Apple will invest $100M to produce one line of Macs in the US in 2013 - Page 2

 

Sure, but pick another product in the Mac lineup that has such low volumes that the ENTIRE production can be done in the US.

 

It isn't the iMac unless Apple expects iMac sales to crater.

 

Yes.  That and these are probably most used in video/graphics production houses followed by research universities.

The haters will have to find something else to bitch about.

 

It's Apple.  I have full confidence in the haters to find things to gripe about.  Heck, I'm a Kentucky WIldcats fan.  We dropped out of teh Top 25 this week and after 4000 comments on the article at ESPN, most of them were from people hating on or defending Kentucky.  When you're a target, you stay a target no matter what

I agree. While its nice that Apple is at least trying, I see it more as an experiment in goodwill than anything else.

Most people here only have a 5-minute attention span. They wont care. Watch them complain if those iMacs cost a little more.

 

I think the main factor is whether American workers are involved.  

 

On another note though, I don't see anyone mentioning this so I'll just throw it out there ... what's to stop them from bankrolling an American plant for Foxconn?  

 

They are already in Brazil.  It would seem the most likely choice to me.  There is pretty much no difference between Foxconn operating a plant in China or Brazil and Foxconn operating a plant in the USA other than being under a bit more government surveillance and the vastly higher wages.  

 

Even if you have seen one, they make it look simple.

I agree that robots are the most likely solution and that the Mac Pro being low volume is the most likely candidate, but the idea that the Mac Pro case's "simplicity" is a factor sounds just plain silly to me.  

 

The iMac is a simpler design with fewer components, so is the Mac mini and all of the iOS devices too.  The Mac Pro in it's current iteration, is both heavy and complicated and not as well suited to assembly line production as the other things they make IMO.  

Pegatron is building these in Fremont,  Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont. . .

 

I disagree.  All computers are "commodity" products in the sense that you use it here, and the ones that the public "lusts" for are the high volume ones like iPhone that will never be produced in the USA.  Also, the concept of "having enough margin" to do something like this really means "having enough margin to blow" on something like this.  Apple would have to be prepared to throw away margin on what you yourself describe as their premiere product and I don't see that happening.  Apple makes an absolutely *huge* markup on all it's products and it doesn't drop it even on high volume sales, (see iPhone), let alone low volume specialty products with higher production costs.  

 

Who's building them where now? 

Awesome news, props to Cook for making it happen.  I've been harsh on some of his decisions lately, but this move more than makes up for the bad ones.  If this production line is successful, Apple will likely move even more production over here.  

 

Most important IMO was Cook's comment that Apple has a responsibility to bring jobs to the US.  If only more CEOs thought this way.  We have Jobs to thank for putting Cook in his place, but I don't think Jobs would have agreed with Cook on this move.  

 

Nope.

 

 

You've summed up the entire argument of the Anti-Apple Brigade. Regardless of their faction.

 

I don't think you have any place to say anything in that capacity, but you know. It was Cook's decision to move overseas in the first place.

 

Never is a long time.  All it would take is a few seismic shifts in the world economy to bring production back to the US.  While I agree this is highly improbable, that's a long ways from impossible.  

 

The idea that Apple are "blowing" their margins on this move is just silly.  There isn't enough info in that article to make such a claim.

 

 

 

 

All Apple products are made on assembly lines.  

 

One advantage of moving now is that Apple won't have Jobs insisting on painting all the robots, lol.

 

 

Especially after the NeXT factory being said to have been Jobs' baby.

 

Moving some capability back is both just a publicity move AND a act of corporate responsibility to the country it was founded in.  Just like the solar and fuel cell capacity at the NC data center.  Both publicity for greening and an act of good corporate stewardship.

 

Companies like that should be rewarded.  Otherwise you get results like Walmart.

You are assuming that they can only make the computer at one place. When volume picks up and competition jumps in, they can always set up production elsewhere to back it up.

While Apple doesn't lower its price when it has high margin, it does not mean they can't explore US as a manufacturing site. The high margin allows them to try new stuff while the PC makers generally have to pick existing tech and processes.

Obviously there has to be demand and economics to sustain the move in the long run.

In the post I replied to, he used commodity goods like clothing to support his argument that people will always buy the cheapest. I am just pointing out that there are non-commodity, premium clothing lines that people lust after that can be made else where. The same applies here. There can be commoditized items and there can be specialty, high value items.

I don't think it's merely a publicity move. They have been working on it for a few years, including assembling some of the standard iMacs here.

We will probably hear more about their manufacturing process later. They also hope to see other companies take up similar approach where it makes sense.

It is also aligned with government interest to bring their overseas money back in meaningful ways, and generate jobs.

 

Agree.  This idea that Tim Cook is going to build a factory that's not profitable is laughable; it's not in his DNA.

Designed in California. Assembled in USA. Copied in South Korea¡

That's not even the same thing.

Having a high margin will give a hardware company room to explore and innovate. It does not mean the company will become unprofitable suddenly just by making a product in US. They took a few years to learn and shift along the way, which helps to mitigate risks and cost. It's just $100 million outlay at this point, but that's because they have spread out the execution since a few years back.

At the end of the day, the move will have to make economic sense, and be "better off" in some ways.

 

The corporate reponsibility to America point still probably stands for Wal Mart, but they have installed solar panels on every Wal Mart to make less of a dent in the power grid.  One easy example of green that info is readily available on.

 

We also don't know what the new Mac Pros will look like. Will it be smaller/larger? Less integrated? Will it even be made out of aluminum? Nothing is simple, simple...of course not. Were also talking about a machine that doesn't have all of these little parts and pieces that an iMac, MBP, MBA, or mobile device does. From an assembly stand point I would think its a hell of a lot easier to assemble a Mac Pro than it is an iMac, or portable computer. I'm not saying its easy as pie and anyone could do it, but it appears to be easier, no?

Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it.

Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.

 

What is XMac?

 

A fantasyland product made by every other computer manufacturer out there. Apple specifically doesn't make one.

Same here - they are beautiful inside, reflecting that design ethos that Steve learned from his dad.  However, the current case and components are somewhat complex and most surely not assembled by robots (other than the MOB).  They mostly are hand built if for no other reason than the case design is something like 10 years old.

 

If we are correct in guessing that this new US assembly plant is for MP, it will be exciting to see what Ive and his team have come up with.  The only way it makes sense is if it is almost completely assembled by robots.  U.S. hand labor is just too expensive.  If all this is true it signals a substantially different case design and component layout.

Sometimes known as the Apple IIci.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean and wasn't able to make Google understand what I'm trying to find out.

 

It's a fantasyland product, but it's made by every other computer manufacturer? I'm confused. Not that anyone will be surprised by that... it's obvious that I have about the same intellectual prowess as your average house cat.

 

Would you mind elaborating a little on specifically what the people suggesting an XMac be built in the USA are referring to?

 

They want a box with a consumer chip that you can open and take out every single component and replace yourself. Nothing really to do with being built in the US.

$100 million is cheap for Apple to find a way to kill off the Mac Pro.

 

Don't give it a decent update and increase the cost by making it here. Sales will drop to nothing. Then Apple will twist it around and claim that the low sales of the Mac Pro proves that no one wants a desktop computer that offers internal expansion. It kills off the Mac Pro. Another part of Apple will use this as a case for why it doesn't make business sense to make things in the US where costs are higher.

 

Apple becomes just a consumer gadget company.

 

I hope I'm wrong but I'm cynical enough to see this happening.
 

 

 

Miss the last five years?

If Apple wants to kill off the Pro, it doesn't need to do anything. It doesn't even need to invest pro software development.

If it's taking so long, may be they are trying to reinvent it ?

 

What rule says that Apple needs to trot out a company executive to make the new product announcements? Steve Jobs could do it because of his natural showmanship, but I've not seen that level of ability with anyone else in management at Apple, HP, Microsoft, Dell, or Google. 

 

Apple should find someone with the subtle acting chops of the guy that played "I'm a PC" doing the announcements. The added advantage is that when Microsoft copies Apple we won't have to look at Monkey Boy up on stage any longer.

Tim Cook is not going to build a factory that has to be subsidized by other products or divisions.  This thing is going to contribute profits to the corporation or it's not going to be built at all.  That's why you don't find a $5 Lightning-to-30-pin connector at your local Apple store; products contribute to the bottom line or they are retired.

 

The $100 million "outlay" you talk about is a capital investment that has to be amortized over the life of the project, where a percentage of those costs are recorded as an expense (depreciation) against the goods manufactured there.  Numbers guys like Tim Cook have teams of bean counters to run all the assumptions before a dime is spent.  This is not going to be some "feel good" charity offering.

Very interesting interview both for the news about the Mac line production in the US and his last statement about what Jobs said to Cook before his death. 

Samsung manufactures parts for the iphone in the Texas. The logistics aren't just production costs, and you should know that.

This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. You think they require an excuse to kill something? If they wanted to kill it, it would already be dead.

Hacks/nobody

Yup. See Xserve. Boom. It's finished. MacBook Pro 17". Boom. It's gone. No need for an elaborate $100 million ruse to allegedly "kill the Mac Pro." Apple doesn't have to justify any product decisions that way, when a just few words from Phil Schiller will do.

Yes, we've read about the possibility of Pegatron, but it's not certain. I've also read about "guesses" about it being the Mac Pro because of the lower volume. But that's a much more complex product. To me, I would think that the much simpler 21.5" iMac would be a more likely choice. Why begin with such a complex model? Apple doesn't need to make all the iMacs here, certainly not in the beginning.