32 ms·

This should honestly be picked up by a larger news organization. If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US, Apple should be

This should honestly be picked up by a larger news organization. If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US, Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits. Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.

ericmay 4y ago
Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits". And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).
    - rurp 4y ago
      For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted. I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever. I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone. It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        > most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? > But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart. > This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high. Sure it was just an example.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.
    - tcmart14 4y ago
      I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma? We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
        ericmay 4y ago
- bodski 4y ago
  > But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
  - publicola1990 4y ago
    Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to. If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
    - cma 4y ago
      The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies. If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
      - dodobirdlord 4y ago
        The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances. Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government. As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.
- the_duke 4y ago
  Alternative view: Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade. Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible. And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it. It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example. 0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-share-of-us-apparel-imports-rises-after-four-year-lull/ https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?
      - powerhour 4y ago
        I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.
      - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
- skoskie 4y ago
  > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
  - miles 4y ago
    > The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all. Not exactly: Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ "If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
    - denimnerd42 4y ago
      that's a toy
      - salawat 4y ago
        Gotta start somewhere. Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain. The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Librem 5 USA The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.
- justapassenger 4y ago
  > Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.
  - 30944836 4y ago
    [dead]
- SllX 4y ago
  In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests. Why? Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.
  - rexreed 4y ago
    It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.
    - mhoad 4y ago
      I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move. Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with. At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.
- unity1001 4y ago
  "Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.
  - rednerrus 4y ago
    The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments. In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light. So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later. Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance. Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim. You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it. Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand. [1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.
- rexreed 4y ago
  Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.
- rob74 4y ago
  Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...
anovikov 4y ago
What's the problem? Taiwan is the Republic of China.
- bfung 4y ago
  The official name of China is “People’s Republic of China”, PRC. Taiwan differentiates by using “Republic of China”, RoC. Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    Taiwan doesn't differentiate from PRC, they were the ROC first. The PRC named themselves after the ROC. PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan. But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for the people.
baybal2 4y ago
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits. Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it. Shame on everyone involved - the Corporation, the short-sighted shareholders, the customers that enabled this behavior. > If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US It's the opposite, you want to "bring more chips in the US" so that the US is able to back off from protecting Taiwan.
- criddell 4y ago
  > Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it. There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is a corporation.
pxc 4y ago
> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges. These do not seem at all comparable to me
wongarsu 4y ago
Isn't Apple's stance exactly what the US government does: formally not recognizing Taiwan, while at the same time working with them? Everyone is a little bit angry, but nobody so much that they do something about it. And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this label didn't exist
- VictorPath 4y ago
  This is correct. The US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The Taiwanese government doesn't recognize itself as a separate country from mainland China. I guess some people want Apple to have some US ultra-jingoist Opium Wars attitude to China that the US (aside from perhaps Pelosi) does not.
  - klipklop 4y ago
    There is a large faction in the US that supports Taiwan independence. This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism. Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how great things are under unification.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      > Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
      - allendoerfer 4y ago
        > To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression. Source? I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.
INTPenis 4y ago
It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3. It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters. Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging with China. Nobody wins.
- MichaelBurge 4y ago
  Apple's market cap is $2.7 trillion. How hard could it be for them to get a few nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and tell China, "We refuse to comply with your labeling requirements. Just try to stop us"?
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6 billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90 Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would seriously strain Apple's budget. And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.
    - sour-taste 4y ago
      Not to mention that I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't want it's private companies running their own Navies and going toe to toe with foreign forces
- BudaDude 4y ago
  To be fair, China was ready to start WWIII a few days ago.
  - iconhacker 4y ago
    Only when provoked by US.
    - 4y ago
autosharp 4y ago
We should just make it easy for Apple and other companies by forbidding this mislabeling.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hosh 4y ago
Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating in China. The Taiwanese businesses knew they were shooting themselves in the foot but opened up factories in China anyways. The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War, there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing politics in Taiwan. Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same, ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not (Cultural Revolution). Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances. It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > is not a buffer state between two major political powers Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though. Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR. Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes. Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China. Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.
  - hosh 4y ago
    A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example, North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed by ethnic groups. If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one. As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.
lupire 4y ago
Headline is falsified. This is about boxes shipped into China, not people.
newaccount2021 4y ago
zozbot234 4y ago
Taiwan follows the "One China" policy. They view themselves as Chinese even more so than the PRC, not part of some sort of separate, "independent" culture/nation. So the "China" badge is quite justified on its own terms.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Aunche 4y ago
If making a label that complies with Chinese customs is really such a matter of protecting Taiwan, then you should ask these Taiwanese manufacturers to not export their products to China in the first place. Given that they are exporting to China, Apple is correct that they need to comply with China's rules, no matter how arbitrary. IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.
eevilspock 4y ago
A lot of people here making comments without knowing anything about the 70 year-old issue of the definition of "China", as well as the "one country" philosophy that both Taiwan and Mainland China adhere to officially.[1][2][3] I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan. Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official policy. To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5] But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China, why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an American company, push any particular angle, especially when there is position they can take that is compatible with the policies of both Taiwan and China? If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell you there are far more important stands to take, including a serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. --- [1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page: "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" www.taiwan.gov.tw [2] See Taiwan's own constitution, even after modern amendments, continues to hold that China is one country. https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93 https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93 Note that the constitution also claims Mongolia and Tibet as part of the Republic of China. Even Mainland China doesn't claim Mongolia. The amendments adopted afterwards have not rescinded the idea of One China implied by the original: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95 https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95 They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China" and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law." [3] See this comment on this same thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180 [4] There is a good Wikipedia article on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan [5] An ongoing debate within Taiwan about changing the constitution: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05/18/2003757579 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bigcat12345678 4y ago
You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China. Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US. Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it. As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history, performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war, and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc. They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are the original sin that drives all sorts of evil. You got the whole cause and effect reversed.
- helloworld97 4y ago
  "Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it." Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    Ask Apple, they are more knowledgeable than you and I combined.
  - helloworld97 4y ago
    That was a rhetorical question - I know the answer to it already. I don't think you do though.
- tz18 4y ago
  How many yuan you get for this post?
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on this. Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner. Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.
rjzzleep 4y ago
> If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official state department website specifically said that the US does not support independence. Even now it still says that it's official stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions). But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately the reality looks a bit more grim.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Speaking of shaming Apple for their dealings in China, does anyone remember the time Ricky Gervais ripped Apple (and Hollywood by association) over their sweatshops at the 2020 Golden Globes?
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
Ukraine is a Sovereign Country, recognised by UN, Taiwan is not and technically it's still China. In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized by International institutions) edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition. Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is. Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign. Just a little English vocabulary lesson! See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition. There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries. Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"? > Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country". I clearly can't, can I? If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion. It makes a big difference. > Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government. > Just a little English vocabulary lesson! maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.
99_00 4y ago
>If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan US isn't even serious about protecting themselves. "Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from expanding...in China?" "private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034 https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034 But the administration has no problem telling business what to do when it cares about the issue, for example telling gas stations to lower prices.
mancerayder 4y ago
It's selective wokeness by employees of Apple. Or an American-centric attitude with no interest in universal principles of self-determination by all peoples.
droptablemain 4y ago
Yeah, great idea, let's wage a proxy war with China whilst in the middle of waging a proxy war on Russia. What could go wrong?!
galdosdi 4y ago
Well, one difference is the US is a lot more beholden to China (PRC) than to Russia. The loss of Russian energy supplies would be far less damaging to the US economy than the loss of Chinese manufacturing, for which there really is not substitute right now. China has more leverage vis a vis the US and the west than Russia does, in other words.
- rob_c 4y ago
  And we all know which 2 political groups oversaw the export of labour to foreign lands... Maybe if the population was interested in actual change it would stop with three political theatre and vote for the things which impact them most...
systemvoltage 4y ago
It is stupendously astounding that NYT hasn't written anything about Apple's ties with China in scathing detail. Even this story was not featured: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chinese-authorities-apple-ceo-signed-275-billion-deal-with-them https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine... The Information is one of the most reputable sources of information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely ignored. I would like a massive investigative journalism project, perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos investigation by John Carreyrou. American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares. That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on China".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paulcarroty 4y ago
> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges. Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere, 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change: Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.

ericmay 4y ago

Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits". And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

josephcsible 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).
  - rurp 4y ago
    For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted. I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever. I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone. It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? > But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart. > This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high. Sure it was just an example.
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?
- ericmay 4y ago
  If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma? We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
        ericmay 4y ago
bodski 4y ago
> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
- publicola1990 4y ago
  Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
- ericmay 4y ago
  The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to. If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
  - cma 4y ago
    The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies. If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
    - dodobirdlord 4y ago
      The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances. Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government. As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.
the_duke 4y ago
Alternative view: Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade. Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible. And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it. It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
- judge2020 4y ago
  This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example. 0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-share-of-us-apparel-imports-rises-after-four-year-lull/ https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?
    - powerhour 4y ago
      I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
skoskie 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
- miles 4y ago
  > The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all. Not exactly: Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ "If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
  - denimnerd42 4y ago
    that's a toy
    - salawat 4y ago
      Gotta start somewhere. Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain. The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Librem 5 USA The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.
justapassenger 4y ago
> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.
- 30944836 4y ago
  [dead]
SllX 4y ago
In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests. Why? Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.
ekianjo 4y ago
> everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.
- rexreed 4y ago
  It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.
  - mhoad 4y ago
    I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move. Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with. At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.
unity1001 4y ago
"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.
- rednerrus 4y ago
  The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?
daniel-cussen 4y ago
There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments. In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light. So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later. Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance. Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim. You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it. Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand. [1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.
rexreed 4y ago
Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.
rob74 4y ago
Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...

anovikov 4y ago

What's the problem? Taiwan is the Republic of China.

bfung 4y ago
The official name of China is “People’s Republic of China”, PRC. Taiwan differentiates by using “Republic of China”, RoC. Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  Taiwan doesn't differentiate from PRC, they were the ROC first. The PRC named themselves after the ROC. PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan. But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for the people.

baybal2 4y ago

ElectricalUnion 4y ago

> Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits. Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it. Shame on everyone involved - the Corporation, the short-sighted shareholders, the customers that enabled this behavior. > If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US It's the opposite, you want to "bring more chips in the US" so that the US is able to back off from protecting Taiwan.

criddell 4y ago
> Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it. There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is a corporation.

pxc 4y ago

> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges. These do not seem at all comparable to me

wongarsu 4y ago

Isn't Apple's stance exactly what the US government does: formally not recognizing Taiwan, while at the same time working with them? Everyone is a little bit angry, but nobody so much that they do something about it. And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this label didn't exist

VictorPath 4y ago
This is correct. The US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The Taiwanese government doesn't recognize itself as a separate country from mainland China. I guess some people want Apple to have some US ultra-jingoist Opium Wars attitude to China that the US (aside from perhaps Pelosi) does not.
- klipklop 4y ago
  There is a large faction in the US that supports Taiwan independence. This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism. Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how great things are under unification.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    > Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
    - allendoerfer 4y ago
      > To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression. Source? I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.

INTPenis 4y ago

It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3. It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters. Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging with China. Nobody wins.

MichaelBurge 4y ago
Apple's market cap is $2.7 trillion. How hard could it be for them to get a few nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and tell China, "We refuse to comply with your labeling requirements. Just try to stop us"?
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6 billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90 Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would seriously strain Apple's budget. And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.
  - sour-taste 4y ago
    Not to mention that I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't want it's private companies running their own Navies and going toe to toe with foreign forces
BudaDude 4y ago
To be fair, China was ready to start WWIII a few days ago.
- iconhacker 4y ago
  Only when provoked by US.
  - 4y ago

autosharp 4y ago

We should just make it easy for Apple and other companies by forbidding this mislabeling.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hosh 4y ago

Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating in China. The Taiwanese businesses knew they were shooting themselves in the foot but opened up factories in China anyways. The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War, there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing politics in Taiwan. Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same, ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not (Cultural Revolution). Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances. It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> is not a buffer state between two major political powers Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though. Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR. Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes. Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China. Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.
- hosh 4y ago
  A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example, North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed by ethnic groups. If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one. As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.

lupire 4y ago

Headline is falsified. This is about boxes shipped into China, not people.

newaccount2021 4y ago

zozbot234 4y ago

Taiwan follows the "One China" policy. They view themselves as Chinese even more so than the PRC, not part of some sort of separate, "independent" culture/nation. So the "China" badge is quite justified on its own terms.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Aunche 4y ago

If making a label that complies with Chinese customs is really such a matter of protecting Taiwan, then you should ask these Taiwanese manufacturers to not export their products to China in the first place. Given that they are exporting to China, Apple is correct that they need to comply with China's rules, no matter how arbitrary. IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.

eevilspock 4y ago

A lot of people here making comments without knowing anything about the 70 year-old issue of the definition of "China", as well as the "one country" philosophy that both Taiwan and Mainland China adhere to officially.[1][2][3] I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan. Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official policy. To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5] But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China, why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an American company, push any particular angle, especially when there is position they can take that is compatible with the policies of both Taiwan and China? If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell you there are far more important stands to take, including a serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. --- [1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page: "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" www.taiwan.gov.tw [2] See Taiwan's own constitution, even after modern amendments, continues to hold that China is one country. https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93 https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93 Note that the constitution also claims Mongolia and Tibet as part of the Republic of China. Even Mainland China doesn't claim Mongolia. The amendments adopted afterwards have not rescinded the idea of One China implied by the original: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95 https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95 They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China" and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law." [3] See this comment on this same thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180 [4] There is a good Wikipedia article on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan [5] An ongoing debate within Taiwan about changing the constitution: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05/18/2003757579 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bigcat12345678 4y ago

You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China. Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US. Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it. As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history, performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war, and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc. They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are the original sin that drives all sorts of evil. You got the whole cause and effect reversed.

helloworld97 4y ago
"Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it." Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.
- bigcat12345678 4y ago
  Ask Apple, they are more knowledgeable than you and I combined.
- helloworld97 4y ago
  That was a rhetorical question - I know the answer to it already. I don't think you do though.
tz18 4y ago
How many yuan you get for this post?
- bigcat12345678 4y ago
  Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on this. Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner. Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.

rjzzleep 4y ago

> If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official state department website specifically said that the US does not support independence. Even now it still says that it's official stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions). But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately the reality looks a bit more grim.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Speaking of shaming Apple for their dealings in China, does anyone remember the time Ricky Gervais ripped Apple (and Hollywood by association) over their sweatshops at the 2020 Golden Globes?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

Ukraine is a Sovereign Country, recognised by UN, Taiwan is not and technically it's still China. In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized by International institutions) edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

galdosdi 4y ago
Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition. Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is. Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign. Just a little English vocabulary lesson! See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition. There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries. Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"? > Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country". I clearly can't, can I? If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion. It makes a big difference. > Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government. > Just a little English vocabulary lesson! maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.

99_00 4y ago

>If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan US isn't even serious about protecting themselves. "Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from expanding...in China?" "private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034 https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034 But the administration has no problem telling business what to do when it cares about the issue, for example telling gas stations to lower prices.

mancerayder 4y ago

It's selective wokeness by employees of Apple. Or an American-centric attitude with no interest in universal principles of self-determination by all peoples.

droptablemain 4y ago

Yeah, great idea, let's wage a proxy war with China whilst in the middle of waging a proxy war on Russia. What could go wrong?!

galdosdi 4y ago

Well, one difference is the US is a lot more beholden to China (PRC) than to Russia. The loss of Russian energy supplies would be far less damaging to the US economy than the loss of Chinese manufacturing, for which there really is not substitute right now. China has more leverage vis a vis the US and the west than Russia does, in other words.

rob_c 4y ago
And we all know which 2 political groups oversaw the export of labour to foreign lands... Maybe if the population was interested in actual change it would stop with three political theatre and vote for the things which impact them most...

systemvoltage 4y ago

It is stupendously astounding that NYT hasn't written anything about Apple's ties with China in scathing detail. Even this story was not featured: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chinese-authorities-apple-ceo-signed-275-billion-deal-with-them https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine... The Information is one of the most reputable sources of information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely ignored. I would like a massive investigative journalism project, perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos investigation by John Carreyrou. American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares. That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on China".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

paulcarroty 4y ago

> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges. Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere, 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change: Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.