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
"Congratulations to Apple for doing this, the public will appreciate it."
Pure baloney. The public will ignore American made Macs if they are even five dollars more than the foreign made Macs. This pie-in-the-sky, feel good, made-in-America crap is shear political pablum. The theory has been discredited over and over again in the clothing and electronics world.
The only people who will appreciate it are the activists and talking head pundits. This is a political move by Apple only.
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.
It depends on many factors such as margin, QA, design and process (e.g., whether robots are involved)
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.
Having one, I can tell you that the Mac Pro is easily the most complex of all Macs by far. The case is very complex. You obviously haven't seen one if you think the case and electronics are simple.
Even if you have seen one, they make it look simple.
I can see the MacPro's easily made in the US, since they can probably be done with robots due to the simplicity of the actual case and electronics
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.
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?
Pegatronis building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont. . .
That's probably because those products are commodity. People do care about fashion done in Italy and pay a premium for them. For the US Mac, they will have to figure out its selling point and make sure people lust after it. Apple is one of the few companies with enough margin to execute this move on a sustainable basis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by argonaut
Why??
I suppose possibly more Mac's are sold in the US than outside, but 'most' ?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu
It depends on many factors such as margin, QA, design and process (e.g., whether robots are involved)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Having one, I can tell you that the Mac Pro is easily the most complex of all Macs by far. The case is very complex. You obviously haven't seen one if you think the case and electronics are simple.
Even if you have seen one, they make it look simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I can see the MacPro's easily made in the US, since they can probably be done with robots due to the simplicity of the actual case and electronics
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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?
Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu
That's probably because those products are commodity. People do care about fashion done in Italy and pay a premium for them. For the US Mac, they will have to figure out its selling point and make sure people lust after it. Apple is one of the few companies with enough margin to execute this move on a sustainable basis.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont, Pegatron is building these in Fremont. . .
Who's building them where now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
Originally Posted by Lerxt
Congratulations to Apple for doing this, the public will appreciate it.
Nope.
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
It's Apple.
You've summed up the entire argument of the Anti-Apple Brigade. Regardless of their faction.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
…I don't think Jobs would have agreed with Cook on this move.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
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.
Agree. This idea that Tim Cook is going to build a factory that's not profitable is laughable; it's not in his DNA.
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.