Apple has never stated they will replace their entire workforce with robots. Foxconn's employee isn't Apple employees. Bringing them up is irrelevant.
So then I'll ask you again: A. If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics do YOU then have a problem with it? (yes it is happening) B. Do you think Apple would care if machines replaced those humans? C. Do you think Apple should care? ...and a new one D. Do you think Uber's suppliers, the drivers (they aren't Uber's employees), should acquiesce and accept lower profits to try and avoid being replaced by machinery?
Just stop. The suppliers make those decisions (hire and fire) not Apple.
And Uber drivers are Uber employees. Not legally (not yet) but its obvious that they are.
The moment Tim Cook says that eventually all Apple employees (except for a limited admin staff) will be replaced with robots then you have a point.
So you would prefer not to answer those very easy questions? Probably a good choice for you as it would expose your logically failed double-standard. -Robots shouldn't replace wage-earning humans, except when they should. -Companies shouldn't care about it as long as it improves profits, except when they should. -Maximizing profits is good and what every company should do, unless it's greed. -It's not greed unless it is.
If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics would you then have a problem with it? Do you think Apple would care? Would you think they should care?
That's a whole bunch of what if's. Also Apple is not squeezing their EMPLOYEES. Its their vendor. Apple is not responsible to make sure their vendors can pay their employees.
Uber is taking obvious and deliberate steps of firing their ENTIRE WORKFORCE.
If you can't see the difference in these situations, I can't help you.
Sorry, I'm going to have to stop you there.
Uber's drivers are not employed by Uber. They supply a service to Uber and Uber pays them for that service, in exactly the same way that Apple pays for a service and is perfectly entitled to go elsewhere.
Uber is not squeezing their EMPLOYEES. Its their vendor.
Uber drivers are not employees of Uber. They are independent contractors.
So there pretty much isn't a difference between the situations.
Apple *should* squeeze its vendors to get the lowest prices. In this case their vendors are at a point where they can tell Apple "No" To switch vendors costs a lot of money in retooling, and the 'new' vendors are unlikely to undertake that unless there are adequate profits to be made
If you truly believe that Uber drivers are not their employees than you are dumb. Uber gets away with it legally, but anyone with half a brain knows the drivers are employees.
100% of Uber revenue is generated by drivers. And they are not the 'employees'? LOL
Lawyers and law makers can make all kind of Bullshit that Uber drivers are not employees, but Uber drivers are the Uber workforce.
There's a difference between "independent contractors" and "employees" and I daresay if that distinction fails in the courts that Uber could cease to exist. Their profitability depends on the freelance driver model.
That's a whole bunch of what if's. Also Apple is not squeezing their EMPLOYEES. Its their vendor. Apple is not responsible to make sure their vendors can pay their employees.
Uber is taking obvious and deliberate steps of firing their ENTIRE WORKFORCE.
If you can't see the difference in these situations, I can't help you.
Sorry, I'm going to have to stop you there.
Uber's drivers are not employed by Uber. They supply a service to Uber and Uber pays them for that service, in exactly the same way that Apple pays for a service and is perfectly entitled to go elsewhere.
You are incorrect. The issue of whether or not Uber drivers should be considered contractors or employees has not been determined yet, though it doubtless will be in the near future:
The fundamental question of whether Uber drivers are employees or
independent contractors is also not a simple one, Chen observed in his
order. “Should the issue of employee versus independent contractor
status proceed to trial, it would be up to the jury to make the ultimate
determination, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any
certainty,” he added. Uber has also threatened to take the case up to
the Supreme Court.
So you would prefer not to answer those very easy questions? Probably a good choice for you as it would expose your logically failed double-standard. -Robots and machinery shouldn't replace humans, except when they should. -Companies shouldn't care about it as long as it improves profits, except when they should. -Maximizing profits is good and what every company should do, unless it's greed. -It's not greed unless it is.
That's sums up your arguments the past two days.
When Apple introduces its first robotic sales person in an Apple store, then we can talk.
This is about scale. Uber will eventually replace THEIR ENTIRE WORKFORCE (expect for a small admin staff).
I still don't get why Apple did not do some kind of design change for iPhone7.
I'm sorry but moving the antenna lines is not enough.
People say design don't matter. But it does. People don't want to buy a phone that looks EXACTLY like a 3 year old phone (iPhone6)
I think they are working on not just a new design but a completely new way to make phones, probably making the whole thing - hopefully sparing the battery, though it wouldn't surprise me in the least if not - a unified single slab as if everything were embedded in a single block of epoxy resin. Nothing will move, not even buttons.
It couldn't be this year because the new design hinges strongly on flexible Amoled displays and since Samsung is having to build more factories just to make them, an earlier time frame than next year just wasn't possible.
Here's a simple explanation for why Apple is doing a major case redesign: Because they felt it would give greater value to put that money elsewhere in components.
For each model, there is a target internal cost, in order to maintain similar margins and final selling price. If you have to spend money on engineering, tooling, new materials, etc. for the case, you have to spend less on the internal components. I expect Apple is making a larger investment in the screen and camera technology this year (Display P3), so those are going to cost more. For me, it's no contest - I would rather have Apple put in an upgraded screen and camera than spend the money on changing a case design.
I think they are working on not just a new design but a completely new way to make phones, probably making the whole thing - hopefully sparing the battery, though it wouldn't surprise me in the least if not - a unified single slab as if everything were embedded in a single block of epoxy resin. Nothing will move, not even buttons.
It couldn't be this year because the new design hinges strongly on flexible Amoled displays and since Samsung is having to build more factories just to make them, an earlier time frame than next year just wasn't possible.
Here's a simple explanation for why Apple is doing a major case redesign: Because they felt it would give greater value to put that money elsewhere in components.
For each model, there is a target internal cost, in order to maintain similar margins and final selling price. If you have to spend money on engineering, tooling, new materials, etc. for the case, you have to spend less on the internal components. I expect Apple is making a larger investment in the screen and camera technology this year (Display P3), so those are going to cost more. For me, it's no contest - I would rather have Apple put in an upgraded screen and camera than spend the money on changing a case design.
Ahahaha. The company that still sells TN panels on the MBAir? The company that still sells almost all devices with the same or less than 32 GB of storage? The company that sold devices with 1 GB of RAM until the 6 and 2 with the 6s? The company that puts mechanical hard drives on Macs costing thousands of dollars? The company that doesn't update Macs with the latest and greatest processors like every other OEM? The company that uses the weakest cheapest camera module of all flagships? The company that still sells phones with LCD panels while their competitors have AMOLED offerings that are better on every single metric?
That company? Putting that money elsewhere in components?
Are we sure? Are you sure that it isn't squeezing as much as they can per device at all costs? Experience be damned?
When did Uber fire their entire workforce? When did Uber even say they were soon going to do so. Oh, that's right. they didn't so now you're just making stuff up. Perhaps you should just realize you've lost this particular argument and move on to your next "OMG Apple, OMGTtim Cook"" complaint.
As for those "if's" they're already underway. Did you forget so soon Foxconn's efforts to replace workers with robots so as to maintain some profitability in the face of demands for lower prices by component and build customers?
If you don't think Uber will eventually fire their entire workforce and replace them with self driving cars you are naive.
Even the CEO of Uber admitted this.
Uber will eventually replace all its drivers with self-driving cars
Apple has never stated they will replace their entire workforce with robots. Foxconn's employee isn't Apple employees. Bringing them up is irrelevant.
Fascinating thread. I'd just make one point. I hate to say this but it's very early days for AI cars on the real roads IMHO. If an AI driven Uber Volvo mows down a line of pedestrians waiting at a bus stop due to a malfunction, of worse a hacker, there will be a whole new take on this.
I wonder if anyone at the SEC has ever thought to investigate the relationship in timing between stock price levels at Apple and 'expert' rumors. If any payments to said 'experts' were discovered from a Wall Street based account it would be of interest I assume? Any legal experts here?
Apple has never stated they will replace their entire workforce with robots. Foxconn's employee isn't Apple employees. Bringing them up is irrelevant.
So then I'll ask you again: A. If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics do YOU then have a problem with it? (yes it is happening) B. Do you think Apple would care if machines replaced those humans? C. Do you think Apple should care? ...and a new one D. Do you think Uber's suppliers, the drivers (they aren't Uber's employees), should acquiesce and accept lower profits to try and avoid being replaced by machinery?
Bit disingenuous of you as you know very well that the vast majority of business does not operate on a 'personal' level, nor can it and remain price competitive, nor should it when your competitive existence is at stake. Business is unambiguously impersonal by design and necessity. Welcome to the march of industrial progress, uninhibited by what you or I or any moral argument, might have to say.
Uber's drivers are not employed by Uber. They supply a service to Uber and Uber pays them for that service, in exactly the same way that Apple pays for a service and is perfectly entitled to go elsewhere.
You are incorrect. The issue of whether or not Uber drivers should be considered contractors or employees has not been determined yet, though it doubtless will be in the near future:
Apple has never stated they will replace their entire workforce with robots. Foxconn's employee isn't Apple employees. Bringing them up is irrelevant.
So then I'll ask you again: A. If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics do YOU then have a problem with it? (yes it is happening) B. Do you think Apple would care if machines replaced those humans? C. Do you think Apple should care? ...and a new one D. Do you think Uber's suppliers, the drivers (they aren't Uber's employees), should acquiesce and accept lower profits to try and avoid being replaced by machinery?
Bit disingenuous of you as you know very well that the vast majority of business does not operate on a 'personal' level, nor can it and remain price competitive, nor should it when your competitive existence is at stake. Business is unambiguously impersonal by design and necessity. Welcome to the march of industrial progress, uninhibited by what you or I or any moral argument, might have to say.
You're confused as to who is vociferously complaining about workers being replaced by robots. Sog35 feels Uber is wrong to look into doing so. I've been asking him why?
hoping apple releases iPhones in a rainbow of colors this time around...gotta do something to get people to upgrade to a device that largely looks the same as their existing device. /notsarcasm
why does the cosmetic look of a tool matter? does your DVD player look widely different from one replacement to the next? why not? because thats the most useful form factor and that determines its general look. tools need to do jobs, not change appearance so children can be amused by them annually.
I still don't get why Apple did not do some kind of design change for iPhone7.
I'm sorry but moving the antenna lines is not enough.
People say design don't matter. But it does. People don't want to buy a phone that looks EXACTLY like a 3 year old phone (iPhone6)
Because a design change doesn't matter. The only thing that is important in this market is price which Cook already alluded to as a problem for Apple.
As it is now, with Apples candy bar profile, people don't have a choice as ALL cell phones these days look alike. There is little Apple can do with the current design that would set it apart from the entire field of smart phones. To manage something different they will need a folding design or something else that sets the product apart.
It is sort of like buying LCD screens (TV or computer), they have gotten so thin that the only thing that really matters anymore is the picture quality and software features. Let face it you can't put a lot of design into a glass panel that is a few mm thick. People begin to value other things when all the products available to them look alike.
Samsung mobile operating profits last quarter - $3.8 billion Apple operating profits last quarter - $10.1 billion
Samsung mobile operating profits 2015 - $9.3 billion Apple operating profits 2015 - $71.2 billion
Hell last quarter Apple's operating profit in 90 days was more than Samsung Mobiles ENTIRE OPERATING PROFIT FOR 2015!!! Even though it is historically Apple's weakest quarter each year.
Apple is still the King
So, let me get this straight...
You are dismissing the fact that Apple's problems are that they sell inferior products, their sales on every hardware product are slumping YoY, their net profits are slumping YoY, because Apple makes more money than Samsung Mobile for now?
Yeah, but Samsung Mobile is growing fast. Samsung Electronics is also growing fast and 2 or 3 quarters away to surpass Apple in net profit. And everything is being done with offering superior products without artificial limitations that destroy the experience. We are this close to say that Samsung Electronics is more profitable then Apple. If nothing changes and Apple keeps skimping on the user experience, Samsung will offer better products, sell more, make more money... And Apple's market share will keep going down, together with their products.
And then, what? What will happen when devs see iOS as a afterthought because sales keep dropping YoY, as they are? What are they to do when Apple artificially destroys the experience of 9 out of 10 users and ignores 90% of the market that can't justify an iPhone because a cheaper Android is more than good enough for most tasks? Or do you also think that Android is crap? (that would say a lot)
I'm not even convinced that sales are dropping mainly because devices are lasting longer. Every Mac (me included) and iOS user I know is frustrated. The vast majority just spent 750 € on a friggin smartphone with 16 GB of storage. It's full after one week! What experience is that? It's their fault that they didn't want to spend 850€ on a device that provides a decent, minimally modern experience? Are they to blame because they thought that they wouldn't have to deal with crap like that on a 750 € device?
Do you really think that the majority of people buying 32 GB and Less iOS devices (8 out of 10? 9 out of 10?) will buy an iPhone, next? No. It's not what is happening. Samsung Mobile's exponencial growth with the s7 and now note7 shows that people are fed up with that crap.
We are all fed up with pathetic low storage, RAM, TN panels, 5400 rpm hard drives, not updating macs in years, dropping all decent and pro software... FED UP.
At this point, I hope that all of Apple's talented engineers, that are being suffocated because of the bean counters, go somewhere else, like they have been doing lately.
what a bunch of self-entitled bullshit. if you bought too small of a phone by going entry-level, guess what -- thats your mistake. my dad and his partner are both quite happy w/ 16GB because it fits their needs. how on earth didn't you know your needs? if your phone filled up "after one week" then why didn't you return it and get a bigger one since you were within the return window? oh, yes, because your story is made up bullshit, thats why.
I'm running a 2011 iMac and still loving it. it's loaded with SSD and RAM and VRAM and performs its job to be done admirably, which includes professional software development, virtualization, and rendering. my rMBP performs even better.
if you hate apple gear so much and know you could do it better, then why dont you? start a better PC company in your garage -- it can be done. fortunes await you, since you so clearly know all the mistakes apple is making.
Here's a simple explanation for why Apple is doing a major case redesign: Because they felt it would give greater value to put that money elsewhere in components.
For each model, there is a target internal cost, in order to maintain similar margins and final selling price. If you have to spend money on engineering, tooling, new materials, etc. for the case, you have to spend less on the internal components. I expect Apple is making a larger investment in the screen and camera technology this year (Display P3), so those are going to cost more. For me, it's no contest - I would rather have Apple put in an upgraded screen and camera than spend the money on changing a case design.
Ahahaha. The company that still sells TN panels on the MBAir? The company that still sells almost all devices with the same or less than 32 GB of storage? The company that sold devices with 1 GB of RAM until the 6 and 2 with the 6s? The company that puts mechanical hard drives on Macs costing thousands of dollars? The company that doesn't update Macs with the latest and greatest processors like every other OEM? The company that uses the weakest cheapest camera module of all flagships? The company that still sells phones with LCD panels while their competitors have AMOLED offerings that are better on every single metric?
That company? Putting that money elsewhere in components?
Are we sure? Are you sure that it isn't squeezing as much as they can per device at all costs? Experience be damned?
newbies like you fail to understand that apple isn't a spec-whore. their products are more than a bullet list of specs. always have been, likely always will be. it's you who fails to understand apple, not the other way round.
Not really! Apple,has been known to pay pretty fair prices for their hardware components. So this is likely Apple looking for better pricing than normal, this likely to allow for a cheaper iPhone.
cook has already said iPhone is too expensive so I have no doubt that Apple will try to address the cost of hardware to help lower those prices. Apple got caught with its pants down when the SE debuted as the obviously underestimated the value people place on cell phones. SE has been selling like hot cakes and the only reason is the price. People are frankly tired of paying for Apples extremely high margins.
Ultimately i I think what many people don't get here is that design isn't important as people just see one slab of glass as not being much different than another. What is important is the Apple offer value. Values can be looked at as always an issue of price but even that can be a mistake. Value can be unique features which set a device apart.
Unfortunately for Apple iPhones have a lot of anti features which tend to force people away. Things like the Lightening connector, the MyFi program, and the very locked down nature of the hardware and software. These are not the positives that Apple thinks they are. Especially when people start to think about how to reuse old hardware as they upgrade. Right now it is just about impossible to retask an old iPhone when you upgrade like you might an old computer. Considering how quickly old cell phones approach zero in value but still work fine, this is a big issue.
So so in a nut shell not greed just Apple realizing that their position in the market isn't as strong as they thought it was. Frankly I see it as more important for Apple to upgrade the SE rather than to try to convince the buying public to put out big bucks for the next high end iPhone. It was a nice run but honestly people don't value iOS enough to pay the high proces, huge margin really to Apple. There isn't much that Apple can do about this other than to adjust prices to low cost to consumers. A 15% margin instead of 50 % would be a good start when it comes to drawing consumer interests.
I notice you aren't complaining about Apple perhaps "squeezing suppliers" to the point they see little profit if they comply just so that Apple themselves can become even richer. You displayed a different attitude yesterday about Uber squeezing their suppliers (the drivers) so that Uber could increase their margins. Yesterday you called it greed. What is it today? (not that I agreed with your views yesterday to begin with)
there is a difference between Apple squeezing one of its suppliers for cheaper prices than a company replacing its ENTIRE WORKFORCE with machines.
If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics would you then have a problem with it? Do you think Apple would care if machines replaced those humans? Do you think they should care?
This is easy! Most of thE stuff, literally that vast majority of the stuff we buy these days, wouldn't even be affordable without automation. Modern semiconductor manufacturing demands automation and even things like clothing manufacturing demands automation to keep prices affordable. It is our ability as humans to mass produce stuff that has allowed us to grow population wise even as we strain the environment around us.
This by the way doesn't mean that layoff due to automation are a pretty thing. It isn't but we as a community must keep moving forward with automation if we expect to sustain population growth.
there is a difference between Apple squeezing one of its suppliers for cheaper prices than a company replacing its ENTIRE WORKFORCE with machines.
If the only way for that supplier to meet Apple's demands and get/retain their business is to aggressively control costs by firing their human workers and replacing them with robotics would you then have a problem with it? Do you think Apple would care if machines replaced those humans? Do you think they should care?
This is easy! Most of thE stuff, literally that vast majority of the stuff we buy these days, wouldn't even be affordable without automation. Modern semiconductor manufacturing demands automation and even things like clothing manufacturing demands automation to keep prices affordable. It is our ability as humans to mass produce stuff that has allowed us to grow population wise even as we strain the environment around us.
This by the way doesn't mean that layoff due to automation are a pretty thing. It isn't but we as a community must keep moving forward with automation if we expect to sustain population growth.
Agreed. We may not like it and no doubt some of us (or our extended families) may be hurt by it in the short term, but business marches on. Overall business and the employment opportunities it offers have continually expanded for the most part, tho the \types of employment have certainly changed.
Comments
-Robots shouldn't replace wage-earning humans, except when they should.
-Companies shouldn't care about it as long as it improves profits, except when they should.
-Maximizing profits is good and what every company should do, unless it's greed.
-It's not greed unless it is.
That's sums up your arguments the past two days.
Uber's drivers are not employed by Uber. They supply a service to Uber and Uber pays them for that service, in exactly the same way that Apple pays for a service and is perfectly entitled to go elsewhere.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3109522/technology-law-regulation/judge-rejects-ubers-settlement-with-drivers-over-employee-classification.html
You should really try it.
For each model, there is a target internal cost, in order to maintain similar margins and final selling price. If you have to spend money on engineering, tooling, new materials, etc. for the case, you have to spend less on the internal components. I expect Apple is making a larger investment in the screen and camera technology this year (Display P3), so those are going to cost more. For me, it's no contest - I would rather have Apple put in an upgraded screen and camera than spend the money on changing a case design.
That company? Putting that money elsewhere in components?
Are we sure? Are you sure that it isn't squeezing as much as they can per device at all costs? Experience be damned?
Welcome to the march of industrial progress, uninhibited by what you or I or any moral argument, might have to say.
I'm running a 2011 iMac and still loving it. it's loaded with SSD and RAM and VRAM and performs its job to be done admirably, which includes professional software development, virtualization, and rendering. my rMBP performs even better.
if you hate apple gear so much and know you could do it better, then why dont you? start a better PC company in your garage -- it can be done. fortunes await you, since you so clearly know all the mistakes apple is making.
newbies like you fail to understand that apple isn't a spec-whore. their products are more than a bullet list of specs. always have been, likely always will be. it's you who fails to understand apple, not the other way round.
cook has already said iPhone is too expensive so I have no doubt that Apple will try to address the cost of hardware to help lower those prices. Apple got caught with its pants down when the SE debuted as the obviously underestimated the value people place on cell phones. SE has been selling like hot cakes and the only reason is the price. People are frankly tired of paying for Apples extremely high margins.
Ultimately i I think what many people don't get here is that design isn't important as people just see one slab of glass as not being much different than another. What is important is the Apple offer value. Values can be looked at as always an issue of price but even that can be a mistake. Value can be unique features which set a device apart.
Unfortunately for Apple iPhones have a lot of anti features which tend to force people away. Things like the Lightening connector, the MyFi program, and the very locked down nature of the hardware and software. These are not the positives that Apple thinks they are. Especially when people start to think about how to reuse old hardware as they upgrade. Right now it is just about impossible to retask an old iPhone when you upgrade like you might an old computer. Considering how quickly old cell phones approach zero in value but still work fine, this is a big issue.
So so in a nut shell not greed just Apple realizing that their position in the market isn't as strong as they thought it was. Frankly I see it as more important for Apple to upgrade the SE rather than to try to convince the buying public to put out big bucks for the next high end iPhone. It was a nice run but honestly people don't value iOS enough to pay the high proces, huge margin really to Apple. There isn't much that Apple can do about this other than to adjust prices to low cost to consumers. A 15% margin instead of 50 % would be a good start when it comes to drawing consumer interests.
This by the way doesn't mean that layoff due to automation are a pretty thing. It isn't but we as a community must keep moving forward with automation if we expect to sustain population growth.