4 ms·

The NYT just won a Pulitzer[1] "...for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of

The NYT just won a Pulitzer[1] "...for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers."[2] [1] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/16/apple-pulitzer-ny-times/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/16/apple-pulitzer-ny-tim... [2] http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Explanatory-Reporting http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Explanatory-Reporting

astrodust 13y ago
Did you even read that first article? Mike Daisey made up things. Big time. He invented things. His report was half fabrication, half stretching the truth. The New York Times, for all their credibility, did really go out of their way to paint a dramatic picture. Such is what happens when you want awards, and not the truth. In any case, all this did spur Apple to crack down hard on Foxconn, but the infractions they've found so far are pretty minor. A handful of under-aged workers that submitted fraudulent paperwork. Some industrial accidents that, while unfortunate, do happen at a plant with 800,000 workers. The deeper down in the supply chain, the more problems you'll find, but at least some are doing the right thing. While working at Foxconn isn't as nice as working at, say, an American automotive plant, it's actually not a bad career for someone who's in their twenties, with no academic accreditation and looking to make a living. If I had a choice between working in a toilet factory, a forge, or a Foxconn factory, I would go with Foxconn every single time. All your rage seems misdirected. What about the people who built the American Embassy in Iraq and had to live in containers in the middle of the desert, who had their passports taken away, and who might never have been paid at all once "living expenses" were deducted from their pay? Ah, but there's no "Apple" in the headline there, so it won't get any traction.
- bitcartel 13y ago
  Apple has the public's eye, which is why they're getting picked on, just like Nike was a few years ago. The fact that Apple enjoys such fat margins makes them look, at least to some people, that bit more egregious than their competitors. I don't know if the Pulitzer was deserved or not, but I feel it was a tech story worth covering.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Worth covering, sure, but don't get all frantic about it. How many times does Apple have to strong-arm their suppliers into doubling wages (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/28/apples-foxconn-to-double-wages-again/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/28/apples-fo...) before people are happy? I haven't heard of any other company doing this. Apple uses the same factories, the same suppliers, and the same logistics as everyone else. Why do they have such high margins, then? Could it be they know how to run a business better? Remember Apple focuses on creating a handful of products and manufacturing the hell out of them. HP, by contrast, has over two thousand different printer models. Why do you need so many models? How can you build up enough volume on any of those to cut manufacturing margins? Sony's PS3, by contrast, is basically a single unit, so they can slash margins tremendously. The only variations are accessories and an easily replaced hard drive. Apple comes as close to that model as they possibly can. There's actually an unusually large diversity of notebooks now with the Retina machines being introduced, but that's still a fraction of what Dell or HP has in their line-up. Samsung's starting to "get it" and they're promoting their flagship phone instead of any of the hundreds of others they have.

astrodust 13y ago

Did you even read that first article? Mike Daisey made up things. Big time. He invented things. His report was half fabrication, half stretching the truth. The New York Times, for all their credibility, did really go out of their way to paint a dramatic picture. Such is what happens when you want awards, and not the truth. In any case, all this did spur Apple to crack down hard on Foxconn, but the infractions they've found so far are pretty minor. A handful of under-aged workers that submitted fraudulent paperwork. Some industrial accidents that, while unfortunate, do happen at a plant with 800,000 workers. The deeper down in the supply chain, the more problems you'll find, but at least some are doing the right thing. While working at Foxconn isn't as nice as working at, say, an American automotive plant, it's actually not a bad career for someone who's in their twenties, with no academic accreditation and looking to make a living. If I had a choice between working in a toilet factory, a forge, or a Foxconn factory, I would go with Foxconn every single time. All your rage seems misdirected. What about the people who built the American Embassy in Iraq and had to live in containers in the middle of the desert, who had their passports taken away, and who might never have been paid at all once "living expenses" were deducted from their pay? Ah, but there's no "Apple" in the headline there, so it won't get any traction.

bitcartel 13y ago
Apple has the public's eye, which is why they're getting picked on, just like Nike was a few years ago. The fact that Apple enjoys such fat margins makes them look, at least to some people, that bit more egregious than their competitors. I don't know if the Pulitzer was deserved or not, but I feel it was a tech story worth covering.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Worth covering, sure, but don't get all frantic about it. How many times does Apple have to strong-arm their suppliers into doubling wages (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/28/apples-foxconn-to-double-wages-again/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/28/apples-fo...) before people are happy? I haven't heard of any other company doing this. Apple uses the same factories, the same suppliers, and the same logistics as everyone else. Why do they have such high margins, then? Could it be they know how to run a business better? Remember Apple focuses on creating a handful of products and manufacturing the hell out of them. HP, by contrast, has over two thousand different printer models. Why do you need so many models? How can you build up enough volume on any of those to cut manufacturing margins? Sony's PS3, by contrast, is basically a single unit, so they can slash margins tremendously. The only variations are accessories and an easily replaced hard drive. Apple comes as close to that model as they possibly can. There's actually an unusually large diversity of notebooks now with the Retina machines being introduced, but that's still a fraction of what Dell or HP has in their line-up. Samsung's starting to "get it" and they're promoting their flagship phone instead of any of the hundreds of others they have.