.
We get the connectors for about $0.35 each - if you were to buy one yourself through distribution (think Digikey or Mouser) it would cost you over $2.00 each. And if they were out of stock it would take them... 14 weeks to get more. Why? Because the company that makes them has a finite capacity to make parts so it takes them 8 weeks to work through their backlog of orders and then another 4-6 weeks to get the product to us. This is TOTALLY normal in manufacturing.
It's not like everything has to come from China - Apple spend $60 billion last year American suppliers... No reason that cannot grow, as long as Apple is willing to let some component costs raise - which I'm sure they are for a Mac Pro.
No Apple is not going to be willing to budge much on component costs without very good reason. Apple has margins to protect to keep their stock price high. Big companies don't get that way by being lazy with component costs. That link you provided is just a lazy regurgitation of an Apple press release and is VERY misleading. That is Apple taking credit for any US based company they have a supplier relationship with and counting every job at that company in Apple's favor, whether or not the actual products are made in the US. You might consider getting your data from an independent source with something resembling objective analysis.
Apple does exactly that with the old Mac Pro, and presumably the new one.
That's just the exception that proves the rule. One high margin, low volume product made in the US (that Apple hasn't updated in years) does not a trend make. Apple is doing that more for the press value than because it makes economic sense. When they start assembling iPhones or MacBooks in the US then you might have a point. It's not just Apple either. Pretty much nobody does high volume assembly work of commodity products in the US unless it is something that can be heavily automated with a multi-year production run.
It costs less than $2,000 to import a 40-foot shipping container.
There is a lot more to the cost equation than just the cost of the container. If it were just the cost of a container it would be a no brainer but there is WAY more to it than that. Total landed costs for a typical product can easily make a $100 product cost $130-170 by the time it reaches its destination. I'm a cost accountant and I've worked doing global sourcing for a living out of Mexico, China, and India.
When I ran the math in 2015, it was $1,300, making the shipping cost of a pair of men's cotton trousers from China to the dock at the US six cents.
It's a LOT more than $0.06. Here is a very incomplete list of costs off the top of my head that will be incurred in getting the product from China to its destination in the US. Not all of these apply to all products but the point is that there is far more to it than just the cost of the container on the boat.
1) Packaging and dunnage
2) Inventory holding costs
3) Cartage costs to/from ports
4) Tariffs/duties/taxes
5) Order management costs
6) Lead time costs (must order products months in advance which ties up resources)
7) Capital opportunity costs
8) Exchange rate costs
9) Transaction/accounting costs
10) Insurance
11) Engineering oversight
You know how we make clothes in China?
How? Yes. Do you know why? Because why is the more interesting question. Those products are made in China instead of the US because making clothing is a labor intensive process which means that labor costs are paramount. Labor costs in China and other even lower labor cost countries are SO much less that it is cheaper to make it there in spite of the overhead and logistics hassles. Yes some of the materials come from the US (also elsewhere) but the actual weaving and sewing that goes into making large volumes of clothing is only cost effective in very low labor cost countries.
Manufacturing in the US is sustainable and it doesn't have be for slave wages either.
The US manufacturing sector is worth approximately $3 Trillion annually. By itself it would be one of the 6 largest economies in the world. The US is VERY good at manufacturing and anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. But what people fail to understand is that we don't make labor intensive goods here. (like screws) We make capital intensive goods (like jet engines). There are some goods which there is no economic to make in the US because the labor content is simply too high to be competitive. Custom screws in large volumes likely fall into this category.
Apple knows that. And those screws? They can get the material from China overnight.
No they cannot. Not without blowing up their costs. Buying in the sorts of quantities Apple deals in will add weeks to months to the materials lead time and they are NOT going to put them on a plane unless it is an emergency. Doing that for something like screws could easily cost more in freight than the screws themselves cost. It also means they have to order larger quantities and stock extra inventory to guard against supply chain disruptions. Plus there is the manufacturing lead time to make the component. I buy terminals from Japanese manufacturers all the time (JST, Hirose, etc) and lead times from them are typically 14 weeks for anything but the most common components. A lot of Chinese makers are the same.
Apple just doesn't know them because they lost connection with their own supply chain.
Apple knows their supply chain just fine. That's not the point. The point of manufacturing in the US is precisely so you don't have your supply chain wrapping halfway around the globe. You don't want to have to buy everything from China, ship it halfway around the world and then do final assembly in a high labor cost country. The point is that there are a lot of products that people never think of that just aren't made in the US anymore for very sensible reasons. The US manufacturing sector is robust and thriving but not every product can be economically made here. Conversely there are some products we make here in the US that China would struggle to make because they haven't built up the supply chain for them yet.
Couldn't they have just ordered the custom screws air-shipped from a Chinese factory or redesigned the thing to use a more ordinary screw?
Possibly but then they are adding cost to the product. You are missing the point. It isn't just ordering some specific screws. The screws are just an example of the broader problem. There are literally thousands of components with the same problems because the supply chain for them in the US has withered and it takes a long time to build it back up even when it is even possible. For high labor content work it's just not economic to make the stuff in a high wage country like the US. I do this for a living so I know. The problem is that the supply chain in China already has all this stuff figured out and engineers can easily get what they need locally over there.
Believe me if it were easy and economic to build this stuff in the US, companies would be doing it. NOBODY who does this stuff for a living (and I do) wants to deal with ordering components from halfway around the world if they don't have to.
I wonder what's so special about that particular screw. Is it a "tamper proof head" like Apple's 5-point "Torx" security screws to keep mere plebs from opening the hardware?
Don't fixate on the screw. The screw is just an example of a problem they will face over and over again. The point is that the supply chain just isn't robust for electronics manufacturing in the US like it is in China. Fixing this problem will not be easy or quick.
Soooo if you don't have enough screws produced locally, you just order more from China... exactly what Apple did.
When you have to do that often then it makes more sense to just assemble the product in China rather than blowing up your supply chain and incurring huge freight and logistics costs and hassles.
That kind of basic part seems like it should be easy enough to predict need of ahead of time, and cheap enough that pre-ordering a rough amount of material you might need would not cost much.
It's just an example of the sorts of difficulties that happen when you try to manufacture something physically far away from the bulk the supply chain. It's not just one component for one product - the screw is just an understandable example of the bigger problem. There are hundreds to thousands of components in the bill of materials for a typical computer and new products are being made all the time. These components are very often not made in the US because they have a high labor content so US firms aren't cost competitive on those parts. My day job is general manager of a small electronics assembly company. I deal with this every day. I don't think you even begin appreciate the problems with ordering stuff from halfway around the world for manufacturing.
It seems like lessons learned will mean that Apple will have been more careful about what they can produce locally vs. what they still need to order from China in order to assemble computers in the U.S. I'm pretty sure that is still a big goal for them.
Ordering from China isn't nearly as easy as you make it sound. I do this for a living. First off you immediately incur a 6-14 weeks of additional lead time (no they aren't going to ship it by airplane except in emergency - that costs a fortune) because it takes that long to make the product and send it on a boat across the ocean. So you end up stocking a lot of unnecessary inventory to guard against supply chain disruptions. Second, you have to have people working closely with your supplier in the foreign country or else you get serious quality and delivery problems. This adds a lot of cost and hassle. Yes there are plenty of Chinese suppliers who would think nothing of screwing even mighty Apple and Apple knows this. Third, you are grossly underestimating the advantage of having your engineers and supply chain people close to the suppliers. Problems happen and fixing them from half a world away is never easy. Fourth, when you cannot get components locally you incur a lot of currency risk. Fifth, a big part of the reason China produces so much of the world's electronics is because nearly the entire supply chain is nearby. This reduces costs tremendously.
I could keep going. If it were economically practical to assemble electronics in the US (even ignoring the labor price disparity), companies would be doing it. US companies would love to be able to buy their stuff locally but it's just not economic. I've bid on jobs where the target sale price was less than my cost of materials because the supply chain in China for electronics is that advantageous. Getting the supply chain back to this side of the pond will take decades to happen.
The "securing" is left to the owners (who usually cannot do it) and these will be notified months later, if at all.
That would be an idiotic idea. The proper way to handle this is to threaten device makers with gigantic penalties if their products are found to be insecure by default (measured against current good practice for duty of care) and/or not maintained/updated on a reasonable schedule to remain secure. There are FAR too many technologically impaired end users to expect them to adjust the default settings to be something reasonably secure or to update the devices regularly. If this makes the devices cost more then so be it.
It's probably ok in some cases to let advanced users tweak security settings but doing so should require special action on their part and probably a liability waiver (safe harbor) to the manufacturer of the device.
This does not involve any "hacking" into anything. It simply unauthorized access by attempting default passwords, not hacking. Please fix the title. Thanks.
Exactly how does the fact that the password is easy to guess change the activity that is being performed in any way? It's hacking. The fact that it is hacking a second grader could do doesn't change that fact.
(and please spare us the standard geek indignation about the word hacking not meaning whatever positive thing you want it to mean)
No lead in solder still means that within 3 years electronics will become less reliable due to temporary shorts (they burn out quickly) from something called tin-whiskers.
No it definitely does not provided the electronics are properly engineered. ROHS has been in effect since 2006 and most components and assemblies these days are ROHS compliant. There were fears of tin whiskers being a big problem and they have been in select products from time to time. But in actual fact they have proven to not be a particularly significant issue for most products. Leaded solder is not the only way to control them. Coatings and plating as well as product design all can mitigate the problem. ROHS did not result in any sort of widespread change in the reliability of products and claims to the contrary are unsupported by the evidence.
Tin whiskers aren't the only metal whiskers that cause problems. Silver, gold, zinc, cadmium and even lead all can have them.
EU actually regulated some of the materials involved in production of electronics some time ago in terms of heavy metals and some other things iirc. It resulted in quite a few changes, some of which were good (less of certain toxic materials) and some of which were bad (less durable hardware).
The regulations you are referring to are ROHS and they are a good thing. It required changing some product designs but when engineered properly (which most things have been) the evidence seems to show it does not result in less durable hardware. Tin whiskers were a concern but there appears to have been no significant increase in problems since the regulations went into effect 12 years ago. Most electronic components these days are ROHS compliant because it's easier to just go all ROHS than to try to juggle mixed parts. (Disclosure, my day job is managing a company that makes wire harnesses so I get to deal with this stuff daily) The EU regulations have effectively resulted in most of the industry going to lead-free solder for most products even outside the EU.
Most of the issue with ROHS in electronics manufacturing is using lead-free solder. This does introduce certain challenges but they are all manageable. And leaded solder is still available for the (not many) products that absolutely need it.
How eco-friendly is the production of integrated circuits and circuit boards?
Not very but also not relevant. They are going to sell products and those products need packaging. It's a sunk cost in a sense. It makes sense to make the packaging as eco-friendly as they can given they are going to be packaging something. Cleaning up the board manufacturing is an important but separate discussion. It's always irritated me how much unnecessary packaging products have these days so efforts to reduce the impact (and cost) of packaging should be applauded.
Wouldn't it be better to make products that last longer?
From Samsung's perspective the answer is not unless it equates to greater profits. There is unfortunately scant evidence that the buyers of these products (read you and I) care much about how long they last. People vote with their money and the money says people are ok with the quasi-disposable products.
Phones, tablets and televisions with software that can be updated?
They already have this.
If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number?
It says he filed the paperwork. It doesn't say the patent has been granted. Presumably he wants to keep it under wraps until he actually has the patent in hand which is reasonable.
Did anyone else read that as "Catheters in China Are Using AI To Spot Unhygienic Cooks, Report Says"?
No, just you. Funny though...
I did not like that visualization.
Yeah that one will be hard to not see.
Nikon does not fab their own sensors. They source them from Sony and some other companies.
This is true and ultimately it may be their doom. Sony has gotten into the high end camera market to the point where they lead the market in new camera sales passing both Nikon and Canon. Having to rely on one of your biggest competitors for such a critical component is a BAD place to be. Especially since the market for dedicated camera fell off a cliff courtesy of smartphones.
Apple cannot seem to figure out what business it's in.
Apple is pretty clear about what business they currently are in. A little too clear maybe. The problem they have is that they can't seem to figure out what business to go into next. Apple has the problem that any business they go into has to be enormous to really move the needle for them. The Apple Watch currently generates more revenue than the Ipod ever did (remember those?) and yet people think it is a failure for Apple because the market opportunity just isn't big enough. For Apple to grow just 10% in a year they have to create a new business the size of eBay from scratch. And then they have to do it again plus some the next year. That limits the markets they can seriously consider.
Making their own CPUs makes sense given their history and that they're using an ARM base design. But let's see:
Let's be clear. They don't make the CPUs. They design them and then another company (currently TSMC for the A12) makes them.
One of these days, they're going to finally try to get into the game market and notice that Microsoft and Nintendo have them outflanked now.
Seems unlikely Apple will do this. They've flirted with the idea but it's probably not a good fit for them. I think they'll just stick with doing games on the machines they already make.
When I saw the Switch, I said "Apple's done, they waited too long because that's the gaming tablet people will want."
Unlikely. There is scant evidence the the Switch is meaningfully disrupting iPad sales and the Switch currently is close to useless for anything but games. Those facts might change in the future but I think you are hugely overestimating the market overlap of the two.
The fact that you two are confused about the kind of company Apple is means they're quite successful at it. Apple are a marketing company
I'm sure that bit of nonsense sounded better in your head. You have classic conspiracy theory thinking. For whatever reason you don't like the company. You want to believe that Apple is some master manipulator because you can't quite wrap your head around the idea that they are simply providing good products that people actually want to buy. You don't have to like Apple or their products but spare us your notions that they are some sort of devious marketing company because you sound stupid saying it.
they license or buy other companies hardware and leach of the open source community for software.
"Leach the open source community"? The VAST majority of Apple's software is not open source and never will be and they've never pretended otherwise. The do utilize some open source software when it is reasonable to do so and under the terms requested by those who wrote that open source software. They even contribute back to some projects and have some of their own. If they are following the license terms of the software then it's not clear to me what your problem is. If the writers of the software had a problem with it they could have offered a different license.
As for buying and licensing other companies hardware, please find me a large tech company that doesn't do that and a lot of it. And there is nothing wrong with licensing or buying other company's technology. Not sure why you think this is a problem.
Then convince you that it's "unique" and "special" with advertisements.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that marketing give companies some kind of superpower of influence. In actual fact Apple spends less as a percent of revenue on marketing than most of their peer tech companies including Microsoft, Intel, Google and even Oracle. If they were a "marketing company" as you claim then they would be spending far more on marketing than they actually are. In actual fact they make good products that people demonstrably want and they have one of the strongest brands out there as a result.
What is Vulkan, what is Valve and what is Gallium3D and what is Mesa? Aside from those questions, I loved the summary.
There is this website called Google. It's really handy for finding out answers to questions like this. Maybe give it a try sometime.
The Democrats say Businesses have to much control of the government.
The Republicans say Government have too much control of business.
This is a fair statement of their positions and the truth is they both are wrong. Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other. Businesses need to be kept in check by government so that their interests don't run too far contrary to that of the greater society. Governments need businesses to channel profit motives in economically useful ways that governments aren't generally well equipped to handle. Without businesses, governments cannot raise the capital needed to govern properly and without governments, businesses don't have a stable ecosystem in which to operate. Businesses cannot enforce contracts without government. Government isn't very good at raising large amounts of capital. Businesses need regulation to keep the Tragedy of the Commons from becoming real and to keep incentives aligned with those of society. Governments need guidance on when they cross the line to too much regulation. They need each other and don't work well without a good relationship.
There seems to be symbiotic relationship between a business and government. Which both sides thinks the other is actually being parasitic.
There IS a symbiotic relationship between them. The problem is that a lot of bogus political rhetoric and self interest has gotten in the way of a lot of people recognizing this fact lately. But businesses and governments in our modern understanding of them both don't really exist without each other. We need each to keep the other in check and we need both to have a civil and prosperous society.
What seems to be the problem, is really a good lack of a middle ground.
The middle ground is and always has been there. Honestly they've generally done a pretty good job of figuring out where it is. The US and other major economies reflect this fact in their economic success. The process isn't always neat and tidy and there is a lot of debate and messy politics but it tends to get figured out. The problem lately is that the government politics at least in the US has kind of run away from the bargaining table for a variety of reasons. Sound bite ideology gets political power even when it bears no resemblance to evidence based governing.
Apple has always relied on differentiating its products with unique hardware.
You mean unique software. Apple is at its core a software company. This seems counter-intuitive until you think about it for a minute. The hardware in most Apple devices is at best superficially different from the competition and Apple doesn't even manufacture it. Oh they make a big stink about their design as a marketing ploy but it isn't what really makes their products distinct. You can (and I have) put Windows on a Macintosh and the experience is not meaningfully different than on a Dell or HP. Apple differentiates their products primarily through their software. If a Macintosh was sold with Windows they would be unable to command the profit margins they currently do because their hardware is nice but it's not that different or better than their best competition. This is not my opinion either. Steve Jobs understood this thoroughly. I think the current management seems a bit confused about this point.
Increasingly their competitors are getting ahead now, with things like foldable screens looking like they will be huge and Apple mostly reduced to just removing stuff like the headphone jack.
Folding screens as they currently stand are a fad that is not ready for prime time. It's a solution looking for a problem. Have you actually seen any of these products? If they are big hits I'll be truly astonished. The idea of a folding device is a good one but the form factors they are throwing out there currently are crap. And if you think Apple isn't taking a hard look at this stuff you are crazy.
By developing their own screens, batteries, modems and other hardware they can differentiate themselves like they do with CPUs now.
Certainly they could do this but they'll have to take it a LOT further. And unless they can actually create an improved component (cost and/or features) then there is no reason for them to do it in house. I think carefully curated vertical integration is actually probably a very good idea for Apple like you suggest. Tesla and SpaceX have done this too good effect. Plus one of the problems Apple has is that they do such huge volumes that supply becomes a problem. It's easy to do a folding screen when you only sell a few tens of thousands of devices. Apple sells tens of millions of iPhones which means that simply getting enough of any given component is a huge problem. Vertical integration can be a very good way to handle this issue and I think Apple has outsourced perhaps a bit too much of their hardware manufacturing.