Maybe, but don't forget that Foxconn is Taiwanese, so there could be an idiosyncratic political angle to this, too.

One of the key reasons for manufacturers to move to India is the massive domestic market. Apple's devices have to be imported into India which attracts an import duty. Minus this tax, Apple's products would be substantially cheaper, which would help it sell a lot more units.

While India is a leader (currently #2 behind China) in units of smartphones sold, their value is only ~20 billion of the ~500 billion USD smartphone market. I don't see extra sales in the superpremium tier being a strong motivator. In India, iPhones are luxury goods, where the higher price makes them more attractive. The sort of person who can afford ~8x average monthly earnings for a phone can also afford a ~6x multiplier. (That's why iPhones are popular in movies for villains and corrupt politicians.)

iPhone price in India is one of the highest anywhere in the world because of import duties. For a country obsessed with social status and a large upper middle class with increasing disposable income, a domestically manufactured cheaper iPhone will sell enough to make a real difference in Apple’s revenues.

Apple has no intention of diluting their brand by selling the same flagship phone cheap in India or anywhere else no matter the duty, their BOM is very very cheap, they can drop their price if they want to.

The would rather sell SE , refurbs, older gen for such markets, while this is better than nothing and has some traction , a 2-3 year old tech is perhaps not as attractive when it will still cost $500 and more when better offerings are there

Import duty is in 20-30% (just got hiked to 30 this year) range , while it is substantial making it zero will not change the market significantly in Apple’s favour given the massive price difference, no mainstream phone successfully sells at the 1500 price point the way only Apple can.

There will be no 'exodus of existential consequence'.

But there will be a shift away.

China is producing a level of design and manufacture that nobody can compete with.

Other countries can take on some of the low-end stuff, but there's just a lot they will not be able to do.

China has an educated workforce that also works at very low wages, and a government bent on providing the infrastructure necessary to make it all work.

Huawei is not going to be reproduced in Vietnam for example.

Agreed. China's wages have risen steadily to the point that they are substantially higher than the competition (Vietnam, India, etc.). Yet during the same time, their share of global manufacturing has also increased. Low wages are only part of the reason for China's manufacturing dominance. A lot has to do with supply chains, industrial expertise and skilled workforce.

> India lacks both cheap "skilled" labour and mineral resources. They do have low and unskilled labour in high numbers though

Skills do not develop in a vacuum. You need to have requirements for a particular skill before you can spend resources to train workers in those skills.

And the lack of large resources is also not that big of a problem. Unlike some countries, India tends to start and maintain friendly relations with countries that have mineral wealth like Australia, etc. And the Indian navy has enough heft to open and secure those supply lines in case someone decides to start a war.

> Also India is just about as democratic as Putins Russia.

Um, no. India has democratic elections whose results are accepted by all the political parties involved. No political party has mounted an actual challenge against any result or vote count or claimed large scale election rigging.

You might not like Modi. That's acceptable. But to go around claiming that democracy does not exist because your favorite lost the elections is frankly disingenuous.

Parliamentary republic with brute majority would feel like a dictatorship. There's no real seperation of legislative and executive branches. Judiciary largely plays to win post retirement careers. But that usually gets fixed after an election or two. Democracies are often compared to China or Singapore on how they are inefficient in addressing long term issues. A parliamentary republic is a fair compromise between an autocracy and a gridlocked presidential republic like in US. If a brute majority mandate is used well, a party can bring along revolutionary changes in short notice.

I agree, but if the brute majority is not used well or if it is used to further individuals motives than the collective then they are not good.To practice Democracy, is the ability to question the usage of funds. Also dilution of institutions is quite worrisome even the supreme court judges have said this.

I have misgivings with the ruling party at center. But to claim that India isn't Democratic is like saying US is autocratic because of Trump. It's true, India needs to go back to it's secular roots. But the elections aren't faked.

Democracy is not just about elections. For instance one of the powers that people have in a democracy is to question the usage of funds and be able to get information about them. Similar to Freedom of Information act in US, India has RTI (Right to Information). But government has made explicit laws in some cases to keep institutions out of RTI so people cannot practice their right. Just recently during corona pandemic Indian government created a 'PM Care Fund' and passed explicit laws that it cannot be Audited or be under RTI, so there is no information on how much money people have donated for the cause or where is the government using it. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/coronavirus-pm-cares-fun...

India has enormous mineral resources

Indias steel production depends on Australian imported Coal, Indias Power production also depends on Imported coal from Australia and neighbourhood countries. India has virtually no Rare earth minerals. Indias has 1μm Semicondictor fab facilities which are good for producing Intel 80386, but nothing above that.

> Also India is just about as democratic as Putins Russia.

Could you share how did you gauge that? Different leaders (from different parties) have led India since Putin took Russia's helm: Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi

Yes just look at 'PM Care fund' it is explicitly outside of RTI, and thus prevents people from practising their democratic right to question usage of funds.

And what is the level of coverage of Russia's equivalent of RTI? (assuming they have one)

you are acting as if the BJP gave India the RTI. Congress gave the country RTI.

and bjp has been systematically dismanteling RTI step by step.

We won't have a functioning RTI in a few years.

and the existing coverage of RTI in India is abysmal. This you'd know if you knew and read the facts. the govt has severely cut funding of RTI

source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/ov...

63% cut in funding of RTI and CIC, both systems who are responsible for transparency.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. My comment was irrespective of party and your reply doesn't even answer my question. You may continue with your wild predictions.

> To a hammer, everything looks like a nail

This is not reddit for you to start attacking me. Argue on the logic.

> My comment was irrespective of party

No it wasn't. you claimed India to be superior because we have RTI while totally ignoring that Modi dismanteled RTI.

> your reply doesn't even answer my question

No, it destroys your argument because you intentionally ignored that Modi govt dismanteled RTI and still claim Russia is inferior to India because we have an RTI. NO we do not have a functioning RTI. the current is only on paper.

> wild predictions

I gave documented proof, unlike you, who started attacking me because you don't have a leg to stand on.

proof again: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/ov...

how the heck is India a better country than Russia?

India had RTI before Modi came to power, Modi dismanteled RTI.

so as far as I see, from the RTI perspective, India and Russia are same.

> This is not reddit for you to start attacking me. Argue on the logic.

This isn't r/India where we bring in BJP/Modi in everything. Please stay on the point.

So was PMNRF? Is that fund public money that must be under rti (answer is it's not)

Yes it is a public authority under RTI, more info on Quint Youtube channel https://youtu.be/chug7egGteU or the Article https://www.thequint.com/news/india/5-reasons-why-pm-cares-f...

>India is just about as democratic as Putins Russia

This is first time hearing it.

However flawed the elected officials are in India, they do represent the popular sentiments of the population at that time.

Just to illustrate what am talking about, just yesterday a politically well connected gangster who surrendered got encountered, this same gangster has been seen with the top brass politicians in India including the home minister.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/vikas-dubey-caught...

It is suspected that if he were to be questioned entire nexus with top politicians would have been revealed.

Your link has no mention of anything you claim. I fail to understand how this illustrates your claim that India is about as democratic as Russia, which in itself is unbelievable.

The link suggests that the democratic institutions are weak and works on the whims of politicians which is what the original comment suggested. Th notorious ganster has been seen with the very same politicians.

Let me give you few more examples :

1. Just recently Indian government created an entity called 'PM Care Fund' for the collection of funds during corona pandemic but created explicit laws that people cannot file an RTI (Right to Information) to know what the government is using the funds for. The ability to exercise democratic rights is an essential right in democracy, democracy isn't just elections. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/coronavirus-pm-cares-fun...

2. The Supreme Court judges have come out in public addressing the public about governments intervention in Judiciary. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-cris...

Free and fare Judiciary and democratic institutions are fundamental to a democracy. I hope this substantiates the original comment.

1. Which democracy in the world do-not have corruption?

2. Where in the article is the mention about government intervention in Judiciary? I read it, but could not find it.

> Free and fare Judiciary and democratic institutions are fundamental to a democracy. I hope this substantiates the original comment.

Your original comment was that India's democracy is close to Putin's Russia. I agree that India being a young democracy need to develop better institutions. However it is not comparable to anything in Russia.

If you really want to compare, why don't you specifically list what happens in a mature democracy like UK, compare that to what is happening in RUSSIA and then show similar issues in India, while also showing that it does not happen in any of the model democracy you have in your mind.

Corruption is a common denominator whether it is a democracy or autocracy. In Democracies citizens have the ability to practice democratic rights. A fundamental right in democracy is the freedom of speech.

In India though people who protest against government policies are sent behind bars without any due process. For instance in the past yr many social activists have been sent to Jail for protesting against the CAA bill, a bill which seeks to give citizenship to people based on their religion. The activists who protested have been jailed for protesting. For instance

Safoora Zargar, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53149967 was a student who participated in the protest and was alleged of rioting and put behind bars without due process.

OR Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan https://www.thequint.com/news/india/bhim-army-chandrashekhar...

The incident is shady but it doesn't prove India is as democratic as Russia. The encounter of a notorious gangster who has committed numerous crimes isn't the same as assassinating a major political opponent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov

Yes please look up in the thread i have given more examples.

> Also India is just about as democratic as Putins Russia.

Lol! A case of sour grapes?

I am not saying this, 4 Supreme Court judges have said this. RTI has been diluted so you dont get a reply to the anything. Democracy is more than elections.

Source?

I am sorry, i forgot to post the source earlier : https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-cris...

As critical as I have been of the current political regime in India, calling it "Putinesque democracy" is a gross exaggeration.

My state is a prime example - it's governed by a party that came into being barely half a decade ago and its first election victory was largely fuelled by grassroots activists and workers. It's about as democratic as it can get.

Even within the ruling party, democracy is quite active - the party presidents change every few years.

I think this will depend on how much of an ally they are in the future.

If they are seen as an economic threat, like Japan in the 80s, the media will probably start to report more on the atrocities committed in Kashmir along with the new Citizenship Law that appears to target or disadvantaged Muslims.

Vietnam might he another alternative, but they are also a communist country, so the optics might not be better than China.

It is appalling how despite the availability of information online, people still choose not to verify what they hear on the MSM. Here is the link to the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 on GOI website. It's only a 2 page document.

http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf

It was amended to accommodate persecuted minorities from *neighboring countries" of India. It has nothing to do with the Citizens of India.

This is blatant disinformation by omitting context. The CAA itself is discriminatory, since it does not apply to muslims, but in the context of the National Register of Citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens) it becomes even more sinister. The NRC requires people to prove their citizenship through documentation, which is very difficult for large parts of India's population, who might be straight up illiterate or lack any kind of documentation whatsoever. The CAA makes it easier for non-Muslims to claim citizenship while Muslims slip through the cracks; that is the point of contention.

> The CAA makes it easier for non-Muslims to claim citizenship while Muslims slip through the cracks; that is the point of contention.

No it doesn't. Here's the relevant part of CAA(http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf) that mentions non-Muslims

> Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014

If you are a non-Muslim who wants to get Indian citizenship under CAA, you must prove (1) you are a citizen of one of these neighboring countries and (2) you entered India before 2014. It is just not enough to not have papers to "slip through the cracks".

Dude, you literally are spreading false information and you're literally quoting one thing on one line and contradicting it on the second line.

CAA makes it easier for non Muslims. you say 'no it doesn't' and then you literaly cite this:

> Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014

Yeah, it specifically mentions Hindu, SIkh Buddhist Jain Parsi Christian. It leaves out MUSLIMS.

Let's go over. the law specifically excludes Muslims.

What does it mean? it fast tracks citizenship of ALL except MUSLIMS. meaning? it excludes Muslims

now comes the NRC, in this exercise, in Assam, they asked everyone to prove their citizenship by showing their grandfather's documents or ancesteral land documents. grandmother or parents document is not valid because what if your grandparents are illegal immigrants.

your documents like voter ID was NOT A VALID DOCUMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP because you have to prove that your GRANDFATHER WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.

Assam NRC took thousands of crores of money to undertake. Just imagine what'll happen when everyone in India is asked to prove their grandfather's citizenship.

Nationwide NRC is different from NRC for Assam.

Nationwide NRC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens) is mandated by 2003 Amendment of Citizenship act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2...). Look at the definition of illegal migrants there. It doesn't mention anything about your grandfather's papers.

Assam NRC is an entirely different beast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens_...). This was conducted as part of 2013 Supreme Court order. The entire process and the rules was prescribed and monitored by the Supreme court of India. The definition of illegal migrant is a far more stringent here since it hinges on 1971 Bangladeshi refugee crisis and subsequent bloody protests by the Assamese people.

The protest in Assam was/is not to include muslims. But, to exclude all illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. It seems, from Assam, CAA was brought to give citizenship to the hindu Bangladeshis that were left out of the NRC conducted in Assam.

> It leaves out MUSLIMS.

All those three countries in the context have Islam as their state religion. I would always welcome Muslim refugees in India but what was the point of partition if Muslims are suffering religious oppression in countries that were created as safe heavens for Muslims? Should we undo it?

And even recent searches show that minorities (the religions covered under the CAA) are not exactly doing better in those countries.

https://www.wionews.com/afghanistan/sikh-abducted-in-afghani...

https://theprint.in/opinion/letter-from-pakistan/pakistanis-...

This is post-facto legitimization of the logic of partition.

Why shouldn't we undo partition (if possible)?

Partition doesn't need legitimization. It has been legitimate since the day both nations recognized each other.

The guidelines for a nation wide NRC have not been formulated. What you're pedaling is nothing more than a conspiracy theory

I never said guidelines have been formulated but the Modi govt has said so in SC that a country wide NRC is necessary

"Centre Tells Supreme Court NRC Necessary, Contradicts Shah's 'No NRC' Declaration"

link: https://thewire.in/government/caa-counter-affidavit-centre

How does citing the official source of the truth become blatant disinformation? Did you read the Act? Your comment reads more like a rhetoric than a real argument based on logic and facts.

Please become more educated on this issue. Muslims are not a monolithic group, and being a Muslim does not protect you from persecution in Muslim majority countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Shi'ism

If the bill was meant to be secular, it could provide asylum for everyone suffering religious persecution, regardless of their religion. It clearly is designed to exclude muslims.

When India was divided, prime minsters of India and Pakistan [Liaquat–Nehru Pact] agreed on treating their respective minorities well. Without this agreement the minorities[Hindus, Sikhs etc in Pakistan] living in each country could have choose to move to the other[India in this case].

Hence passing CAA is just accepting the fact that Indias neighbors are not treating minorities well as they promised and delivering the promise that was made during independence.

> If the bill was meant to be secular, it could provide asylum for everyone suffering religious persecution, regardless of their religion. It clearly is designed to exclude muslims.

Here is the document in it's entirety - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf.

Please point out the relevant sections of the document where it is stated that Muslims will not be allowed to apply for asylum or that Muslims will not be granted asylum.

It just accelerates the process for certain groups of people that are in more grave danger in the area. There's nothing wrong in that. Just because some groups are not mentioned for the accelerated process does not mean that they are excluded from the entire process.

Adding to your point

Rohingyas from Myanmar are not similar to Buddhists from Pakistan due to one single reason. Myanmar was not divided from India. Nor has Indian govt made any promise on protection anytime.

Hence India does not have any obligation to people from Myanmar apart from Humanitarian concern. That particular concern is common to all the world. If Europe or US have that concern, I do believe that they can accept Rohigyas similar to how they accepted a large number of Syrians

If the accelerated asylum process does not apply to Muslims (including Rohingyas and Ahmadiyas), why is that not discriminatory? Why is the plight of a Buddhist in Pakistan more urgent than that of a Rohingya in Myanmar?

Unlike Pakistan, India recognizes Ahmadiyas as Muslims[1][2]. From India's perspective, they are followers of Islam. CAA doesn't address sectarian conflicts. It only addresses religious persecution. It can be argued that it should address sectarian issues, but by that reasoning, it should also address persecution based on sexual-orientation, color, gender, etc.

As for Rohingyas, this comment explains it in a better way:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23800181

I would also like to add that Rohingyas are known for some serious violence[3]. I don't think the same can be said for a Buddhist from Pakistan.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Ordinan...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#India

3. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...

> It only addresses religious persecution

SO you agree that Ahmadiyas are persecuted. They are a religiously persecuted because their sect is being persecuted.

so CAA clearly should have involved them because any secterian persecution is by default done via religion.

They're not being persecuted for owning a PlayStation in a country of poor right?

> They are a religiously persecuted because their sect is being persecuted.

CAA is not the only way in which refugees can come to India. They are free to seek asylum if they want.

If you want them to be included in the CAA then first ask the Indian government to recognize them as a separate religious sect that's being oppressed.

you claimed that CAA is for religious prosecution.

Ahmadiyas and Rohingyas are religious sects who are facing prosecution.

ergo, they are qualified under CAA.

but you claim otherwise using mental gymnastics.

> They are free to seek asylum if they want.

If this is the case, abolish CAA and let Afghan Hindus and Pakistani Hindus seek asylum as well. since CAA isn't the only way right?

> Indian government to recognize them as a separate religious sect that's being oppressed.

the hell? They are facing religious prosecution because of their religion (sect isn't different from religion as sect is a part of the religion)

when the self declared 'upper castes' discriminate against upper class defined 'lower class' then it is still religious discrimination because the 'lower class' are discriminated because they have a particular religious identity.

you don't have a leg to stand on.

Let Pakistan handover equivalent land to India, let us not forget Ahmadiyas created the Islamic nation of Pakistan.

Rohingas trace their roots to Bangladesh and there are 50+ muslim majority countries for them to migrate to, which is not the case for Hindus and Sikhs.

Moreover mayanmer has unearthed mass graves of Hindus in Rohingya areas, while it isn't surprising, that isn't comforting either.

Hindus also have a lot of south Asian Hindu countries. Nepal and Cambodia comes to mind.

What else comes to mind? Cambodia?

Unless you subscribe to the view that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.

Fine, they can go to Nepal.

Ahmadiyas were the founders of Pakistan, and the butcher of non-muslims in Pakistan.

Why would you invite them along with the ones fleeing? It is like inviting the fox into the coop.

Citation, please. Since when did they butcher non-Muslims?

How will be the bill secular when it is in response to the persecution of minority religions in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan? And I don't understand this fixation with Muslims. What about the followers of Bahá'í Faith who are not covered under this bill?

Ahmadiyas are minorities in Pakistan as are the Rohingya in Myamnar.

also if you think that Rohingya hsould not be allowed because Myamnar was never a part of India, then Afghanistan was also never a part of India, so why are Afghanis being given fast tracked citizenship of India?

Let Pakistan handover equivalent land to India, let us not forget Ahmadiyas created the Islamic nation of Pakistan.

Rohingas trace their roots to Bangladesh and there are 50+ muslim majority countries for them to migrate to, which is not the case for Hindus and Sikhs.

Moreover mayanmer has unearthed mass graves of Hindus in Rohingya areas, while it isn't surprising, that isn't comforting either.

> Ahmadiyas are minorities in Pakistan as are the Rohingya in Myamnar.

Unlike Pakistan, Indian government considers Ahmadiyas as followers of Islam. First Indian government (or the UN) would have to recognize the sectarian conflict in Pakistan and then we can initiate discussions wrt them. As for Rohingyas, they are known for some serious violence.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...

Dude, you said that CAA applies to religious prosecution.

Ahmadiyas are a sect of Islam and they're being prosecuted. Islam is a religion so by default this is religions prosecution.

if what you said is said in good faith (and not as a propagandist), India should include Ahmadiyas and Rohingya under CAA. otherwise either you are wrong or Indian govt's intentions are not what you claim them to be.

> Dude, you said that CAA applies to religious prosecution.

Yes, I said that. I also said that Ahmadiyas are victims of sectarian conflict and not a religious one. Once you include one sect, there will be demands to include all other persecuted sects (Shias, Sufis etc.) How do you plan to deal with that situation? And if so many Muslims are suffering in those counties then what was the point of partition? Why shouldn't we undo that first?

is their sect a religious one or not?

Or is their sect a sports one?

What on earth does Indian government want, this isn’t some certificate you get from thanedar that social boycott is happening.

How convenient, why not call for the dissolution of Pakistan so each kind of muslim can have their own country.

Else if Pakistani muslims want to migrate en masse to India, why not return Pakistani land back to India.

I had the same mindset initially. The CAA in itself is benign. Simply reading the Act will not give you the perspective on how it is going to be implemented. The statements given by the Home Minister of India - who is also a senior member of the ruling party - will give you a better idea of the situation. The backlash due to the passing of the CAB led the Prime Minister to make multiple statements that directly contradict ones made by the Home Minister just a few months before[1]. This, along with the general attitude of senior party ministers[2] is leading the people to be (IMO rightly) concerned about the motives of the government.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEfaRmQIDU4 [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCyBL8dBOEo

> Vietnam might he another alternative, but they are also a communist country, so the optics might not be better than China.

It's already a booming manufacturing alternative center to China. It's also a center of booming tech manufacturing. Samsung has invested a huge amount of money into factories there.

Their GDP has gone from $35 billion in 2003, to $261b in 2019. They've had one of the fastest growing economies for the past decade.

US imports from Vietnam have climbed from $14b in 2010, to $30b in 2014, to $66b in 2019. 371% increase in one decade. The US imports more from Vietnam than France ($57b) or the UK ($63b) now.

US exports to Vietnam by contrast are a mere $10b, so we're pouring an epic positive trade surplus (surplus for them) into the country. The same exact way China developed. US investment is going to build Vietnam into a middle income country in the span of 20 years. We'll probably soon have nearly a $100b trade deficit with Vietnam. If they keep on the right track, they'll develop very rapidly.

The Communism isn't a problem. The US wants Vietnam to develop so it can help be another strategic counter to China. The people of Vietnam also hold the highest opinion of the US of any people of any nation.[2] The US also doesn't have to worry about Vietnam becoming a superpower competitor, so they don't pose a China-like strategic threat. They're an excellent ally accordingly, we have many shared interests.

"40 years after fall of Saigon, Vietnamese see U.S. as key ally"

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-...

"84% of Vietnamese people view the US favorably"

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/06/26/tarnished-amer...

Which is kind of ironic after what the US has done to people in Vietnam. But it's similar to what happened in Japan, only Japan was under US occupation, while Vietnam was not.

Winners normally do not get overly worked up about the vanquished.

Vietnam for the most part stopped the anti-America propaganda in the nineties. Sure, everyone learns about the American war in the history books, but they're also exposed to the huge amount of movies, tv shows and music from America. Vietnam also had a decade long border dispute with China which started with the war of 1979 (funny enough, this is rarely mentioned in school), so hatred of China is common. In recent years Vietnam and China have clashed multiple times on the issues of South China Sea (the Vietnamese call this the "East Sea"). The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that kind of thing.

Not only Americans. Vietnamese people view white, Western people very favorably, since they generally look up to those developed nations (and their citizens).

And yes, part of the reason is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Maybe they don't have anti-US propaganda, like North Korea does.

And to top it all off, Vietnam forever and ever will hate China. The enemy of my enemy...

Whether Vietnam (to use your example) is communist is irrelevant, in the same way it is in fact that China is nominally communist.

The 'issue' is that China is a big country so can develop to become more powerful than the US and Europe. Vietnam cannot so is not a threat and can be bullied into submission if necessary.

In fact the US is courting Vietnam for this reason and as a regional opponent to China. Clearly the political regime is not important.

Believe it or not Capitalists love Communist countries as manufacturing hubs, they can circumvent labour laws, unions etc. Vietnam Is an ok destination for skilled labour but is hardly the resource heaven than China is.