or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › New York Times gets Gizmodo treatment from Apple after negative reports
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New York Times gets Gizmodo treatment from Apple after negative reports - Page 3

post #81 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I hope that the NYT does not get emotionally involved with the subject matter. I think that they should be dispassionate, and call the facts as they lay.

IMO, all the media outlets want people to buy their product.

And maybe if they were actually being dispassionate about it and actually printed facts, people would.

The worst part about media these days is that they never print the truth. They just shirk around it or ignore it in favor of trivial nonsense about celebrities or funny animal videos.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #82 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Try reading before offering your opinion.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...p-electronics/

Perhaps this is why Pogue still recieved Mountain Lion a week early and had it demoed to him
post #83 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I think SJ would disagree with you, he held the NYT in high regard.

SJ is dead. Long live Tim!
post #84 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

NYT has clearly not been reporting accurately (in an unbiased manner) about Apple of late.

Maybe it's some friction over subscription revenue.

Maybe it's the inability of NYT to provide a good app. (Ever seen the WSJ on the iPad?)

Maybe it's the realization that Silicon Valley isn't moving to NYC.

There is absolutely no connection between the subscription / revenue side of an organization like the NYT and the editorial / reporting side. They literally don't usually even talk to each other.
post #85 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post

The NYT is one of "the" publications of the ruling elite, along with WSJ. Remember how the Times served as a conduit for the war propaganda leading up to Bush's invasion of Iraq? The Times gave Judith Miller carte blanche to report all sorts of lies about the supposed threats posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, never mind giving William Safire a column on the Op-Ed to do his part to get us cranked up for war. Leading a country to war based upon lies is not what a "liberal" publication would do.

It's clear the Times has become anti-Apple, but let's not call them liberal - they're anything but.

And their coverage of the BP spill in the Gulf was pathetic. There were photos in most blogs for weeks before the Times finally started publishing them.

So I come here not to praise the Times. I am not a subscriber and won't be any time soon.

But I am also deeply unhappy about the path the computer industry has taken. It's not just working conditions, it's also that China is largely coal powered and the contractor companies dump toxic waste, etc.

I'd rather pay more for my gear if that's what it takes to obtain not only quality but an end-to-end supply, sales, and recycling product cycle that is not an insult to nature or people.

Apple is failing here just like all the others. But I care more about Apple because I am an Apple customer, and because I already knew the others were mediocre companies.

What is frustrating is that I cannot vote with my feet. The whole industry is essentially the same, and some of it is considerably worse. All I can do is buy the minimum I need and make it last as long as possible, but I still feel like an enabler of these practices.

To paraphrase Cook, I find it offensive that the tech industry, Apple included, has fostered working conditions worthy of mid 19th-century England.
post #86 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

I'd rather pay more for my gear if that's what it takes to obtain not only quality but an end-to-end supply, sales, and recycling product cycle that is not an insult to nature or people.

OK. You pay $5,000.00 for your iPad. The normal people pay $500.

Fair enough?
post #87 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Seems fair to me.

Yellow journalism is yellow journalism whether it's practiced by a bunch of high school kids or the old farts on the New York Times. They knew they were publishing half-truths and untruths. Que sera sera as Doris Day would say.

If Apple continued to treat them like other news sources it would send the wrong message. If only other companies, government agencies and so on would do the same then we wouldn't be subjected to so much crap and lies disguised as entertainment and "news."

Truer words have never been spoken. I couldn't agree more.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #88 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

OK. You pay $5,000.00 for your iPad. The normal people pay $500.

Fair enough?

A straw man argument if there ever was one. The difference is just not that high. Apple manufactured in the US till well after Jobs returned, including iMacs, Power Macs, etc.

And I am not even saying Apple should manufacture in the US, as nice as that would be.

I'd pay $600 or $700, no problem, if I knew (not just vague "we are improving" assertions) the money was being used to improve the supply chain. Even more if the product cycle was documented cradle-to-cradle sustainable.

I am already willing to spend more for Apple laptops in part because the cases are entirely made of aluminum.
post #89 of 185
What would you expect Apple to do here? Imagine yourself in the same situation. Apple is indeed under a lot of pressure regarding working conditions at suppliers plants. There is nothing wrong with the media driving this issue. But there is also nothing wrong with Apple's desire to work closely with supportive media outlets when launching new products. I think most people can read the NYT article and clearly see where there is fairness or not in the reporting. But ultimately, would one really expect Apple to give open invitations to the NYT after that?

The reality remains - working conditions in many countries are terrible. Americans can and have lost those jobs to such places. It is reasonable to explore this issue. Apple indeed needs to answer to this line of discussion. But for product launches who would choose to select outlets with a recent history of sharp criticism? Really!
post #90 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by luinil View Post

That's very bad communication tactics.
The public (except some apple addicts like here..) will not think that they punished the NYT for telling lies, but for telling the truth Apple wanted to hide.

The "Evil Apple" image is growing every day, and such practice won't help with that.

Wrong. The "public" will never know this happened. Nerds who read Apple rumor forums (not to mention Android ones and the rest) have already decided how they feel about Apple, NYT et al, so this will have no impact.
post #91 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by luinil View Post

That's very bad communication tactics.
The public (except some apple addicts like here..) will not think that they punished the NYT for telling lies, but for telling the truth Apple wanted to hide.

The "Evil Apple" image is growing every day, and such practice won't help with that.

Your post strikes me as another perfect example of all of the "fandroids and Apple haters" grasping at straws trying to find something, anything negative to say about Apple. It doesn't even have to be truthful .... you'll still use it. It's getting tougher everyday to stay on the opposing side of the most valuable and successful company in the world, isn't it? The green eyes of jealousy does tend to distort one's view.

What the NYT did cannot be classified as journalism in my books .... because, as I see it, journalism requires at least some effort to tell the truth, not just "over the fence unsubstantiated gossip". No wonder no one wants to pay for this kind of "reporting" anymore.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #92 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

To paraphrase Cook, I find it offensive that the tech industry, Apple included, has fostered working conditions worthy of mid 19th-century England.

That's a fantastically apt assessment. It's something that so may of us living in the "21st century world" don't grasp. It's also the reason changes can't be made now or this year or even in the next 5 to 10 years. We're in the "21st century" in the west, but China isn't. China is progressing through it's industrial phase with incredible speed, but it's something that took the western world more than a century. The technology available as a result of the west's industrial development is actually easing and accelerating the process for China, but it can't just be dropped into the west's vision of the modern world. It's not just a matter of technology. Chinese society needs to adapt to the changing technological conditions, to find the meeting of culture and technology that suits it, and that's something that absolutely cannot be forced - it takes decades, not years. It's a growth process not event, and something we can (and do) participate in and influence (but not force), by virtue of of our interactions (direct or indirect) with China on the global stage.

You can, and do, vote with your feet (or your dollars) by choosing products from the companies whose practices you feel best reflect your values (even if it's not perfectly).
post #93 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnesota_Steve View Post

What would you expect Apple to do here?

Increase the amount of dialog it has with the media. Win them back instead of alienating them. Sell them on stories about all the good things that Apple is doing. Use them for free advertising about how Apple is now doing wonderful things.
post #94 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnesota_Steve View Post

The reality remains - working conditions in many countries are terrible. Americans can and have lost those jobs to such places. It is reasonable to explore this issue. Apple indeed needs to answer to this line of discussion. But for product launches who would choose to select outlets with a recent history of sharp criticism? Really!

Apple does have the right to snub the NYT if that's what they want to do. The line they should not even consider crossing is, for example, to remove NYT subscriptions from the App store.

Having said that, the NYT also has the right to publish whatever it sees fit. A few people here don't seem to understand that. As Joseph Pulitzer said: "Newspapers should have no friends".
post #95 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

That's a fantastically apt assessment. It's something that so may of us living in the "21st century world" don't grasp. It's also the reason changes can't be made now or this year or even in the next 5 to 10 years. We're in the "21st century" in the west, but China isn't. China is progressing through it's industrial phase with incredible speed, but it's something that took the western world more than a century.

...

influence (but not force), by virtue of of our interactions (direct or indirect) with China on the global stage.

I could agree with that if we would be talking about home-grown Chinese industry. But we are not. We are talking about our own industry moving to China. Apple and the rest of the industry essentially control the working conditions in those factories. I understand you can't, and shouldn't, try to make China into a Western mirror image overnight or over any period of time. But you can have decent working conditions.

Here is a simple metric: if a worker making iPads can't possibly afford even the cheapest model, the wages are too low. If they have virtually no time off, then the hours are too long. If they can be made to work at any hour, day or night, with little or no notice, then the conditions are too harsh.

China needs to be China, but you don't need to replay the 19th century again every time a country industrializes, particularly if the companies responsible are from the West and already know how that played out.
post #96 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's ironic since the quality of NYT articles suggests they're mostly written by children.

true. that's why foxconn just announced raises for workers....nothing to do with the reports i am sure
post #97 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I'm sure Apple would not take this action if reports about were negative, but nevertheless objective and true. Based on what the Fair Labor organisation said about the conditions in Apple's factories, the NYT report was not objective.

Oh, NYT has a slam on them today. Surprise, surprise.

NYT is pouting. Childish.
post #98 of 185
When periodicals were more about news and less about advertising and subscriptions (which is itself a mistaken view because at one level or another, you need subscriptions and ad revenue to keep the lights on and the presses running) and media was less electronic and more analog - there was LESS pressure to generate hits or popularize the "news" and better (not perfect) focus on capturing the reality of a situation.

Yes, in those days they may well have led with stories about Apple as a hook, but then continued on to report the why of situations of Foxconn's, where you have a huge influx of young people trying to escape the sub-poverty of rural/argricultural China, working long hours because it means you have more money to send home to support the rest of your family. That you committed suicide because that relieved the huge amount of pain experienced trying to adapt to isolated urban living from family based community living at home. And your company promises to send home a large sum of money as a death benefit for your family - little realizing that it would encourage suicides. And that the Chinese government is allowing these operations to grow because it builds and reinforces the Chinese economy by using one of their most expendable assets - people.

And yes the garment industry there is hellacious compared to Foxconn and Pegatron electronics manufacturers, as is mining, metalworking/smelting, mineral processing, and of course the subsistence level farming that a large portion of the Chinese population lives on. But that Dell, HP Sony, Samsung all were using Foxconn for assembly long before Apple came onboard - in fact most PCs in that 90th percentile of the PC market under Windows is built or componentized largely under the Foxconn label. That's nearly a billion and a half units starting well before the iDevice revolution.

But in fact the NYT article didn't dig into the actual issues, the cultural issues or the economic issues. Those all got a quick gloss and the superficial link-baiting tarring of Apple took precedence instead. The media organizations are being thoroughly disrupted by the iDevice/post-PC paradigm shift, and necessity drives action. You could argue that since Apple has been at the helm of the paradigm shift, that the NYT would want to target them as the source of the impact, and mitigate their own failure to be nimble enough to ride the changing media environment back to a successful model.

No news organization is un-agendaed or unbiased. Anyone who claims that is woefully uneducated about journalism, and about how the large media houses influence the agendas and biases. This is why you have openly competing biases now.

No one, including Tim Cook, is trying to give Apple a free ride on driving better working conditions for the world's workers that build the products we consume. But to openly target the one company on record as trying to mitigate the issues, when so many other companies are silent and not open about doing the same thing, while enjoying the benefits of having their popular consumer devices built under similar or worse circumstances. And then to use exclusively anonymous ex-executives to criticize Apple's alleged internal attitudes, doesn't reinforce the strength of the report, it undermines it. Anytime someone relies on the demand for anonymity to report on things like that is a strong indicator that they have a personal agenda to push. Usually in the past, they would use anonymous sources to buttress a strong amount of evidence provided by known sources. NYT didn't do that either. Journalistically from an historical perspective, it was rather pathetic. Moreso if the Pulitzer organization decides to give them a prize for it, simply for the human interest angle. But then Pulitzer is populated by news editors, and itself has been accused of bias in it's own decisions about awards.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #99 of 185
I agree. Apple should also ban the idiots at engadget. They've turned extemely biased against Apple since they're mostly Android fanboys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Seems fair to me.

Yellow journalism is yellow journalism whether it's practiced by a bunch of high school kids or the old farts on the New York Times. They knew they were publishing half-truths and untruths. Que sera sera as Doris Day would say.

If Apple continued to treat them like other news sources it would send the wrong message. If only other companies, government agencies and so on would do the same then we wouldn't be subjected to so much crap and lies disguised as entertainment and "news."
post #100 of 185
The New York Times made it sound like Apple was the worst employer of all the Foxconn clients when in fact Apple was the best. They made it sound like Apple was the most callous when in fact they were the most proactive in addressing labor abuses. They intentionally appealed to American stereotypes about labor conditions in the 3rd World even though they know (unless they have a bunch of incredibly incompetent editors and reporters) that average blue collar working conditions and pay in China is far worse than in Foxconn's Apple operations.

They made that editorial choice because they knew it would be more sensational, sell more papers and get more page views. They could have presented all the facts that they dug up in a more balanced piece but of course that won't generate as much revenue.

What would you do if you were subjected to the same kind of hatchet job?
post #101 of 185
It is sad to see apologists for any company, let alone Apple which I don't think benefits from nor needs such hollow defending.

First, I'm suspicious of the allegation that Apple blacklisted the NYT at all. As others have pointed out, David Pogue definitely got a personal preview of Mountain Lion. Second, in regards to the NYT reporting on Foxconn and specifically Apple's involvement I think it's grossly unfair to call that a hit piece simply because it shows Apple in a negative light. Even Apple did not dispute the factual aspects of the story, but focused that they take their responsibilities seriously and are at the forefront of improving working conditions in their supply chain. The NYT story and Apple's positive efforts are not mutually exclusive. Now one can reasonably complain that Apple is bearing an unreasonable amount of the attention despite other companies also use Foxconn, but that's a red hearing if the underlying facts are true for Apple.

Things like focus from Greenpeace or NYT articles ultimately make Apple both a better corporate citizen and company, and consumers benefit with safer and more socially conscious products.
post #102 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

When periodicals were more about news and less about advertising and subscriptions (which is itself a mistaken view because at one level or another, you need subscriptions and ad revenue to keep the lights on and the presses running) and media was less electronic and more analog - there was LESS pressure to generate hits or popularize the "news" and better (not perfect) focus on capturing the reality of a situation.

Yes, in those days they may well have led with stories about Apple as a hook, but then continued on to report the why of situations of Foxconn's, where you have a huge influx of young people trying to escape the sub-poverty of rural/argricultural China, working long hours because it means you have more money to send home to support the rest of your family. That you committed suicide because that relieved the huge amount of pain experienced trying to adapt to isolated urban living from family based community living at home. And your company promises to send home a large sum of money as a death benefit for your family - little realizing that it would encourage suicides. And that the Chinese government is allowing these operations to grow because it builds and reinforces the Chinese economy by using one of their most expendable assets - people.

And yes the garment industry there is hellacious compared to Foxconn and Pegatron electronics manufacturers, as is mining, metalworking/smelting, mineral processing, and of course the subsistence level farming that a large portion of the Chinese population lives on. But that Dell, HP Sony, Samsung all were using Foxconn for assembly long before Apple came onboard - in fact most PCs in that 90th percentile of the PC market under Windows is built or componentized largely under the Foxconn label. That's nearly a billion and a half units starting well before the iDevice revolution.

But in fact the NYT article didn't dig into the actual issues, the cultural issues or the economic issues. Those all got a quick gloss and the superficial link-baiting tarring of Apple took precedence instead. The media organizations are being thoroughly disrupted by the iDevice/post-PC paradigm shift, and necessity drives action. You could argue that since Apple has been at the helm of the paradigm shift, that the NYT would want to target them as the source of the impact, and mitigate their own failure to be nimble enough to ride the changing media environment back to a successful model.

No news organization is un-agendaed or unbiased. Anyone who claims that is woefully uneducated about journalism, and about how the large media houses influence the agendas and biases. This is why you have openly competing biases now.

No one, including Tim Cook, is trying to give Apple a free ride on driving better working conditions for the world's workers that build the products we consume. But to openly target the one company on record as trying to mitigate the issues, when so many other companies are silent and not open about doing the same thing, while enjoying the benefits of having their popular consumer devices built under similar or worse circumstances. And then to use exclusively anonymous ex-executives to criticize Apple's alleged internal attitudes, doesn't reinforce the strength of the report, it undermines it. Anytime someone relies on the demand for anonymity to report on things like that is a strong indicator that they have a personal agenda to push. Usually in the past, they would use anonymous sources to buttress a strong amount of evidence provided by known sources. NYT didn't do that either. Journalistically from an historical perspective, it was rather pathetic. Moreso if the Pulitzer organization decides to give them a prize for it, simply for the human interest angle. But then Pulitzer is populated by news editors, and itself has been accused of bias in it's own decisions about awards.

Well said.
post #103 of 185
Wise man say

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer"



I think apple should reconsider their strategy fast. Honestly, what have they got to be afraid of?
post #104 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

OK. You pay $5,000.00 for your iPad. The normal people pay $500.

Fair enough?

We've actually seen this play out before. Greenpeace was highly critical of Apple's use of environmentally unfriendly materials in devices. Apple responded to the message - either because it didn't like the negative publicity or because it really cares to reduce the usage of environmentally friendly materials - and we all have actually safer devices now as a result.

You can argue as to Apple's motivation, but it seems fair to say that shining a light on certain behaviors does effectuate change. I personally have no problem with reporting on Apple's or any other company's behavior, because it motivates the company to improve...for whatever reason.
post #105 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuttyappledude View Post

Wise man say

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer"

I think apple should reconsider their strategy fast. Honestly, what have they got to be afraid of?

The last time Apple kept their enemies close, Android was stolen from iOS.

The time before that, Windows was stolen from Mac OS.

They know what they're doing better than you.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #106 of 185
The times thinks that capitalism in it's pure form is evil, and that they, the nyt are the watchdogs for social abuse. They think that all those who make money should have a responsibility to take care of the evils of society and that any company that is successful must be abusing the masses and child abuse (child labor) is the poster boy for this attitude. Since they are the watchdogs and they have the mission to prevent abuse it is ok if they over report a story because they are morally in the right as they expose the mean capitalist companies who must be causing human suffering because they are making so much money. In their minds if they are a little wrong on a story, as long as they are morally right it is ok. That's what we are seeing here with this article. Pretty much standard story line for the NYT. By the way the TV show law and order takes this same formula to the extreme, it used to be a show worth watching but for the past 5 years the show has just become too pious and predictable (child abuse righteous indignation, cops who exude empathy). For the times it is company makes money, company abuses workers, company is evil has no compassion or ruins environment, or heats the planet we, the nyt, prove that financial success only comes to those step on the backs of others and take unfair advantage.
Now the question is whether this is pay back for making print media superfluous, or for some perceived slight in the past, or for being used by Jobs in the past.
Jobs knew how to handle the times, Cook is showing that he has a pair as well. In the business world when you get pushed you have to push back.
post #107 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthropic View Post

It's such a pity Apple behaves so poorly, their childish corporate behaviour really detracts from what should be more news about their awesome products.

And you are a fk'ng moron!
post #108 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Nice going Apple! I am sure New York Times will write another negative editorial about their mis-treatment!

What are they supposed to do? Turn a blind eye? Cooperate as though the NYT was *not* in the wrong in singling out Apple, of all companies, when discussing Chinese manufacturing issues?

I think Apple's done exactly the right thing here.
post #109 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleia View Post

Calling ALL JOURNALIST, BLOGGERS, the media as a whole to take action and condemn such acts by Apple in trying to control the freedom of speaking and/or writing whether for or against the company.

Uh, you're free to "speak and/or write" whatever the frack you want. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean others have to listen to you, help you, accommodate you, etc. The only thing the First Amendment says is that *government* can't abridge an individual's right to speak. Private citizens and companies can (and should) tell you to shove it, if they don't like what you're saying.

For you to tell Apple otherwise directly violates your own precept!
post #110 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleia View Post

Calling ALL JOURNALIST, BLOGGERS, the media as a whole to take action and condemn such acts by Apple in trying to control the freedom of speaking and/or writing whether for or against the company. This is not about the stated article any more, this is already a form of manipulation whether directly or indirectly to withhold information which are against Apple and which the public must know.

Apple, being the attraction and currently being in the limelight, must realize that in your current position as a "Leader" in consumer electronics garners attention and being thrust into public scrutiny is inevitable. You are not perfect and the public will surely criticize. What you should do is improve, take action, prove whats true and whats not true and not to resort to your "childish" acts towards NYTimes.

Please please please either pull your head out of your as-s, or if that's not going to work, push it further in!
post #111 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthropic View Post

It's such a pity Apple behaves so poorly, their childish corporate behaviour really detracts from what should be more news about their awesome products.

Oh, I didn't know you are ENTITLED to receive an invite to my awesome birthday party. Your sense of ENTITLEMENT does not justify calling me "childish".

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #112 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by luinil View Post

That's very bad communication tactics.
The public (except some apple addicts like here..) will not think that they punished the NYT for telling lies, but for telling the truth Apple wanted to hide.

The "Evil Apple" image is growing every day, and such practice won't help with that.

No worries, the mainstream media has already LOST all credibility and has tarnished their reputation BEYOND repair!

GREAT for Apple to provide the NEGATIVE consequence for such irresponsible and SENSATIONAL journalism!
Quote:
My job is NOT to be easy on people. My job is to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even BETTER.

--Steve Jobs on being a CEO
Reply
Quote:
My job is NOT to be easy on people. My job is to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even BETTER.

--Steve Jobs on being a CEO
Reply
post #113 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqro View Post

I agree. Apple should also ban the idiots at engadget. They've turned extemely biased against Apple since they're mostly Android fanboys.

LOL, true.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #114 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

SNIP I think it's grossly unfair to call that a hit piece simply because it shows Apple in a negative light. Even Apple did not dispute the factual aspects of the story, but focused that they take their responsibilities seriously and are at the forefront of improving working conditions in their supply chain. The NYT story and Apple's positive efforts are not mutually exclusive. Now one can reasonably complain that Apple is bearing an unreasonable amount of the attention despite other companies also use Foxconn, but that's a red hearing if the underlying facts are true for Apple.

Things like focus from Greenpeace or NYT articles ultimately make Apple both a better corporate citizen and company, and consumers benefit with safer and more socially conscious products.

...the facts were presented in a fair and balanced way - but they weren't now were they? They targeted Apple to the specific if not general exclusion of all the other companies that were working with Foxconn prior to Apple using them. They glossed lightly over the other companies whose volume of units produced not only predated Apple's use of Foxconn, but also contributed materially to the majority market of PCs (for example) and with absolutely no indication that these companies were in fact even giving lip service to improving working conditions. Even though there were companies that were first to abuse, largest volume abusers and nowhere on record as giving a rat's ass for the exploited workers, it is somehow good to take Apple to task for giving a rat's ass, auditing worker conditions and asking for improvements - even though they aren't even close to being the worst abusers of the system they used to be competitive.

So they (like Greenpeace) in fact go after a company that makes a good target - Apple is the most profitable, the highest rated hit ranking on the internet, and has delivered significant disruptions to several industries in the last decade. In your argument, the ends justifies the means. Which is morally bankrupt because it is the same excuse that led all of these companies to seek out the cheapest labor available to begin with.

My problem with the NYT piece (and whether it led Apple to not preview the OS update with the NYT is purely immaterial) is not that it is negative, but that it ignores deeper abuses, glosses over social and economic conditions, relies on innuendo and hearsay by anonymous sources to drive hits and ad revenue, period. Their motives are clear by the way they did what they did. This was simply NYT trying to boost NYT on the back of Apple and the Chinese workers' suffering. I wish I could say I'm shocked, but I'm not - and apologizing for the NYT as a purported news org and saying it's ok to be so biased and tunnel-visioned is reprehensible and plays directly into the failing of our 4th estate.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #115 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Here is a simple metric: if a worker making iPads can't possibly afford even the cheapest model, the wages are too low.

Does the Ferrari factory worker own a Ferrari? Your remark was similar to an old adage from the era of Henry Ford's invention of the assembly line and how inexpensive the product was that he wanted to produce. iPads are a high priced luxury item.

The workers at the plant are not automatically entitled to the same standard of living that the upper middle class citizens in the US are accustomed to. They are not forced to work for Foxconn, they chose to. I'm sure they knew full well what the conditions were like and probably stood in long lines waiting for a chance to work there.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #116 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

It's rather humorous that you call the NYT article real investigative journalism. If they were really at the Foxconn plants and really investigated they would have addresses the fact that HP, Microsoft, and many other American tech companies have their products assembled there. Real investigative journalists would have looked into the recent protests and threats of suicide by workers on the XBox factory line at Foxconn. They ignored it and didn't investigate because it would have dampened the furor they hoped to cause against Apple. That's why this is a textbook example of yellow journalism, not something to be held up and praised.

You can be sure that they were well aware of the mass suicide threat by the X-Box factory line, easily the most sensational and telling barometer of labour conditions at Foxconn in particular and certain Tiger Economies in general, which occurred around a week before the NYT report published.

But in choosing to highlight Apple as the main Western perpetrator, they elected to gloss over this newsworthy incident, and thereby let the cat out of the bag as to to their unworthy and biased intentions rather than any truth saying. Odious and reprehensible journalism.
post #117 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider View Post

The times thinks that capitalism in it's pure form is evil, and that they, the nyt are the watchdogs for social abuse. They think that all those who make money should have a responsibility to take care of the evils of society and that any company that is successful ..., Cook is showing that he has a pair as well. In the business world when you get pushed you have to push back.

Evil is as evil does, and it has been amply seen that unfettered capitalism is evil, as is pretty much any other unbounded human activity. Religious devotees of capitalism might not want to hear it, but the only viable capitalist countries are those that are willing to regulate it, just like the only viable steam boiler is the one that has a thermostat.

Your baseless rant on the Times notwithstanding, there is only one thing that matters here, whether the story is close to the truth or far from it.

If it's close to the truth, and Apple has not denied it, your screed is irrelevant. All that matters is what Apple customers think. Apple customers are on average more liberal than other technology customers. This means they think a lot more like the Times when it comes to working conditions, than unlike it. Apple has pursued these customers and made money from them. Not only that, Apple employees are also on average more liberal.

Their anger or disappointment in the company is thus something Apple does not like, which is why Tim is not happy. But that's just the way it has to be unless he wants to turn the company into HP.
post #118 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthropic View Post

It's such a pity Apple behaves so poorly, their childish corporate behaviour really detracts from what should be more news about their awesome products.

You are aware that Foxconn isn't an Apple-own business, but a contractor right? So why say that Apple is acting poorly when it's not even their problem? It's up to the Chinese government and Foxconn to correct whatever falsehoods are being reported by the worst newspaper in the US.
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
post #119 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Evil is as evil does, and it has been amply seen that unfettered capitalism is evil, as is pretty much any other unbounded human activity. Religious devotees of capitalism might not want to hear it, but the only viable capitalist countries are those that are willing to regulate it, just like the only viable steam boiler is the one that has a thermostat.

Your baseless rant on the Times notwithstanding, there is only one thing that matters here, whether the story is close to the truth or far from it.

If it's close to the truth, and Apple has not denied it, your screed is irrelevant. All that matters is what Apple customers think. Apple customers are on average more liberal than other technology customers. This means they think a lot more like the Times when it comes to working conditions, than unlike it. Apple has pursued these customers and made money from them. Not only that, Apple employees are also on average more liberal.

Their anger or disappointment in the company is thus something Apple does not like, which is why Tim is not happy. But that's just the way it has to be unless he wants to turn the company into HP.


Every time I read an article about the supposed abuses and slave like labor being done by 4 year olds at the Foxconn plant, I see pictures of adults sitting down in something akin to clean rooms assembling products. That's a far cry from slave labor and doesn't help the liberal cause of the New York Times at all.

And what kills me even more is that everyone has an opinion, usually largely influenced by the same liberal trash New York Times, that is completely unfounded. Everyone with an opinion shouldn't have an opinion unless you've actually been to a: China or b: to the Foxconn plant and seen first hand the whipping and forced suicides of preteen child labor forced to work 44 hour days without food and water.
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
post #120 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Here is a simple metric: if a worker making iPads can't possibly afford even the cheapest model, the wages are too low.

I think that's a flawed argument. There's plenty of people in the US that can't afford an iPad either, and they're making much more than the Chinese factory workers. It would be more accurate to say that if a worker can't afford the necessities of life (food, shelter), then the wages are too low. The value of the product being assembled is irrelevant. Even in the US, the average line worker in auto manufacturing plants can't afford the vehicles they're assembling without taking out a multi-year loan (it's more than their annual salary), and even then perhaps not after living expenses are considered. My first job out of college as a software engineer (with a 4-year degree, that's "skilled" labor mind you, not unskilled manufacturing work), fully half of my salary, before taxes, was what an apartment cost to rent in the same area. And I wasn't unique in that. Nobody considered that 'too low'. It was considered a reasonable entry-level salary. If an unskilled Chinese laborer can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for half their monthly salary, and still afford to feed themselves for the month with the other half, why is that unreasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

If they have virtually no time off, then the hours are too long.

That's a little vague, but working 60 hours per week (one of the most recent accusations leveled) is not "too long". There are countries where the US-accepted 40-hour week is considered excessive too. Does that mean that US residents should only work 30 hours per week? For plenty of people in the US, forty to sixty hours is a normal workweek. "Too long" is working for 80 hour weeks for two months, followed by 4 days straight in your office, taking 1 hour power naps every 10 hours or so, just to complete a project. Then getting a whole weekend off and repeating the process all over again. This, I can also say, is from personal experience. On top of that, being salaried, there was no overtime pay - it was 'just part of the job'. Hell, even as a teenager (16-22 years old) I worked 40-80 (and occasionally up to 100) hours per week between two jobs for 4 months out of the year (summers) in order to earn the money I needed. When school was in session I worked 10-20 hours per week on nights & weekends, on top of attending school full-time. Nobody was yelling about underage labor or not enough "time off".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

If they can be made to work at any hour, day or night, with little or no notice, then the conditions are too harsh.

You're right, forced labor is too harsh. But accepting a job where shift work is a possibility, and known in advance, is not. Even if that means doing night shifts on week and days the next. It's damned rough to work jobs like that, but it hardly counts as a human rights violation. There's low-income individuals in the US that do exactly that; working two jobs, six or seven days per week, just to make ends meet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

China needs to be China, but you don't need to replay the 19th century again every time a country industrializes, particularly if the companies responsible are from the West and already know how that played out.

No, not play-for-play as it went down in the developed west, and I raised the point that western development has mitigated this somewhat in China, but to a certain extent, you do. It has to come around on it's own, otherwise it's an artificial change and it won't stick. It's a bit of a stretch for a metaphor, but just because your older sibling made mistakes as a teenager and learned from them, doesn't mean you won't make the same mistakes, even if you know about them - it's part of the growth process.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › New York Times gets Gizmodo treatment from Apple after negative reports