"Wasn’t it a bit hypocritical of Mr. Daisey to condemn Apple when he continued to buy the company’s products? “There are no alternatives in our ecosystem,” Mr. Daisey pointed out, noting that FoxConn makes more than half the electronics purchased by Americans each year. For all I know, my Motorola may have been made there as well. “What I can do is to force people to wrestle with the reality of how their precious gadgets are made.”"
the big question for me is how far down the pipeline does steve's vision extend. i think his passing won't affect the care and quality for maybe the next 2 years but after that i'm worried.
People like to say that Apple will be fine in the post-Job era, while simultaneously paying him credit as one of the most amazing CEOs in history. But I find this an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance.
Either Steve was the key to Apple's top-notch products and meteoric rise, in which case Apple has lost their magic; or he wasn't, in which case Apple will be fine. It really can't be both ways.
It can. As CEO, one of his responsibilities was to create an organisation that would endure. Apple itself may be Steve Job's greatest creation. The test of the next 10 years is to see if that is true.
So the theory here is that the greatest CEO of all time was able to mind-meld his vision, drive, creativity, discipline, and all his other forms of genius into the corporate structure of Apple? Oh brother. Do you guys hear yourselves?
Are you saying Steve couldn't train others in what is impotent and what is not? The only choices are "Steve was the only Apple employee" or "Steve had no influence at all"?
None of the Apple execs are the same people they were 10 years ago. This is a joint interaction between them and Steve. Those changes have the potential to continue to guide Apple successfully (but it is by no means certain).
It's not different than my kids following my beliefs if I died today.
As far as we know he didn't even organize his own succession, which is one of the most basic responsibilities of a CEO of a multinational. Even when he knew he was terminally ill. So I don't see much hope that he organized the rest of Apple as some great enduring company either.
Steve didn't make his succession plans public, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Publicly announcing your succession plan has no upside and lots of downside. Just ask Jay Leno or Brett Favre.
If, say, a Motorola or Samsung device garnered such status, I wonder if people would dig up shit on said devices.
Lets face it people. If you bought something from China, you are complicit. If you bought something from a country poorer than China, say, oil from Nigeria, you are probably worse than complicit.
Don't like it?
My parents come from one of these modernizing nations. Should we be more humane? Sure, but this sort of journalism is juvenile. The general sentiment amongst expats and exchange students alike is that these countries will rise up. The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.
I think you're probably right that this kind of inhumane labor extends to all gadgets. The article says as much.
But isn't the point that Apple is lionized as a "revolutionary" company and Mr. Jobs as a "genius" and a humanitarian?
And BTW, how is the opinion of expats and exchange students enough to speak for the whole nation? They are likely not the ones working in the factories.
Exactly! It is the reverence given to Steve Jobs that makes this particularly interesting. We all assume other companies are screwing someone over to get us cheap goods, but somehow Apple marketing made buying their products practically a religious experience.
> Apple marketing made buying their products practically a religious experience.
Not sure buying one is a religious experience. However, using their products definitely can be. It's annoying to have to reboot a device because it isn't connecting properly anymore after being on for a couple of weeks but it's nice knowing all you have to do is reboot. With other devices, a reboot is a hit or miss fix and you need to do it more often. I've only had one serious issue with macs that isn't fixed by a reboot and that's the network configuration holding on to dhcp leases or old certificates when they shouldn't.
The it just works stuff people talk about isn't completely accurate.
* My apple tv 1 shows up in itunes but nothing can connect to it. It's gone wandering again after a few weeks without a reboot. I think it's lonely.
* I couldn't get openvpn to compile on Lion, I had to find a workaround. Most of the issues I deal with are small things. The video drivers have never crashed on me.
It's not that everything just works. It's that more of it works than it does with other products. It also has a high amount of polish. I love the way OSX renders fonts. So much that using ubuntu makes me cry.
That's the part I don't get: Foxconn is the world's biggest manufacturer of electronic components. They count Amazon, Dell, Motorola, HP, Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple among their clients.
> For all I know, my Motorola may have been made there as well.
Yes, Foxconn makes Motorola phones too. Farley admits the obvious: that making it about Jobs and Apple sells more tickets and makes a more interesting story, and that it's really a rant against the entire electronics industry. And given the very ugly history of industrialization in the West, I can't help thinking there's a certain naiveté behind the moral outrage.
I have seen his performance and it is excellent. Possibly the best geek performer I have ever seen. That being said his message is quite biased against outsourced manual labor. While he addresses he problems that are caused to Chinese workers it doesn't in any way address the fact that Chinese workers are joining companies like Fox Con every day in order to get themselves away from an even worse life.
I encourage everyone who can to go to one of his performances but keep in mind that this is one part of China that is actually raising the quality of life for its citizens. It is a horrible situation from our perspective but it's not as easy as blaming one company for all these problems. If Apple pulled out of China it would nOt fix anything.
If we want to help the developing class we need to look at the classic issues: education, employment and a government that recognizes the freedom and rights of it's ciizens.
We talked about exactly this in my Ethics in Technology class and came to the same conclusion you've stated. Yes, this is terrible from our perspective because we outlawed those kind of working conditions years ago. But if there were better options, then there wouldn't be so many people working for Fox Con. And if it's bad to us but manageable to them, then there is worse out there that they are trying to get away from.
Thinking and talking about the situation in terms of our lives sensationalizes more than it informs.
And if it's bad to us but manageable to them, then there is worse out there that they are trying to get away from.
If every person's situation is relative, then how do we oppose slavery or abuse? It's better than starving to death, right?
The real problem here is that there's no recourse in our current economy. China makes well over half the electronics we buy so it's not like a boycott of Apple would necessarily help.
I see two approaches that could help. We can appeal to the humanity of CEOs, boards, and investors and try to press them to enact change. Or we can use their vanity by embarrassing them with productions like "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
In response to: If every person's situation is relative, then how do we oppose slavery or abuse? It's better than starving to death, right?
While I get what you are saying and am by no means arguing in favor of Fox Con, I believe you are turning my shades of gray argument back to black and white. There isn't a strict dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable; it's a gradient. There is worse than Fox Con and there is worse than what is worse than Fox Con (and so on, ad nauseam).
My point is that it is foolish to use Fox Con as the poster child of this issue when there are far worse situations. It does a great disservice to the argument. Most people will stop at Fox Con in their exploration of the situation and say to themselves "That's horrible. We should do something about that," instead of "It's horrible that Fox Con is a better option for most people and that there is worse out there. We should dig deeper and fix the problem from the ground up until Fox Con is the worst of the worst and then we can fix that."
What an abhorrent view. It's a psychopathic justification to shrug off the horrible lives of other people directly impacted by my lifestyle because 'hey, they already had a worse life'.
I'm happy to admit I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I'd like to not forget or justify that away at the very least.
That is not what I am saying at all and I am sorry if that is how I am being interpreted. My comment was not made in malice or ignorance. Understanding that this is not the worst option is the first step to understanding the situation as a whole. Please read my response to jtbigwoo for further clarification.
Let's call this article what it is. This article is just shameless self promotion by an obese man with nothing to do. its disgusting that he had to single out Apple and Steve Jobs to get media attention, when Motorola/Samsung/Sony/HP/Dell/Cisco/etc. does the same thing.
I'm reading through a book right now titled Factory Girls, by Leslie T. Chang. She was the former Beijing correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. The book is a fascinating piece of work. It delves into the factories of Dongguan, which is a major factory town, perhaps the most active factory town in China (among other things, cough, cough). I have to say that this book is singlehandedly making me understand everything I didn't understand about China, since coming to live and work here a year ago. I currently live in Shenzhen, about an hour south of Dongguan. (edit: coincidentally, where much of Foxconn's operations are based)
This book explains everything. The mindset of people when they look for factory jobs. What they do to get ahead. How stereotypes and stigmas come into play in deciding the roles in society. How their background influences their future decisions. Etcetera, etcetera. All the people I see every day seriously make a lot more sense after reading this book, and I'm not even half done yet.
If people are working at FoxConn voluntarily (i.e, they choose to go to work there because they believe their lives are better that way), who cares?
If people are being forced to work there by the government, then U.S. and European governments need to decide if they're willing to allow trade with a government that uses slave labor. (I highly doubt people are being forced to work there, though.)
> If people are working at FoxConn voluntarily (i.e, they choose to go to work there because they believe their lives are better that way), who cares?
Well I care, for one. I think there are probably others who do too.
Why can't it be both? Why can't workers at Foxconn choose work there because it's better than the alternative, AND be treated decently and work in decent conditions?
I think it's good that some people are concerned about the supply chain for our electronic toys. I've decided that I can live with a slightly older Android rather than upgrade to some new Android phone or the new iPhone... and that's partly motivated by these extra costs attached to the toys.
The cost would increase, but would it actually be that much? I don't know and I'm not qualified to guess. Should we not be concerned with working conditions just because it would increase the cost of the end products?
I'm not trying to make a big statement here about my choice to keep using an older phone. I am of course aware that this choice has no impact on who built it. I don't see what's wrong with reducing consumption a little bit and giving a little thought to these issues. That's all I meant to say with my original comment.
If people are working at FoxConn voluntarily (i.e, they choose to go to work there because they believe their lives are better that way), who cares?
Now you are moving the goalposts from discussing Foxconn to the question of whether we should regulate free will.
I’m not asking you to agree with my stance on any of the following questions, but I do ask you to recognize that they are equivalent to your question, and to recognize that many other people hold differing views from your own:
* If people want jobs working at a construction site that doesn't follow safe practices like wearing a hard hat, who cares?
* If people want to work for $1 a day, who cares?
* If people want to work for an employer who insists on sexual favours as a condition of their employment, who cares?
I think you can recognize that while there are folks who don’t care about any of these questions anywhere in the world, including North America, in the US and in Canada there are a sufficient number of people who do care that we can readily say that our moral standard is such that we claim to care as a society.
As for being forced to work somewhere, I’d say you’re rarely forced to do anything, you just find yourself in an environment where the alternatives are so drastically unappealing that you effectively have no free will in the matter.
This is why we choose to impose safety standards in the workplace: We have discovered that the free market will act in such a way that safe workplaces are extremely rare, and in turn people seeking jobs will discover that they have few if any options available to themselves.
I think that the questions you raise are extremely pertinent, so I agree with you there.
We have discovered that the free market will act in such a way that safe workplaces are extremely rare
I just don't buy that. I think "extremely rare," there, is a very gross exaggeration. And I think the frequency of dangerous workplaces greatly decreases, as national prosperity increases (which, modulo other kinds of interference, happens over time).
I mean, come on - even Foxconn is relatively safe. I'm not hearing accounts of people getting killed, I'm hearing (at worst) accounts of people being fired after acquiring certain kinds of repetitive stress injuries.
On the other hand, I do have a moral problem with someone forcefully interposing between two trading parties (in this case, employer and employee).
In fact, that kind of case is the only kind in which people are forcibly prevented from exercising their free will.
“There are no alternatives in our ecosystem,” Mr. Daisey pointed out, noting that FoxConn makes more than half the electronics purchased by Americans each year.
Does anyone have a citation for that? That's hard to believe.
All Apple had to do to be different was to have their own factory in China (as opposed to contracting FoxConn), use the cheaper workforce, and treat the employees better. Blind outsourcing is the culprit here I believe.
Corporate greed is always about blind outsourcing. You get the savings and you don't care how you get them. I have no doubt that Apple is capable of manufacturing their own devices. They chose not to. If workers were getting treated like crap, Apple is to blame. period.
I'm not saying don't make stuff in China, I'm saying we can be good employers in China and set a standard by treating employees like we would expect NA employees to be treated, with respect and dignity.
As far as I'm concerned, anything with the "Made in China" label has to be equally scrutinized. We in the US are complacent in buying these products, but this also applies to toasters, refrigerator magnets and just about everything sold in the dollar store.
I refuse to make my quality of living worse because this nation is undergoing it's own industrial revolution and hasn't worked out all of the humanitarian kinks. I buy US products whenever I can, and don't when it's not possible- buying and entirely "American" smart phone is not possible.
Singling out Apple here is not going to fix the issue, China as a nation needs to address this aggressively. With a population of about 1.5 billion people, the governments needs to protect it's workers like a union would here.
For the sake of those who do not refuse to think for themselves, let me say this: there was no agony in Steve Job's life, only the exaltation of living a full, rich, happy life in the course of which he saw the realization of his highest values. Steve Jobs was a true hero: an extraordinarily productive and creative man who inspired and gave hope to so many by showing them what incredible achievements are possible to a human being. He showed them a life worth-living. And, most importantly, Steve Jobs was a PROFOUNDLY MORAL man.
He was moral because of his values - the relentless pursuit of beauty and perfection in his work and life, to the utmost of his ability. He was moral because those values came from within himself, from the functioning of his own mind, and not second-hand from the morass of ideas going by the name of “morality” today. He was moral because he never gave up his ideas for the sake of others’ approval. He was moral because he did not give the unearned and undeserved and he did not seek the unearned and undeserved from others. He was moral because he had a SELF that embodied the best in man.
Those who measure morality by how much you give away to others, known or unknown, deserving or undeserving, do not understand that. They do not understand that before you can give, you have to create, but before you can create, your primary concern must be the process of creation itself, not the potential beneficiary of that creation. Yet, that is the only mechanism through which all can truly benefit. They do not understand the difference between forcing or cheating or defrauding and signing a voluntary contract. They feel guilty for buying a phone, but never question the morality that tells them they should feel so and never seek the roots of that guilt. They rail against the capitalist creator, but ignore the fact that bad working conditions are the logical result of a controlled economy, as if hundreds of millions of victims of communism were not enough to prove that. They scream in defense of the poor Chinese worker, but never ask how it happened that that worker never rose against its real oppressor.
Yes, Steve Jobs is my hero. And my other hero is Ayn Rand, who helped me understand what makes people like Steve Jobs possible. But she only showed me - my mind had to do the rest. I thought for myself, taking nothing for granted. I urge everyone to do the same.
43 comments
[ 8.6 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] thread"Wasn’t it a bit hypocritical of Mr. Daisey to condemn Apple when he continued to buy the company’s products? “There are no alternatives in our ecosystem,” Mr. Daisey pointed out, noting that FoxConn makes more than half the electronics purchased by Americans each year. For all I know, my Motorola may have been made there as well. “What I can do is to force people to wrestle with the reality of how their precious gadgets are made.”"
Either Steve was the key to Apple's top-notch products and meteoric rise, in which case Apple has lost their magic; or he wasn't, in which case Apple will be fine. It really can't be both ways.
None of the Apple execs are the same people they were 10 years ago. This is a joint interaction between them and Steve. Those changes have the potential to continue to guide Apple successfully (but it is by no means certain).
It's not different than my kids following my beliefs if I died today.
Lets face it people. If you bought something from China, you are complicit. If you bought something from a country poorer than China, say, oil from Nigeria, you are probably worse than complicit.
Don't like it?
My parents come from one of these modernizing nations. Should we be more humane? Sure, but this sort of journalism is juvenile. The general sentiment amongst expats and exchange students alike is that these countries will rise up. The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.
But isn't the point that Apple is lionized as a "revolutionary" company and Mr. Jobs as a "genius" and a humanitarian?
And BTW, how is the opinion of expats and exchange students enough to speak for the whole nation? They are likely not the ones working in the factories.
Not sure buying one is a religious experience. However, using their products definitely can be. It's annoying to have to reboot a device because it isn't connecting properly anymore after being on for a couple of weeks but it's nice knowing all you have to do is reboot. With other devices, a reboot is a hit or miss fix and you need to do it more often. I've only had one serious issue with macs that isn't fixed by a reboot and that's the network configuration holding on to dhcp leases or old certificates when they shouldn't.
The it just works stuff people talk about isn't completely accurate.
* My apple tv 1 shows up in itunes but nothing can connect to it. It's gone wandering again after a few weeks without a reboot. I think it's lonely.
* I couldn't get openvpn to compile on Lion, I had to find a workaround. Most of the issues I deal with are small things. The video drivers have never crashed on me.
It's not that everything just works. It's that more of it works than it does with other products. It also has a high amount of polish. I love the way OSX renders fonts. So much that using ubuntu makes me cry.
Yet only Apple gets the notice.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Clients
Yes, Foxconn makes Motorola phones too. Farley admits the obvious: that making it about Jobs and Apple sells more tickets and makes a more interesting story, and that it's really a rant against the entire electronics industry. And given the very ugly history of industrialization in the West, I can't help thinking there's a certain naiveté behind the moral outrage.
I encourage everyone who can to go to one of his performances but keep in mind that this is one part of China that is actually raising the quality of life for its citizens. It is a horrible situation from our perspective but it's not as easy as blaming one company for all these problems. If Apple pulled out of China it would nOt fix anything.
If we want to help the developing class we need to look at the classic issues: education, employment and a government that recognizes the freedom and rights of it's ciizens.
Thinking and talking about the situation in terms of our lives sensationalizes more than it informs.
If every person's situation is relative, then how do we oppose slavery or abuse? It's better than starving to death, right?
The real problem here is that there's no recourse in our current economy. China makes well over half the electronics we buy so it's not like a boycott of Apple would necessarily help.
I see two approaches that could help. We can appeal to the humanity of CEOs, boards, and investors and try to press them to enact change. Or we can use their vanity by embarrassing them with productions like "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
While I get what you are saying and am by no means arguing in favor of Fox Con, I believe you are turning my shades of gray argument back to black and white. There isn't a strict dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable; it's a gradient. There is worse than Fox Con and there is worse than what is worse than Fox Con (and so on, ad nauseam).
My point is that it is foolish to use Fox Con as the poster child of this issue when there are far worse situations. It does a great disservice to the argument. Most people will stop at Fox Con in their exploration of the situation and say to themselves "That's horrible. We should do something about that," instead of "It's horrible that Fox Con is a better option for most people and that there is worse out there. We should dig deeper and fix the problem from the ground up until Fox Con is the worst of the worst and then we can fix that."
I'm happy to admit I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I'd like to not forget or justify that away at the very least.
This book explains everything. The mindset of people when they look for factory jobs. What they do to get ahead. How stereotypes and stigmas come into play in deciding the roles in society. How their background influences their future decisions. Etcetera, etcetera. All the people I see every day seriously make a lot more sense after reading this book, and I'm not even half done yet.
Highly recommended.
If people are being forced to work there by the government, then U.S. and European governments need to decide if they're willing to allow trade with a government that uses slave labor. (I highly doubt people are being forced to work there, though.)
Well I care, for one. I think there are probably others who do too.
Why can't it be both? Why can't workers at Foxconn choose work there because it's better than the alternative, AND be treated decently and work in decent conditions?
I think it's good that some people are concerned about the supply chain for our electronic toys. I've decided that I can live with a slightly older Android rather than upgrade to some new Android phone or the new iPhone... and that's partly motivated by these extra costs attached to the toys.
Because then the cost of our electronic devices would skyrocket. iPhone 5: $2,500 (with two-year agreement).
> I've decided that I can live with a slightly older Android rather than upgrade...
That's nice, but it doesn't change who made your old Android.
The cost would increase, but would it actually be that much? I don't know and I'm not qualified to guess. Should we not be concerned with working conditions just because it would increase the cost of the end products?
I'm not trying to make a big statement here about my choice to keep using an older phone. I am of course aware that this choice has no impact on who built it. I don't see what's wrong with reducing consumption a little bit and giving a little thought to these issues. That's all I meant to say with my original comment.
Now you are moving the goalposts from discussing Foxconn to the question of whether we should regulate free will.
I’m not asking you to agree with my stance on any of the following questions, but I do ask you to recognize that they are equivalent to your question, and to recognize that many other people hold differing views from your own:
* If people want jobs working at a construction site that doesn't follow safe practices like wearing a hard hat, who cares?
* If people want to work for $1 a day, who cares?
* If people want to work for an employer who insists on sexual favours as a condition of their employment, who cares?
I think you can recognize that while there are folks who don’t care about any of these questions anywhere in the world, including North America, in the US and in Canada there are a sufficient number of people who do care that we can readily say that our moral standard is such that we claim to care as a society.
As for being forced to work somewhere, I’d say you’re rarely forced to do anything, you just find yourself in an environment where the alternatives are so drastically unappealing that you effectively have no free will in the matter.
This is why we choose to impose safety standards in the workplace: We have discovered that the free market will act in such a way that safe workplaces are extremely rare, and in turn people seeking jobs will discover that they have few if any options available to themselves.
We have discovered that the free market will act in such a way that safe workplaces are extremely rare
I just don't buy that. I think "extremely rare," there, is a very gross exaggeration. And I think the frequency of dangerous workplaces greatly decreases, as national prosperity increases (which, modulo other kinds of interference, happens over time).
I mean, come on - even Foxconn is relatively safe. I'm not hearing accounts of people getting killed, I'm hearing (at worst) accounts of people being fired after acquiring certain kinds of repetitive stress injuries.
On the other hand, I do have a moral problem with someone forcefully interposing between two trading parties (in this case, employer and employee).
In fact, that kind of case is the only kind in which people are forcibly prevented from exercising their free will.
Does anyone have a citation for that? That's hard to believe.
Like that is easy.
Companies use organizations like FoxConn for a reason: cost is one of them.
Expertise is another. Apple is good at what they do. Being able to make the stuff they design requires a whole 'nother corporate skill set.
I'm not saying don't make stuff in China, I'm saying we can be good employers in China and set a standard by treating employees like we would expect NA employees to be treated, with respect and dignity.
I refuse to make my quality of living worse because this nation is undergoing it's own industrial revolution and hasn't worked out all of the humanitarian kinks. I buy US products whenever I can, and don't when it's not possible- buying and entirely "American" smart phone is not possible.
Singling out Apple here is not going to fix the issue, China as a nation needs to address this aggressively. With a population of about 1.5 billion people, the governments needs to protect it's workers like a union would here.
He was moral because of his values - the relentless pursuit of beauty and perfection in his work and life, to the utmost of his ability. He was moral because those values came from within himself, from the functioning of his own mind, and not second-hand from the morass of ideas going by the name of “morality” today. He was moral because he never gave up his ideas for the sake of others’ approval. He was moral because he did not give the unearned and undeserved and he did not seek the unearned and undeserved from others. He was moral because he had a SELF that embodied the best in man.
Those who measure morality by how much you give away to others, known or unknown, deserving or undeserving, do not understand that. They do not understand that before you can give, you have to create, but before you can create, your primary concern must be the process of creation itself, not the potential beneficiary of that creation. Yet, that is the only mechanism through which all can truly benefit. They do not understand the difference between forcing or cheating or defrauding and signing a voluntary contract. They feel guilty for buying a phone, but never question the morality that tells them they should feel so and never seek the roots of that guilt. They rail against the capitalist creator, but ignore the fact that bad working conditions are the logical result of a controlled economy, as if hundreds of millions of victims of communism were not enough to prove that. They scream in defense of the poor Chinese worker, but never ask how it happened that that worker never rose against its real oppressor.
Yes, Steve Jobs is my hero. And my other hero is Ayn Rand, who helped me understand what makes people like Steve Jobs possible. But she only showed me - my mind had to do the rest. I thought for myself, taking nothing for granted. I urge everyone to do the same.