Apple to have asked its suppliers in Taiwan to avoid using "Made in Taiwan!?

[tooki]

But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.

This is a myth and wrong. You shouldn't be propagating such an untruth.

Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.

Soooo close but no cigar: your quote is true. So is my claim. How can both be true? Because not all corporations are publicly traded. The case you linked to was one regarding a privately-held company, which has much more freedom to manage itself how it wants. But once you have publicly traded shares, the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value comes into play, and there have been many court decisions supporting this. I specifically said “publicly traded” because this is the key condition.


From https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-value

The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."

Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."

(Emphasis mine.)

[AndyBeez]

Maybe Apple is going to standardize it's own small print into 'one nation' small print?

This from a pamphlet in the 'Hello' sleeve that no-one ever reads because everyone is just too excited to plug in the box and get it linked to their Apple ID:

[tooki]

Apple has always been unprincipled, never interested in anything but money.[...]

I’ve worked for Apple, and can say with confidence that they do have goals beyond just making money. (And in some areas, like supplier responsibility and environmental impact, Apple is far ahead of any competitor.) [...]

"Far ahead of any competitor" is a bold statement.

I bet you meant 'I worked at apple and it seemed like they cared.'  Or have you also worked in multiple departments at every single one of their competitors?

From personal experience, I can vouch for Apple having a true sense of customer-centricity, elegance, and design. (One could, of course, argue that that is Apple’s approach to increasing sales.) Meanwhile, Apple’s commitment to supplier responsibility, reducing environmental impact, and making their products accessible to special-needs users are all well documented and externally audited. Apple remains the only big tech company to rigorously audit its suppliers — supplier employees frequently report that no other customers ever audit them. (And Apple has followed through and terminated contracts with suppliers that violate its rules.)

And let’s not forget the way the media often twists the truth regarding Apple, because beating on Apple gets clicks. A perfect example is about working conditions: some years ago, it hit the news of a supposed epidemic of worker suicides at Foxconn, a major supplier. And it’s true, there had been some worker suicides, and the number looked bad— until you looked at the sheer number of Foxconn employees. Turns out, the rate of Foxconn worker suicides was very significantly lower than that of the Chinese population at large!

Or how Greenpeace ranked environmental responsibility solely by what companies promised to do, not whether they actually did it!  So companies that made huge pie-in-the-sky promises got top marks, while Apple, which actually did what it said it was doing (and often didn’t say anything until after the fact) got ranked poorly, despite actually doing more.

[tooki]

They must be doing some amazing stuff then, to make up for the fact that they have more versions of charge cables than average

They have USB A to Lightning, USB-C to Lightning, USB-C to USB-C, USB-C to MagSafe 3, USB A to Apple Watch, and USB-C to Apple Watch. Of these, devices with Lightning or USB-C inputs form the overwhelming majority. The Watch is literally the sole product they sell that cannot charge using either Lightning or USB-C.

How is that any more complex than what other brands have, between micro USB, mini USB, USB-C, and various specialty plugs on the device end, and USB A, USB-C, or micro USB OTG on the charger end? It’s a comparable matrix of combinations, if not bigger.

they don't make it easy to replace batteries

Nor do most competitors, and unlike the competitors, Apple has a large network of its own stores, resellers, and a mail-in program, all of which replace the battery quickly and at reasonable cost.

and they purposefully slow down older devices.

This isn’t true, and it never was. Some versions of the OSes (most notably iOS 11 in my experience)  did slow down old devices, but it’s because the newer software simply exceeded the hardware resources. (So yes, slowdown, but not “purposefully”.) With iOS 12, Apple made huge optimizations, such that iOS 12 ran faster on old devices than iOS 10 did, bringing it back to iOS 9 speeds. Ever since then, every iOS update has maintained performance really well.

[deadlylover]

Here is an environmental report on the latest iPhone. It’s hard to find any equivalent from their competitors, you’d think they’d jump on any opportunity to one up Apple, no?

https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_13_Pro_PER_Sept2021.pdf

256GB of flash is 12kg of CO2 emissions, that’s a fun fact.

The sheer economic output of a 2+ trillion dollar company is a net good for the world IMO. But they use Lightning cables so they’re the most evil company on earth…

Well at least we can all agree the best thing Apple makes is their stock, we probably all owe a decent chunk of our retirements to them.

[james_s]

I don't know... I think it has potential. After the sanctions that China placed on Australian coal and iron, we've seen nothing but a strong economy. The world is realising that relying less on China isn't necessarily bad or unachievable. Even average consumers here have been turning away from Chinese produce and electronics for years. Seldom do you see food made in China in Australian supermarkets anymore and the same goes with consumer goods and electronics. Household products made by Bosch/Siemens is one example, it's used as a marketing tool.

People have short memories, it doesn't take long for them to forget a major catastrophe and go back to doing whatever they were doing that led up to it. Production may well move away from China, but I suspect it will be to some other lower cost region of the world with a new set of problems. It should be obvious though that relying too much on ANY other nation no matter how friendly is a risky situation. Global politics are hard to predict and harder to control.

[PlainName]

But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.

This is a myth and wrong. You shouldn't be propagating such an untruth.

Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.

Soooo close but no cigar: your quote is true. So is my claim. How can both be true? Because not all corporations are publicly traded. The case you linked to was one regarding a privately-held company, which has much more freedom to manage itself how it wants. But once you have publicly traded shares, the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value comes into play, and there have been many court decisions supporting this. I specifically said “publicly traded” because this is the key condition.


From https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-value

The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."

Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."

(Emphasis mine.)

Talk about cherry-picking! From the very same article you selectively quoted:

The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”

Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.

[David Hess]

Maybe the Taiwan's chip fab houses should stamp "Taiwan Is A Sovereign Nation" round the edge of their silicon, in 60nm. Or even inside multi layer boards.

Taiwan goes to considerable effort not to poke the Chinese dragon needlessly.  Eventually that will not be enough, but enough provocation now would provoke a war or punitive actions.

[tooki]

Talk about cherry-picking! From the very same article you selectively quoted:

Ummm… duh? “Quoting” is selective copying, otherwise it’s just copying the whole thing.

That article is an opinion piece showing both sides. But frankly, one side (my side) is much more strongly supported by evidence than the other. The author of the opposing argument is precisely the “some academics” the author I quoted is referring to!

 

The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”

Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.

And again, the key issue is publicly traded. Every publicly traded corporation is a corporation, but not every corporation is a publicly traded corporation. (The existence of stockholders does NOT mean it’s publicly traded.) So the officers of “a corporation” do not have to maximize shareholder value, but the officers of a publicly traded corporation do. This distinction, which you pretended I didn’t explain to you already, is not that hard to grasp!

[AndyBeez]

Taiwan goes to considerable effort not to poke the Chinese dragon needlessly.  Eventually that will not be enough, but enough provocation now would provoke a war or punitive actions.

Interesting idea, China invades Taiwan because someone used "tiananmen square freedom democracy massacre" as a their crypto vault's private keypair? I'm sure the red army will receive the same warm welcome from the Taiwanese people as the Russian's special operation received.

Too provocative? Not our problem Mr Hess. Any shooting shit show is Australia and Japan's problemo. We'll just send 'technology' plus a load of Starlink dishes - so we can watch the explosions on Fox News.

[PlainName]

That article is an opinion piece

Which turns out to be good enough when you want to push your point but not for anything else.

On the other hand the author is "Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School", and I reckon her opinion is rather more pertinent than your repetition of an Internet myth.

[Marco]

I’ve worked for Apple, and can say with confidence that they do have goals beyond just making money. (And in some areas, like supplier responsibility and environmental impact, Apple is far ahead of any competitor.)

The Apple board condones people in the company to try to achieve goals which seemingly serve some greater good while costing the company money directly ... because it makes the company money indirectly. Apple is in a position to spend money to seem more charitable due to their margins and size. Adopting more ambitious green/humanitarian goals and semi-forcing that on their competitors, who don't have the scale or margins to achieve them as efficiently as Apple, can have a competitive advantage. A more positive brand also helps them to fight off regulators etc.

But they of course only condone it up to a point, which is to say until it starts costing the company money in the greater scheme of things. So when push comes to shove and appeasing a totalitarian regime improves the bottom line, they will come up with any convenient excuse at hand to do what everyone also does ... because principles are fine for show, but they aren't a charity. They act better sometimes because it is part of their business model, assigning morality to it is deeply naive.

[gamalot]

It was started 10+ years ago but was not strictly enforced, and was used as a reaction to what happened recently.

[Kasper]

They must be doing some amazing stuff then, to make up for the fact that they have more versions of charge cables than average [...]

How is that any more complex than what other brands have, between micro USB, mini USB, USB-C, and various specialty plugs on the device end, and USB A, USB-C, or micro USB OTG on the charger end? It’s a comparable matrix of combinations, if not bigger.

Take number of USB cable models and divide by number of companies that use them.  Then do the same with lightning cables.

Imagine if every company acted like apple and each one had their own cables.

they don't make it easy to replace batteries

Nor do most competitors, and unlike the competitors, Apple has a large network of its own stores, resellers, and a mail-in program, all of which replace the battery quickly and at reasonable cost.

I'm no phone connoisseur but I think easily replaceable batteries are less common than they used to be.  Perhaps apple set the trend and others followed.  If that is the case then apple deserves even more blame.

and they purposefully slow down older devices.

This isn’t true, and it never was.

Tell it to the judge.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns

Ever since then, every iOS update has maintained performance really well.

Ever since they got caught.

[magic]

Well at least we can all agree the best thing Apple makes is their stock, we probably all owe a decent chunk of our retirements to them.

Unless China pulls the plug like Putin
You will retire with nothing and you will be happy

[Ed.Kloonk]

I look forward to that happening. I suspect it won't.

I don't know... I think it has potential. After the sanctions that China placed on Australian coal and iron, we've seen nothing but a strong economy. The world is realising that relying less on China isn't necessarily bad or unachievable. Even average consumers here have been turning away from Chinese produce and electronics for years. Seldom do you see food made in China in Australian supermarkets anymore and the same goes with consumer goods and electronics. Household products made by Bosch/Siemens is one example, it's used as a marketing tool.

Japan did a thing in 2020 and told Japanese companies that instead of having their manufacturing being chased out of Japan with taxes and costs, the govt would now instead entice them to bring back local manufacturing in the form of tax breaks. They avoided naming names, of course.

I'm sure what happened last month to that PM had nothing to the change of policy that he brought in. But I understand if it was one of the reasons he was made to resign. And the offer wasn't as simple as just opening a new factory. Other countries have been slow to adopt this type of policy, if any, prolly hoping it would all blow over before spending too much money moving stuff around.

[tooki]

That article is an opinion piece

Which turns out to be good enough when you want to push your point but not for anything else.

On the other hand the author is "Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School", and I reckon her opinion is rather more pertinent than your repetition of an Internet myth.

And the opposing piece is written by “Stephen Bainbridge, the William D. Warren distinguished professor of law at U.C.L.A. School of Law, is the author, most recently, of "Corporate Governance After the Financial Crisis.”
And it’s not “internet myth”, it’s also what I was taught in the accounting and management courses I took in university.

Plus the whole court precedent thing.

[tooki]

Take number of USB cable models and divide by number of companies that use them.  Then do the same with lightning cables.

Imagine if every company acted like apple and each one had their own cables.

I agree on the last point. But most phone manufacturers are tiny players. The top 3 manufacturers make up over half of shipments. If every one of the top 3 made its own plug, they’d have similar volumes as Apple with Lightning. And Apple had good reason to create Lightning at the time: no connector on the market met their needs. USB-C wouldn’t come for a few years (and its design was influenced by Lightning). Had Apple switched to USB-C right away, people and media would have cried about yet another proprietary plug that was only around for a short while.

As for the first point: the percentage of manufacturers doesn’t matter. What matters is the percentage of phones, and Apple is a significant player. 1 in 6 smartphones shipped last quarter was an iPhone.

[tooki]

and they purposefully slow down older devices.

This isn’t true, and it never was.

Tell it to the judge.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns

A settlement doesn’t actually mean the accusations are true or not. It’s not a decision. It simply means Apple decided it’d be cheaper or strategic to pay that rather than go to trial.

Nor do I have much faith in juries to actually understand the nuance of technical issues without bias— just like you aren’t.

Apple’s only real mistake in the entire batterygate thing was not being candid about the prevent-shutdowns-on-compromised-batteries feature (which, incidentally, will do the same on a later model whose iOS shipped with that feature already, not just on updating) activating and what it meant to the user.

But that feature aside, the general complaints of “ermagherd i installed a new OS and now my doodad is slower”… like, um, that’s how software generally works. It takes a TON of effort to optimize. (And it’s nice to see that Apple and Microsoft have both done it over the past few years.)

[Marco]

To get back to the original topic. Apple has the same option everyone has to protest unjust law. Civil disobedience. Befehl ist Befehl is no excuse.

Now I don't blame Apple for just chasing monetary self interest instead, but trying to claim the moral high ground for the company while they are doing this shit is ridiculous. It's wrong, the fact that I abet companies who do wrong is wrong, it's all wrong. There is no moral high ground in this, just compromise for the sake of greed and comfort.

[tooki]

The difference is that people and the media hold Apple to far higher standards than any other company. Meanwhile, Apple’s “moral high ground” claims aren’t any different from any other company’s — other than the things enumerated in their supplier responsibility and environmental standards, where Apple is very transparent in both goals and results.

[jonovid]

wall street journal is saying
70% of World semiconductor supply is out of Taiwan
TSMC
https://www.tsmc.com/english

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-relies-on-one-chip-maker-in-taiwan-leaving-everyone-vulnerable-11624075400
update

if this is true then........