3 ms·
If the alternative were to lose manufacturing capacity, it wouldn’t be “...compromising immediately when $$$ is at stake.”. What’s at stake then is the future o
by solidsnack9000 7y ago
If the alternative were to lose manufacturing capacity, it wouldn’t be “...compromising immediately when $$$ is at stake.”. What’s at stake then is the future of the company — everyone’s jobs, industries that have come to rely on Macs, the consumers that have come to rely on iPhones. Just folding up and losing the $$$ isn’t the path of courage here.
- summerlight 7y agoAnd still Apple hasn't even begun to migrate off from Chinese manufacturers while Samsung has shut down most of its factories in China and heavily invested into Vietnam supply chains. The only meaningful explanation is that Apple still gains a significant chunk of its margin from the China market while Samsung has lost almost all of its market share there. I'm pretty sure that Apple had a clear understanding of this kind of political risks and was willing to take it in pursuit of profit maximization.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoApple does have new manufacturing capacity in the US (state of Texas). I am not sure how long it took it took put together their present supply chain but I bet it took longer than 4 years.
- panda88888 7y agoIt’s only for the Mac Pro. They do have I think iPhone 6S manufacturing in India?
- panda88888 7y agoI would counter by saying that Apple put itself in this position by not 2nd and 3rd sourcing contract manufacturers. Tim understood the risks, but he chose to profit rather than de-risk.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoThat is true but they are not alone in having done the risk calculus wrong on that.