5 ms·

The headline is misleading. A pie-chart from the underlying data[1] shows that the author somehow forgot to mention 21% of the profit from "Other" PC manufactu

The headline is misleading. A pie-chart from the underlying data[1] shows that the author somehow forgot to mention 21% of the profit from "Other" PC manufacturers. What isn't in dispute is that Apple charges more than its competitors for what is essentially the same Intel hardware, cobbled together in the same factories in China and elsewhere. Thus you could make an argument that Apple are the worst when it comes to profiteering from impoverished workers, even though their hands are clean thanks to the wonders of offshore outsourcing. [1] http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/

wmf 13y ago
Arguably Mac hardware is not essentially the same because the fit and finish is better, the BIOS is not total garbage, etc. Another way to look at it is that Apple charges $200 for OS X.
btian 13y ago
Mac has different hardware. Screen is better quality, retina screens are amazing. Finish is much better. Battery is denser. Fan is less noisy. I can go on but you get the idea. I agree that the processor is the same, but a computer is more than its CPU.
- Einherji 13y ago
  Especially in a time where even low-end consumer processors are enough for most people (even power users), I would argue that one of the most important metrics when buying a laptop is fit and finish. Not having 200 different SKUs in their product lineup also helps apple shave off development and production costs.
astrodust 13y ago
> Apple are the worst when it comes to profiteering from impoverished workers... Seriously? What sensationalism. Apple has been given a really hard time in the press, but they're also the only ones out there pressuring their suppliers to cut overtime, a move unpopular with the workers, and improve working conditions. Where are all the other companies that use Foxconn and other suppliers doing? What about clothing and fashion companies where the working conditions are apocalyptically bad compared to Foxconn?
- bitcartel 13y ago
  A key argument for offshore outsourcing is to take advantage of a lower cost base so you can price your finished goods more competitively. Apple have managed to keep prices high and thus maximize profit. If Mac manufacturing returned to the US, where Victorian working conditions are banned, it would probably be hard for Apple to keep those fat margins.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Steve Jobs was asked about this aspect of Apple's success. It's not the "Victorian" working conditions, which is hardly the case in a modern factory like Foxconn runs, but resources. If you want 5,000 skilled workers to assemble a new product that's shipping in three weeks, in the manufacturing districts of China and Taiwan you can snap your fingers and get them by the end of the day. In the US and Europe this would take weeks, if not months. There's no on-demand talent pool like this. It doesn't exist. On top of that, if you want something made, nearly anything, you can get it sourced immediately. You want magnets for your new iPad? There's a factory down the road from Foxconn that makes billions of them. You want batteries? Specialized rubber pads? A particular adhesive? A solvent? A new type of display panel? It's all being made right there, and probably just miles away. It could be on a truck to your factory within the day. No customs. No duty. No logistics other than picking up a phone. Don't forget Apple's original Macintosh computers were made in a state-of-the-art plant in California, but the scale of overseas manufacturers, who were making everything from toothbrushes to televisions, made it very difficult to keep competitive. It's not necessarily the wages of the workers, or their thrifty working conditions. It's the entire ecosystem. Despite all this, Mac manufacturing is returning to the US: (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/08/apple-mac-pro-made-in-us/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/08/apple-mac-pro-made-in...) Details aren't clear at this point, but it seems Apple's partnering with Foxconn to open up domestic manufacturing for selected products. This will probably make the supply chain a lot more complicated, but for something like the Mac Pro, which is low volume, high margin, and on a much more relaxed update cycle, it wouldn't be impossible. Same goes for other products like the Mac Mini. Let's not forget how horrible Victorian working conditions were. People in those times would find working at Foxconn to be like living in a palace. Flush toilets? Showers? Beds with mattresses? Company provided health care? A hard limit on over-time? No beatings? Foxconn's wages are well above the norm in that industry, even if thrifty by American standards.
ako 13y ago
I didn't buy my iMac for the hardware, but for OSX and also because it runs the best productivity suite for stuff that matters in my personal life: iLife. It's not just about the hardware, it's about the combination of hardware and software. But regarding hardware, I think apple was one of the first to have good mobile hardware: decent high resolution small size screen, good battery life, thin and light, and still good enough performance. It might be off the shelve hardware, but it's the choices they make that matters.
- steverb 13y ago
  Where I bought a MacBook for the hardware and immediately installed Windows 7 because it runs the best productivity suite for stuff that matters in my personal life: Visual Studio.

wmf 13y ago

Arguably Mac hardware is not essentially the same because the fit and finish is better, the BIOS is not total garbage, etc. Another way to look at it is that Apple charges $200 for OS X.

btian 13y ago

Mac has different hardware. Screen is better quality, retina screens are amazing. Finish is much better. Battery is denser. Fan is less noisy. I can go on but you get the idea. I agree that the processor is the same, but a computer is more than its CPU.

Einherji 13y ago
Especially in a time where even low-end consumer processors are enough for most people (even power users), I would argue that one of the most important metrics when buying a laptop is fit and finish. Not having 200 different SKUs in their product lineup also helps apple shave off development and production costs.

astrodust 13y ago

> Apple are the worst when it comes to profiteering from impoverished workers... Seriously? What sensationalism. Apple has been given a really hard time in the press, but they're also the only ones out there pressuring their suppliers to cut overtime, a move unpopular with the workers, and improve working conditions. Where are all the other companies that use Foxconn and other suppliers doing? What about clothing and fashion companies where the working conditions are apocalyptically bad compared to Foxconn?

bitcartel 13y ago
A key argument for offshore outsourcing is to take advantage of a lower cost base so you can price your finished goods more competitively. Apple have managed to keep prices high and thus maximize profit. If Mac manufacturing returned to the US, where Victorian working conditions are banned, it would probably be hard for Apple to keep those fat margins.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Steve Jobs was asked about this aspect of Apple's success. It's not the "Victorian" working conditions, which is hardly the case in a modern factory like Foxconn runs, but resources. If you want 5,000 skilled workers to assemble a new product that's shipping in three weeks, in the manufacturing districts of China and Taiwan you can snap your fingers and get them by the end of the day. In the US and Europe this would take weeks, if not months. There's no on-demand talent pool like this. It doesn't exist. On top of that, if you want something made, nearly anything, you can get it sourced immediately. You want magnets for your new iPad? There's a factory down the road from Foxconn that makes billions of them. You want batteries? Specialized rubber pads? A particular adhesive? A solvent? A new type of display panel? It's all being made right there, and probably just miles away. It could be on a truck to your factory within the day. No customs. No duty. No logistics other than picking up a phone. Don't forget Apple's original Macintosh computers were made in a state-of-the-art plant in California, but the scale of overseas manufacturers, who were making everything from toothbrushes to televisions, made it very difficult to keep competitive. It's not necessarily the wages of the workers, or their thrifty working conditions. It's the entire ecosystem. Despite all this, Mac manufacturing is returning to the US: (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/08/apple-mac-pro-made-in-us/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/08/apple-mac-pro-made-in...) Details aren't clear at this point, but it seems Apple's partnering with Foxconn to open up domestic manufacturing for selected products. This will probably make the supply chain a lot more complicated, but for something like the Mac Pro, which is low volume, high margin, and on a much more relaxed update cycle, it wouldn't be impossible. Same goes for other products like the Mac Mini. Let's not forget how horrible Victorian working conditions were. People in those times would find working at Foxconn to be like living in a palace. Flush toilets? Showers? Beds with mattresses? Company provided health care? A hard limit on over-time? No beatings? Foxconn's wages are well above the norm in that industry, even if thrifty by American standards.

ako 13y ago

I didn't buy my iMac for the hardware, but for OSX and also because it runs the best productivity suite for stuff that matters in my personal life: iLife. It's not just about the hardware, it's about the combination of hardware and software. But regarding hardware, I think apple was one of the first to have good mobile hardware: decent high resolution small size screen, good battery life, thin and light, and still good enough performance. It might be off the shelve hardware, but it's the choices they make that matters.

steverb 13y ago
Where I bought a MacBook for the hardware and immediately installed Windows 7 because it runs the best productivity suite for stuff that matters in my personal life: Visual Studio.