6 ms·

Let’s run through the possible reasons Apple announced this, with various degrees of cynicism. 1. Getting some good press before Congress decides to do somethi

Let’s run through the possible reasons Apple announced this, with various degrees of cynicism. 1. Getting some good press before Congress decides to do something in regards to the app store model. 2. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained, and preparing for that future. 3. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained, and announcing this investment so they can continue to have Chinese supply chains after a good PR move.

Daishiman 6y ago
Don't forget 4. doing a good PR so that a Dem-controlled Congress doesn't push for repatriation of corporate cash reserves kept in tax havens.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  $430B seems like more than you'd need for a good PR stunt.
  - skrtskrt 6y ago
    It's $0 if you were already going to spend it anyway
  - perardi 6y ago
    I suspect they really were going to spend a significant chunk of this regardless, but they packaged it into a nice press release at a potentially fraught political moment. And…$430 billion over 5 years is a lot, but what if it influences tax or tariff rates just a bit in your direction over a 10-year period? Because that could be worth it, especially, again, if you were going to set up that new campus anyway.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > I suspect they really were going to spend a significant chunk of this regardless Regardless of what?
      - perardi 6y ago
        Regardless of this PR they put out. This spend was probably in the books, so let’s wrap it in a nice bow before Congressional hearings.
        zepto 6y ago
        It seems inconceivable that they wouldn’t have made a PR announcement about a large investment in the US, regardless.
- sircastor 6y ago
  Didn’t they do this with the former administration’s tax deal?
jacobr1 6y ago
4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in the country"
- delfinom 6y ago
  Yep, all tech companies have seen the writing on the wall for overconcentrating their operations in California. People in general have become more and more hesitant to move there for a wide platitude of reasons from absurd cost of living to issues such as mass wildfires. They've realized that perhaps, just perhaps, they could afford to have more than one large corporate campus at their scale of fuck you money. Which gives them wider access to talent and actually reduces headaches such spiraling cost of living forcing salaries to also spiral upwards and also being expected to solve housing crises locally.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ribosometronome 6y ago
    Apple already has a large campus in Austin that dwarfs a lot of companies and a second under construction. They might not be quite Spaceship in terms of unique design but they exist. Being solely located in one of the most expensive areas in the United States does seem a bit absurd if you can avoid it. Based on Cook's statements about returning to the office, it seems like they value being physically proximate more than the immense savings that moving the workers who could be remote to remote.
  - Angostura 6y ago
    Just an FYI - I'm not sure what word you were reaching for, but it wasn't 'platitude' in this context. Perhaps 'plethora' or 'multitude'.
    - sizzle 6y ago
      Seems like they were going for latitude?
ksdale 6y ago
Or they are anticipating some sort of tax on funds held offshore and figure it is better to repatriate the money prior to a tax increase.
coliveira 6y ago
Most of the so-called "investment" is real estate based. They will most probably develop some very expensive offices, fancy stores, put some additional people to work there, and call it a day.
fossuser 6y ago
If I was Apple getting out of the Chinese supply chain would be a priority - if only to have some leverage with a second option. It seems like a pretty high risk situation for them and has chilling effects elsewhere (content restrictions on Apple TV). It also damages their brand ethos around privacy. CCP pressure on Taiwan and TSMC is also a concern I'd be thinking about if I was them.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  TSMC is the scariest thing in my mind. I wish Apple or govt would fund similar fab/s in the US - hell just build it with stimi or huge tax breaks and TSMC can still hold the IP and profit, just have enough onshore knowledge to run it in isolation if needed. CCP hitting TSMC in their first strike would be a hell of a whammy, even if mutually destructive.
plank_time 6y ago
Apple is already moving out of China for some of their factories. India was a big target for this.
jimmont 6y ago
Apple and much US associated supply chains have already been moving away from China. Media is regularly coming up where the side effects are reported, for example the Foxconn contractor in India. The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or capacity domestically. The only thing that will fix this is government policy--otherwise Silicon Valley would have decent transit, no homelessness and California would have its own State or region-level healthcare delivery network. The same things Taiwan has with only 23 million people that benefits TSMC (and the people there).
- syshum 6y ago
  >The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or capacity domestically I dont think infrastructure is the root of our (US) problem. We do have a skills, and talent gap. not just in "tech jobs" like many people think but at factory floor level as well. Even if they could open the factories tomorrow finding people to fill those jobs will be hard.
  - jimmont 6y ago
    Personally I see infrastructure as the thing that gets qualified people to productivity and keeps them productive (jobs or whatever form that takes), and I also expand the notion of infrastructure to include a society and community with effective education and healthcare to maximize the human capital of the group. Given this I see infrastructure and the various components of it as decades behind in the US and Apple would be smart to take the direction. Just consider the process of applying for an SBIR or finding a job or starting a startup or getting from SF to San Jose, etc.
    - syshum 6y ago
      This would require the expansion of the term infrastructure to encompass just about everything in society thus making the term meaningless. This is the current Democrat definition of the word where everything from health care to education is "infrastructure", that is not what the average person would consider to be "infrastructure". Healthcare and Schools are not "infrastructure", "infrastructure" would be Roads, Power, Communications, Basic Utilities, etc etc etc. >> Just consider the process of applying for an SBIR or finding a job or starting a startup or getting from SF to San Jose, etc. Given that California is the least business friendly state in the union, in fact it is down right hostile to business I would image doing anything in CA is pretty hard
StandardFuture 6y ago
> app store model Yes, well we as a developer community can never let up on Apple and Google's app store models being legally reprehensible. We are quite literally the most negatively affected community by these monopolies over general consumer's devices. We need to be the "force to be reckoned with" here and constantly petitioning politicians for action else get campaigned AGAINST electronically (our domain). I would say that the app store model negatively affects a growing "small software business" sector of the economy which will only continue to grow as a stable pillar of the modern middle class. In other words, this is only becoming that much more of a critically important issue.

Daishiman 6y ago

Don't forget 4. doing a good PR so that a Dem-controlled Congress doesn't push for repatriation of corporate cash reserves kept in tax havens.

mrweasel 6y ago
$430B seems like more than you'd need for a good PR stunt.
- skrtskrt 6y ago
  It's $0 if you were already going to spend it anyway
- perardi 6y ago
  I suspect they really were going to spend a significant chunk of this regardless, but they packaged it into a nice press release at a potentially fraught political moment. And…$430 billion over 5 years is a lot, but what if it influences tax or tariff rates just a bit in your direction over a 10-year period? Because that could be worth it, especially, again, if you were going to set up that new campus anyway.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I suspect they really were going to spend a significant chunk of this regardless Regardless of what?
    - perardi 6y ago
      Regardless of this PR they put out. This spend was probably in the books, so let’s wrap it in a nice bow before Congressional hearings.
      - zepto 6y ago
        It seems inconceivable that they wouldn’t have made a PR announcement about a large investment in the US, regardless.
sircastor 6y ago
Didn’t they do this with the former administration’s tax deal?

jacobr1 6y ago

4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in the country"

delfinom 6y ago
Yep, all tech companies have seen the writing on the wall for overconcentrating their operations in California. People in general have become more and more hesitant to move there for a wide platitude of reasons from absurd cost of living to issues such as mass wildfires. They've realized that perhaps, just perhaps, they could afford to have more than one large corporate campus at their scale of fuck you money. Which gives them wider access to talent and actually reduces headaches such spiraling cost of living forcing salaries to also spiral upwards and also being expected to solve housing crises locally.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  Apple already has a large campus in Austin that dwarfs a lot of companies and a second under construction. They might not be quite Spaceship in terms of unique design but they exist. Being solely located in one of the most expensive areas in the United States does seem a bit absurd if you can avoid it. Based on Cook's statements about returning to the office, it seems like they value being physically proximate more than the immense savings that moving the workers who could be remote to remote.
- Angostura 6y ago
  Just an FYI - I'm not sure what word you were reaching for, but it wasn't 'platitude' in this context. Perhaps 'plethora' or 'multitude'.
  - sizzle 6y ago
    Seems like they were going for latitude?

ksdale 6y ago

Or they are anticipating some sort of tax on funds held offshore and figure it is better to repatriate the money prior to a tax increase.

coliveira 6y ago

Most of the so-called "investment" is real estate based. They will most probably develop some very expensive offices, fancy stores, put some additional people to work there, and call it a day.

fossuser 6y ago

If I was Apple getting out of the Chinese supply chain would be a priority - if only to have some leverage with a second option. It seems like a pretty high risk situation for them and has chilling effects elsewhere (content restrictions on Apple TV). It also damages their brand ethos around privacy. CCP pressure on Taiwan and TSMC is also a concern I'd be thinking about if I was them.

dillondoyle 6y ago
TSMC is the scariest thing in my mind. I wish Apple or govt would fund similar fab/s in the US - hell just build it with stimi or huge tax breaks and TSMC can still hold the IP and profit, just have enough onshore knowledge to run it in isolation if needed. CCP hitting TSMC in their first strike would be a hell of a whammy, even if mutually destructive.

plank_time 6y ago

Apple is already moving out of China for some of their factories. India was a big target for this.

jimmont 6y ago

Apple and much US associated supply chains have already been moving away from China. Media is regularly coming up where the side effects are reported, for example the Foxconn contractor in India. The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or capacity domestically. The only thing that will fix this is government policy--otherwise Silicon Valley would have decent transit, no homelessness and California would have its own State or region-level healthcare delivery network. The same things Taiwan has with only 23 million people that benefits TSMC (and the people there).

syshum 6y ago
>The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or capacity domestically I dont think infrastructure is the root of our (US) problem. We do have a skills, and talent gap. not just in "tech jobs" like many people think but at factory floor level as well. Even if they could open the factories tomorrow finding people to fill those jobs will be hard.
- jimmont 6y ago
  Personally I see infrastructure as the thing that gets qualified people to productivity and keeps them productive (jobs or whatever form that takes), and I also expand the notion of infrastructure to include a society and community with effective education and healthcare to maximize the human capital of the group. Given this I see infrastructure and the various components of it as decades behind in the US and Apple would be smart to take the direction. Just consider the process of applying for an SBIR or finding a job or starting a startup or getting from SF to San Jose, etc.
  - syshum 6y ago
    This would require the expansion of the term infrastructure to encompass just about everything in society thus making the term meaningless. This is the current Democrat definition of the word where everything from health care to education is "infrastructure", that is not what the average person would consider to be "infrastructure". Healthcare and Schools are not "infrastructure", "infrastructure" would be Roads, Power, Communications, Basic Utilities, etc etc etc. >> Just consider the process of applying for an SBIR or finding a job or starting a startup or getting from SF to San Jose, etc. Given that California is the least business friendly state in the union, in fact it is down right hostile to business I would image doing anything in CA is pretty hard

StandardFuture 6y ago

> app store model Yes, well we as a developer community can never let up on Apple and Google's app store models being legally reprehensible. We are quite literally the most negatively affected community by these monopolies over general consumer's devices. We need to be the "force to be reckoned with" here and constantly petitioning politicians for action else get campaigned AGAINST electronically (our domain). I would say that the app store model negatively affects a growing "small software business" sector of the economy which will only continue to grow as a stable pillar of the modern middle class. In other words, this is only becoming that much more of a critically important issue.