There are a few factories, one of them is dedicated to Apple products. But many electronics companies have their products made by Foxconn.
I just saw a one man show/monologue the other night, "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" that is about Foxconn and Jobs/Apple. The guy, Mike Daisy who is an Apple fan, describes visiting those factories, and talking to workers, former and current.
At the end, he talks about how Steve Jobs turned his back on the working conditions when he was singularly in a position to force change due to his power and position. He spoke of the "denialism" of Apple fans and how it turns out that Steve Jobs wasn't the guy they thought he was.
I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. The Foxconn factory in question is dedicated to making Apple products.
All you have to do is Google "Foxconn working conditions" and you will see story after story about the conditions in that plant.
I'm against any US company allowing those conditions, but Apple is especially of concern to me specifically due to the saint-like reputation of Jobs, which he in no way deserves. If any other CEO engaged in the kind of behavior he did, they'd be vilified, and rightly so.
He was saluted by the OWS protesters and that really bothered me. Apple is no different than the company they are attacking.
From what I have read here and elsewhere, my fears are justified. All kinds of excuses are made for his actions and behavior by the faithful.
The problem is, they don't want to compete. As I said elsewhere here, I think the copying thing is merely a smokescreen when the real objective is to cut out the competition by any means necessary. If they do have the superior product, it shouldn't matter if someone copies their GUI. The superior product should win out, no?
They are always touting how superior their products are so the fact there are inferior products out there that look like theirs should only reinforce that point.
I wish I could think of an example, but through the years we've all seen commercials for products where the basic thrust is, "Why have a copy when you can have the original?"
My biggest problem is that Jobs himself said he wanted to crush the competition. And you are correct, they are a company of self interest as anyone else. Where I veer off is that they have this image among the faithful and prospective customers that they aren't. That is dangerous considering their mission to create a closed, proprietary system. Rather than embrace freedom of information, they seek to restrict it.
We have seen how Jobs refused to sanction apps that he doesn't approve of, that have nothing to do with quality.
First, I'm not a billionaire, but I help when I can. Second, okay, I was wrong about his wife.
But she came into that marriage with that mindest, he didn't have it. When he re-took the helm at Apple he discontinued their charity division and never revived it. And why why did he rebuff Gates' and Buffet's call to donate his fortune like they did?
There used to be a thing called "noblesse oblige" among the rich. Jobs' wasn't a practitioner of that.
As to your comment, "providing for literally tens of thousands of good careers for people."
That's rich. Tell that to the workers in China who assemble Apple products and work for slave wages and in horrid conditions. It's so bad workers have been committing suicide and the company, Foxconn now makes new workers sign pledges that they won't commit suicide.
As an innovator he was brilliant. As a human being he was a douche. Oh and there is this little quote. A management science prof at Stanford, Robert Sutton wrote a book called the "No Asshole Rule." He is quoted as saying, "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story. The degree to which people in Silicon Valley are afraid of Jobs is unbelievable. He made people feel terrible; he made people cry.”
And I read this snarky headline recently, "While Steve Jobs is being considered for sainthood, a program funded by Bill and Melinda Gates is credited with preventing 100,000 new AIDS cases in India.
I loved the end of that article where they talk about donating 1st generation iPads that people turned in when upgrading. They donated products which cost them nothing to donate.
It depends what you mean by "bought" and "stole." Xerox allowed Apple to "use" their GUI in return for 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock at $10/share.
Apple then realized Xerox hadn't copyrighted their GUI, so they did. So, they now controlled all the licensing. Now, you can say it's all legal since Xerox didn't copyright it, but what Apple did was a real dick move.
I'm not talking about innovation here. Of course it should be rewarded. I'm talking about using design as a smokescreen to stifle competition.
If your product is the superior product, then it shouldn't matter that people are making cheap knock-offs. Let the consumer decide if they want an actual iPhone/iPad or something that looks like an iPhone/iPad.
It's interesting that the fight is all about design and not whether the iPhone/iPad is superior technologically, because that's the bottom line.
Let's say the Android look and feel is 100% exactly like the iPhone. If the iPhone is a superior product, why worry about the copycats? I would say it's less about the copying and more about the competition, or shutting down the competition.
"Jobs does donate. He did so mostly anonymously, but also through his wife. His wife sits on the board of many non-profit groups and charities."
Please check your facts first."
Really? Show me these facts. I haven't been able to find any and apparently neither has anyone else. Do you have the names of the charities his wife is involved with? Neither his wife's name nor his shows up on any charity list.
I think you guys are missing his point. It's not that the internet has killed, "big ideas," although it is the latest in a decades long march toward that end. The internet is a massive information dump where people think they are informed simply by the amount of information they get. They don't think beyond that information.
"It may seem counterintuitive that at a time when we know more than we have ever known, we think about it less."
He's absolutely right.
The kids don't want detailed discussions about various issues/topics or the bigger picture. Do you know the acronym, "tldr?" It is very common on boards where someone links to a lengthy article/essay. It stands for "Too long. Didn't read."
I write a column for an online site and the editorial guidelines say the rule of thumb for length should be 200-400 words because you don't want to lose the "attention of your readers." How on earth can you flesh out an idea or issue in any meaningful way in 400 words?
Why is a real estate company sending you confirmation for tickets? And why does the disclaimer mention Protected Health Information if it's a real estate company? Sounds like there's a virus in that attachment.
I have attorneys as clients and that confidentiality thing is boilerplate stuff they insert on all emails and faxes. (Yes, lawyers still uses faxes.) It's easier to put it in with your signature so you don't have to cut and paste it every time they do send something confidential. And yes, it is a way to avoid malpractice.
This new find is interesting considering the Chinese government just recently banned time travel themes in movies and TV. Apparently they don't like the idea of themes that go back before the revolution and any idea that things might have been better back then.
Now, having said that, I think the way scientists are looking at time travel may be wrong. They're assuming that time is linear. Now, with quantum physics, string theory and the idea of multiple universes/parallel dimensions gaining traction, it could be that time is parallel and not linear.
If these dimensions exist, perhaps it might be possible. But it wouldn't technically be "time" travel.
"The same point comes up here often: the real value is in the service, not the content."
Hmmm. Without the content, there would be no service?
I think many of the writers to the HuffPo have professions where writing a blog is merely a sideline or vanity thing. They have people writing that are heavy hitters in their respective fields. When the site first started she had a stable of known names. That's what started the buzz.
Also, they do have paid staff, including in-house reporters, so people do get paid. The big question is, can you pay some and not others? As I noted in another post, the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits working for free for a business that makes over 500K/yr.
And, the Dept of Labor has cracked down on such free labor like internships. One of the main criteria as to whether an unpaid internship is legal or not is whether it is "training." If the intern doesn't displace regular paid workers, and the employer “derives no immediate advantage,” from the intern, it is legal.
In the case of the HuffPo, since there are paid employees writing for them, is not paying the bloggers a way to avoid hiring people to write? Does that fall under the character of displacing a paid worker? No one is actually displaced but can the definition be broadened to mean avoid hiring people? I don't know.
Now, does HP derive an "immediate advantage" from unpaid bloggers and other writers? I'd be curious as to how HP sees these writers, in a legal sense.
I'm wondering if the the Fair Labor Standards Act might actually forbid this type of arrangement. "Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers." Now what constitutes an employee is up for debate. I do know that if the employer makes more than $500k/year they have to pay you to do work for them.