> But when it comes to things that actually harm profits and challenge shareholder responsibilities, they stay mum.

Cynical but this is why- it would cost them a lot, at least today. The Chinese government has zero reservations about sandbagging US corporations that publicly critique it or otherwise don't fall in line - just ask Google, Facebook, or the Houston Rockets. You wont hear a peep out of Apple until they're 100% sure they can break ties and afford any assets seized, have no personnel abroad, etc.

Apple last quarter generated 16% of their revenue in China. They've also cooperated with the HK/Chinese governments to pull police tracking apps[1] and VPN apps[2] from the App Store.

I'd say even if they relocate 100% of their manufacturing from China, they'd still stay silent because 10B of revenue per quarter is very significant to their top line.

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-pulls-police-tracki... [2]https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-pulls-vpns-from-china-ap...

If any firm in history has ever been rich enough to weather a bit of a business setback, surely Apple would be?

Consider that Apple's supply chain is centered around the PRC - if Apple PR ever says the /wrong/ then then Foxconn would immediately find their factories closed and Apple wouldn't have their latest iPhone available come October - and Christmas.

I'm surprised it took until very recently for Apple to start spinning-up alternative supply arrangements and manufacturing in other countries - I guess they expected that the PRC would improve their human-rights situation by now.

> if Apple PR ever says the /wrong/ then then Foxconn would immediately find their factories closed and Apple wouldn't have their latest iPhone available come October - and Christmas.

Is that something China could realistically do without irreparably harming themselves in the process though? It’s not just Apple’s supply chain that goes through China, it’s everybody’s. And once China demonstrates they are willing to do that, everybody is going to see a China-based supply chain as a gigantic business risk and look elsewhere. Apple can weather that kind of setback, but it would be an existential threat for most businesses and they would need to be proactive. Apple would go elsewhere and lay down the infrastructure, then everybody else would follow in their footsteps.

As far as I can see, China can throw their weight around to a certain extent but their hands are tied when it comes to stronger action because "Apple’s PR saying the wrong thing" is nowhere near as harmful to them as companies diversifying their supply chains en masse.

One small possibility for hope: Foxconn is a Taiwanese company with factories around China but that has also no expanded to other countries. Apple can (and is slowly) work with Foxconn to progressively move bits of its supply chain out of the PRC. It's already producing some iPhone in India and some other devices in the USA. Given the current political climate, they really ought to diversify out of China as a sound business decision, even if they have no plans to take a stance.

And what does Apple get in return? Some lip service praise from media? Would US government compensate Apple with tax break? What about the jobs that might be lost?

Think of Google then. Google's exit from China achieves one thing, that is becoming irrelevant to the Chinese people, while giving its competitor a free run of the world biggest internet market.

Control through market is a trick that US has been playing since WWII. It is proven to be effective.

>And what does Apple get in return?

Not being complicit in genocide isn't enough reward by itself?

Certainly, but considering how much of their business is hardware manufactured in China, it would destroy basically every corporate performance metric their executive team has for some time and this is ultimately how their bread is buttered. Hardware manufacturing at that scale and sophistication is an intricate dance of suppliers, technology integration, and management, one that Apple has mastered- losing this and having to replace it overnight would be a huge setback, with basically no iPhones or Macs available for months or longer, closing of Apple Stores, and suspension of new technology development.

> it would destroy basically every corporate performance metric their executive team has for some time and this is ultimately how their bread is buttered.

Interesting how Microsoft's President called for a Hippocratic oath for engineers, while dodging the real problem - decisions which have real impact are made by executives keen on maximizing bonuses.

I share your sentiment on this. Among all the big tech, Apple is the only one which has a significant foothold in China and can possibly have an impact. But they have failed to live upto the ideals they speak about when it comes to earning easy money. BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them.

At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. With the criticism Google gets(some rightly so) and the stuff Apple gets away with, I wonder if they look to Apple and see the easy money they left on the table.

> BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them.

Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.

> Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.

That doesn't really matter. Voluntary boycotts have little effect, and there probably no enough people who are so "anti-BLM" that they'd actually follow through on a boycott for Apple to notice.

The real reason they don't matter is because they already largely weren't a significant portion of their demographics. Stating my intention to boycott some very expensive high fashion brand when I haven't bought any article of clothing for a thousand dollars doesn't mean anything.

It is easy because it gives them marketing reach inside US, they won't get the same in PRC.

A vocal segment might complaint on Apple, but where would they run to, Google's Android? Google is also pro BLM. All big tech are.

These boycotts have limited impact, or rather, their impact can be explained away by blaming other factors (see Blizzard, Disney, etc). This makes it a lot easier for companies to engage in this political marketing (lgbtq+/blm/etc). The reason they’re afraid to voice support for democracy in Hong Kong or human rights in a China, is not because they fear the Chinese people will individually boycott them, but rather that the CCP will block their access to the entire market.

I’ve always wondered if, hypothetically, someone as huge in China as Apple takes a stance and publicly criticizes the CCP, and the CCP do completely block access to the market, how does CCP explain to their people they suddenly won’t be able to get Apple products anymore? Would that actually happen? What are China’s options? Can they seize factories, take over, and keep shipping like nothing’s wrong? Do they let Apple stay but make it hurt financially?

When you have total control of the media(social/traditional), you can spread your narrative easily. I would assume it would look something like, "Look at the company aiding secessionists in HK and helping them". There is no way this narrative gets countered there.

I don't think they will seize factories, as it just means every foreign company would look to exit. They will probably simply not allow them to sell their products in mainland and not give them any concessions.

Easy, just like "This Chinese Corporation is Spying on you with 5G Networks"

Companies like Apple are just greedy, for the cheap labor, the market shares as well as no need to pay for the environment costs. however, it's short sighted, they really need to realize that CCP is always hunger for power. Sooner or later, they can use their money and market to first influence, then eventually own or destroy if they don't think they have full control of you.

For the whole world, people need to wake up too. just do some research on the Chinese textbooks from elementary school to college, and see what kind of mindsets they are instilling to their population, you will realize this is a monster.

Isn't Apple moving to India?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/03/six-apple-product...

I suspect that Apple is moving away from China, but the reality is that doing so takes time.

That is most probably Apple doing diversification to avoid SPoF and taking advantages of tax breaks. They will never stand up for these things because they don't just manufacture, they sell a lot of devices there.

Doing any amount of supply chain and manufacturing diversification now is still an option expanding choice in the long run.

Why does the reason matter? Pulling production is pulling production.

We are better off letting companies quietly pull out than starting big rights that fundamentally hurt Western firms.

Let them quietly move towards the exits.

That’s a good point. If we assume the best of Tim Cook, he’d still be savvy enough not to announce “China sucks we’re moving to India” but rather the SPoF argument, and then one day, well we need to reduce capacity and for reasons XYZ (which are aha nothing to do with the CCP) we’re going to focus on India.

I support this if that is the intention, I was just speculating that the reason is just the points I mentioned and not Apple looking to calling it quits over some ideals.

And India is very oppressive in Kashmir but most people just conveniently forget about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/world/asia/kashmir-india-...

moreso because they sense the us govt stopping them. not because they have moral qualms

That article actually states "Apple manufacturing partners" are opening factories in India. In other words, Apple are continuing to work with Chinese companies, and the Chinese companies are extending their reach outside of China. In no way is that Apple moving away from China.

Most of those partners are actually Taiwanese.

And Apple is simply hedging their bets like any responsible company would be doing in this situation. So some manufacturing capability will be moving to India et al but obviously not all and not in the short term.

Well hello? it's not like Apple setup their manufacturing in Hongkong or something. Apple and Taiwan businessman purposely setup factories in mainland China for its exploitable cheap work force and government subsidies of the supply chain.

For the mainland Chinese' perspective, it's just HK people's "privilege" being stripped, HK's special status are gone and just like another average Chinese city so what's the outcry?

I cannot sensibly speak to each of your points, and I am not an Apple apologist, but from my basic, and possibly misinformed understanding Apple is starting to move ex-China:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/the-i-in-...

July 2020.

We are not, companies are empowering. Because it all about $. That's all, no human rights can surpass this. Books, shareholders revenues, expectations and the money flow to their bank accounts. All that matters.

But it is really disappointing to see all the brands I'm using are feeding this regime. So disappointing.

>Opens with strong statements about how Apple supports democracy and open culture, how they appreciate people's voices and ability to think with liberty, how they inspire great people when government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

Now imagine five million Chinese hearing they now have lost their job because Apple "appreciates their voice." (first result for "Apple created jobs in China," I did not verify the number) I'm sure their reaction will be to cry out for democracy.

Meanwhile, Apple will undoubtedly move their operations to one of the many democracies that also have a terrible human rights record.

Some big companies DO try to be intentional about moral issues like this. The HN post earlier today had a question for Microsoft President Brad Smith about China.

> "While China is also an important market for Microsoft, Smith explained that they had to step back from setting up a data center there because of the legal and security issues that it could create for their Chinese users. “You need to know what principles you hold fundamental”, he added."

Also worth noting that it is not always a simple black and white. Yes there are clear examples, but lots of Chinese companies do honest business and don't want to hurt anyone. And what is the dividing line for a potential boycott? Do companies all over the world have to meet US labor standards before you'll buy from them? Do their host governments need to meet a particular definition of liberalism? Can you come up with concrete definitions that don't exclude the US?

You may have all sorts of answers to those questions, and I hope you do your part in voting with your wallet along those moral lines. I point them out only to illustrate that they aren't EASY questions, and certainly aren't easy in the context of big movements like trade deals, when hundreds or thousands of local jobs are at stake.

Because no matter how depressing it is to say/hear, he was elected democratically.

Reaching for the stars much? Russia nor China could get boots on the contiguous states. An ice cube has a higher chance of surviving in hell.

Lol!

Every empire fails.

Capitalism.

Who are the 'we' you're referring to. Why throw a specific company under the bus like that.

Consumers pay with their wallet - may I ask what phone you have? I bet more than half the things you own are made in China.

"Why throw a specific company under the bus like that" - probably calling out Apple specifically since they are the (or one of the) richest, most profitable companies in the world that still manufactures most of their products in China. They are a company that claim to have strong ethical values, as the OP mentioned in relation to the BLM movement, but they continue to do business with China, an undemocratic country with horrific human rights history. If any significant company were able to make a stand and remove any reliance on China, it would be Apple.

> Why throw a specific company under the bus like that.

I am sorry to throw a 1.9 trillion dollar company under the bus.

Yes, I own many made in China products. In fact, it is hard to find anything in my room that's not made in China, including books and bunch of things that I wouldn't even know. Probably the bulb's phosphor coating is manufactured in China and so are the chemicals in my stomach acid tablets.

PRC will take a big bite out of the Apple and America will have no pie

Amazing if Apple actually did that it will be huge. The CCP is going rogue and hostile towards worlds peace. We all must come together to boycott them. One more company that should take a stand and remove China from its supply chain is Amazon. They have let their store run amock with low grade goods

> The CCP is going rogue and hostile towards worlds peace. We all must come together to boycott them. One more company that should take a stand and remove China from its supply chain is Amazon. They have let their store run amock with low grade goods

The CCP was always against World Peace, just look at their actions, be it in Tienanmen or against the 'others' (non-Han) in Tibet or Xianjing prior to Hong Kong. You think they would hesitate to do any of that, or worse, in Africa as its gotten in deeper over the years?

I've been convinced that we have to move away from Chinese manufacturing reliance for many reasons and have been advocating for this for nearly a decade now, which is what made me end up having to source many things I'd normally buy new on the second hand market that are made in Japan/US/EU or simply often simply do without unless absolutely unavoidable (non obsolete laptops/PC) and even then I'd buy used or repaired broken devices.

But I think it has only now become apparent to the masses that the CCP are utterly insane and suicidal. They lie about everything and nothing they say can be trusted.

I hope we use COVID as the proverbial 'straw that broke the camels back' in what we'd tolerate for mass produced, cheaply made, disposable trinkets from sweatshops using slave labour and move towards a post ;Made in China' World. People like to mock N. Korea, but I fear Xi and the CCP is worse because of how insidious and pervasive they have wielded its influence on the World. The US is guilty of this, too, but China is a violent Autocracy with a long history of erasing People and events from it's History to suit its own end: a perverse form of Powerful State-sponsored Corporatism that seems extremely dystopically Cyberpunk.

Boycotting their goods and returning manufacturing locally is the most effective, and ideally non-violent approach as we isolate and impose an embargo on the CCP until China reforms. The UK did a 180 on the Huawei 5G that essentially did what most thought was impossible and undid and pivoted the Supply Chain with an incredibly short turn-around on the matter proving it can be done if there is a resolve to do so.

With all of the massive unemployment in the US (but all over the World really) and what what will certainly be a soon to be seen retail real estate Apocalypse you'd think any sensible person (oxymoron?) running for office would put 2 and 2 together and see the obvious platform and run on that campaign and win in a landslide.

1: https://www.zdnet.com/article/unmade-the-uks-5g-reversal-spl...

Apple has spoken extensively about why they choose to manufacture in China.

https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...

If you had to quantify how much Apple supporting BLM has helped decrease racism, it's probably very close to zero. Voicing their support for Hong Kong would accomplish even less. Why would they jeopardize potential billions of dollars to do so?

> "so Hackernews thinks"

You are "hackernews" as much as anyone else here. Commenters are individuals holding their own, differing opinions.

I genuinely want to know what these people are thinking. Similar comments also got downvoted with no explanation. Even if you're Kantian rather than utilitarian, you should understand that companies not wanting to spend billions of dollars on a lost cause.

If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China? This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard, and I have to wonder what you have against Apple that you would single them out in this way.

Hong Kong and people like Mr. Lai has always done business in China and there's nothing reprehensible about that, nor is it reprehensible for any other business to legally carry on it's business in the same way. This is about individual freedom, free speech and political liberties, of which trade is one and criticising others for exercising their freedoms is the antithesis of that. Mr Lai made his fortune exercising those freedoms and I very much doubt he would say doing so now is in any way wrong. The way to fight this is by arguing and fighting for freedoms, not against them.

> If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China?

Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.

You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.

If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.

Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.

For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.

> If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.

One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.

> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard

> I have to wonder what you have against Apple

> this sort of selective virtue posturing

Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.

It’s not a matter of necessary or not, it’s a matter of freedom or not. Mr Lai clearly gets this. He said he fights for freedom because it’s those freedoms that enabled his success. Those arguing against people exercising those rights are anti-freedom.

Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.

I, for one, would like the down voters to address the merit of the commentators argument, if it’s not too much trouble.