Two questions

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

apple sells phones worldwide. why must they be made here? in fact the
majority of iphones are sold outside usa.

many of the parts, if not most of them, are not only made in the usa
but designed in the usa. only the final assembly is done in china.

foxconn makes nearly half of the world's electronics. there's a reason
for that and it's because the usa can't compete with manufacturing.

high tech products from apple and others have created millions of jobs
*in* the usa, something people completely ignore.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

pirates smuggle cameras into movie theaters to make illicit copies
which are then distributed. pirates do the same thing for concerts
using audio recorders.

the results are about the worst quality possible, especially when
someone stands up in front of the person with the camera.

You said the worst was making a copy of the flick from a TV. Now the
worst is in a movie theater. Which is it.

whoosh.

On 2015-09-27 12:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:49:26 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 20:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:29:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So no failure on Apple's part in choosing and using those suppliers?
In taking advantage of the lax enforcement?

What Apple is doing is what so many other companies are doing, but
since when is doing what other people are doing an excuse for doing
it?

since when is it acceptable to bash only one company, who has done the
most to make the situation better, while the other companies do little
to nothing at all?

Apple is not on the high ground here, just as Sorkin said.

nonsense.

sorkin is doing it solely for publicity because his movie hits theaters
in a couple of weeks.

Cook provided the opening. Sorkin didn't instigate this, Cook did.

The correct response would be to defend his treatment of Jobs, not
deflect to another issue.


Bias again. Extreme. Why should there be a more correct response to
a defamatory comment in the first place?

The correct thing would have been for Cook to voice his objection
using a less inflammatory word.

I don't blame Cook for saying what he did, but I don't blame Sorkin
for reacting as he did.

Sorkin should have defended what he was doing. Turning 90° onto
something else was just cheap high school 2nd line debating team
tactics. Poorly done at that.

On 2015-09-27 21:31:32 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

There is no such thing, and never will be until the entropy death of
the universe.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..

How do you get on with the moral burden of depriving tens of thousands
of people of their only source of living? There are two sides to all
of these things.



As to moral courage, China has the policy courage, just not as much
enforcement courage. Apple is the 800 Lb gorilla on that and they keep
auditors in place and roving around in order to ensure compliance.
Despite that there are of course exceptions.

And of course there is stalwart VW ...

I remember when Chrysler did much the same kind of thing back in the
70s with their 6 cylinder engines in Australia.

The good old MOPAR Slant Six 225. That thing was a workhorse for
Chrysler in the 60's & 70's. It survived in the US until 1987.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-27 17:41, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:59:11 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

See above. What does Apple's manufacturing have to do with Cook's
complaint about Sorkin's portrayal of Jobs? So Sorkin attacks Cook and
Apple's manufacturing chain. That's deflection. (And poorly too).

On reflection, I do see it as deflection. Deflection is a common
reaction in any argument or situation where one person attacks
another.

If man's wife angrily accuses him of doing something wrong, the
husband will strike back with the first thing that comes to mind that
the wife does that he thinks is wrong or can construe to be wrong.

Wife: "You're spending too much time on the computer reading those
idiotic newsgroups instead of doing things around the house that need
done."

.... oddly enough ...


Husband: "Well, you are blowing the budget on designer shoes and
handbags you don't need."


.... oddly enough ...


Actually neither happens here. While I spend far too much time on this
nonsense, it's "tolerable" (from all evidence) and my SO certainly is
the antithesis of a spendthrift. (She just now, litteraly, came in to
entreat me to help with supper - a simple Tagliatelle, arugula and
bread. (All hand picked mushrooms, vegetables and home made bread. We
didn't milk the cow...)).

But what you show as an example is right on the button.


The family budget and the need for household tasks to be done are not
related, but that's what we do.

Parse it as you like Tony.

I take it I have not convinced you that both people stepped over the
line, both spoke in anger, and neither is right.

True enough - I think. I haven't seen the Sorkin biopic - and even then
(if I bother) I wouldn't really know what was true or bent. To be sure
a lot of people tasted the wrath of Jobs.

On 2015-09-27 17:31, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

There is no such thing, and never will be until the entropy death of
the universe.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..

How do you get on with the moral burden of depriving tens of thousands
of people of their only source of living? There are two sides to all
of these things.



As to moral courage, China has the policy courage, just not as much
enforcement courage. Apple is the 800 Lb gorilla on that and they keep
auditors in place and roving around in order to ensure compliance.
Despite that there are of course exceptions.

And of course there is stalwart VW ...

I remember when Chrysler did much the same kind of thing back in the
70s with their 6 cylinder engines in Australia.

Apparently heavy trucking tractor builders in the US played some games
in the 90's and were caught at it too...

On 2015-09-27 22:41:44 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-09-27 17:31, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

There is no such thing, and never will be until the entropy death of
the universe.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..

How do you get on with the moral burden of depriving tens of thousands
of people of their only source of living? There are two sides to all
of these things.



As to moral courage, China has the policy courage, just not as much
enforcement courage. Apple is the 800 Lb gorilla on that and they keep
auditors in place and roving around in order to ensure compliance.
Despite that there are of course exceptions.

And of course there is stalwart VW ...

I remember when Chrysler did much the same kind of thing back in the
70s with their 6 cylinder engines in Australia.

Apparently heavy trucking tractor builders in the US played some games
in the 90's and were caught at it too...

Noooo!. Not Caterpillar!! Say it isn't so.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:10:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

pirates smuggle cameras into movie theaters to make illicit copies
which are then distributed. pirates do the same thing for concerts
using audio recorders.

the results are about the worst quality possible, especially when
someone stands up in front of the person with the camera.

You said the worst was making a copy of the flick from a TV. Now the
worst is in a movie theater. Which is it.

whoosh.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 19:49:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

Which is merely another way of having someone else pirate it for them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens