The problem is the big corps have zero accountability when operating in developing nations. On the flip side, developing nations are desperate to attract big firms in order to bring profits in.

For a country the size of India, though they definitely can demand that Apple pay a hefty fine or face even more tariffs. If they can't guarantee workers pay, they deserve to be treated exactly like TikTok was.

but why? If you hired a contractor to renovate your house, and it turned out that they were committing wage theft against their workers, should you be fined?

https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-...

https://www.araglegal.com/individuals/learning-center/topics...

They will rise and fall to the level of accountability that the public is willing to hold them too.

Apple could audit them, but is it common practice to do so? Otherwise this seems like a case of hindsight is 20/20.

Chocolate, coffee, and banana producers are in a different context. If you want to stop child labor on the chocolate farms, there's currently no choice but to have Nestle and Hershey do it, because the governments in Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire either can't or won't enforce their own laws on the topic.

Their only power in this situation is to choose who to do business with. They can’t fine the company or revoke business licenses, as a Minstry of labor could do.

Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?

"Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative.

> Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?

Of...course not?

But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.

I agree with this. Presumably it’s what Apple is going to do in this case.

What would you suggest they do if they can’t find a more ethical alternative to Wistron?

“Apple wants to be a world-spanning power.”

Does it? Or does it just want to keep making computers and software? It’s not obvious what Apple’s size has to do with Wistron breaking their contract.

But Apple sells in China despite violating their policies regarding privacy, so their principles are already soft.

As a manager have you ever tried to change the behavior of even a single employee?

If there is a culture problem with the management, an observer won’t solve that.

In any case, how would that solve anything?

Can you think of a single example where acquiring a problematic company solved its problems?

If there is no company willing to agree to a contract like that, Apple would only be able to force them by offering more money until it was worth their while.

It's no more /force/ than employers have over employees - do what we say or lose your income. Which is not exactly a level of force I like all the time, but if you agree with contracts and employment in general then adding "and treat your workers well and let us see it" doesn't seem like a hill to take a stand of fundamental opposition on.

This one happens to have not taken it seriously.

Given that they have, that speculation is moot.

Clearly this kind of contract hasn’t been ‘powerful’ enough to prevent this kind of problem from emerging.

You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.

No - I’m saying that didn’t keep their supply chain ‘ethical’. Perhaps nothing could have done.

"ah but they tried and failed"

Weird that you put this in quote marks as if it’s something I said. It’s not. You might be saying that, but I am not.

Contracts aren’t magic. It’s not a ‘failure’ when someone breaks one. What a contract would do is give Apple the legal mechanism to switch to another supplier despite having agreed to pay Wistron to make iPhones.

The contract only means something if one of the parties doesn’t do what is expected.

This comment is confusing. The first half sounds pro-corporate ("corporations should self regulate themselves!"), but the second half you want large corporations to be broken up. Which one is it? Do you want a future where corporations rule over everything or not?

I am saying that, when the rubber hits the road, Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). If they don't want to be held to account for doing so ethically and proactively, they must be made--significantly--smaller until that expectation can be reasonably removed.

That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. And that we should break them with hammers until they are.

The problem here is that you want corporations to use their powers do The Right Thing™, but ignore what happens if they make a mistake. Sure, we want amazon to crack down on counterfeits, but then we hear of stories like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501. Or worse yet, when The Right Thing™ is in the eye of the beholder, see: conservatives thinking that facebook/youtube is censoring them, and liberals thinking they're not doing enough.

>That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations.

But is that the case here? Winston is operating a factory in india and is therefore subject to indian labor laws.

If you have to use a stick to align business with decency, use it liberally. Such is the burdensome life of a multinational company with more global pull than some companies.

Frankly, how do you know that Wistron wasn’t recommended to Apple by government officials? That would be the typical Indian way.

They know for sure. They'll just ignore it because ... shareholders.

That said, the house/contractor analogy shows more than anything else that while analogies can illuminate the subject matter, they're imperfect: I don't believe there's one meaningful set of laws that can govern the typical homeowner hiring out renovation and the richest company in the world hiring low-paid workers through an intermediary that ostensibly gives it some legal protection and distance.

Can you say what Apple should do instead? It seems like the proximate cause here is Wistron’s management.

What would you recommend Apple do other than hire someone else?

Also, if you are going to fine Apple, what would the fine be for?

It's not like the workers are getting a fair shake anyway.

Recently india government created tax reductions favorable land prices for electronics manufacturers. Wondering if this plant used any of these incentives. That would be a shame, billion dollar companies used developing world tax payer's money and then failed to pay them stated wages.

A recent example of this is exemplified in the practice of shipbreaking. Sellers can tell based on price exactly which type of shipbreaking yard their ship will end up[1], but will attempt to claim ignorance by using a series of middlemen to extract the most value, sending ships to places where people are forced to work in subhuman conditions[2].

[1] https://recyclinginternational.com/ferrous-metals/the-nether...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/dec/02/c...

Unfortunately ... who's going to stop buying Apple products over things like this? Not many who don't already dislike Apple to begin with. It wouldn't make a dent.

It is probably in there. We are dealing with a party who broke their word to their employees. I see no reason to assume they aren’t similarly dishonest with their customers.

The issue is that a company like Apple will require in the contract certain things like wage minimum or environmental requirements, but the winning bid will be below the amount required to actually fulfill those requirements.

It’s not even that the manufacturer set out to ignore Apple’s requirements, but what happens is that these bids have zero margin of error built in. So once something unexpected happens(lower order volume, initial inaccurate estimation, tax or regulatory changes, etc) these companies are faced with a choice. If they cannot renegotiate the contract they are forced to either reduce salaries, cut environmental and quality corners, or run at a loss and go out of business.

The very nature of this type of third party bidding for a few large and powerful customers is that you are almost guaranteed a high percentage of labor and environmental violations because the companies will eventually be forced to chose between that and insolvency.

?!

Worker wages were their main reason to move from China to India.

It's not something they "might notice", it's pure purpose from start to finish.

And it will continue as long as people are willing to pay for it.

> India is the world's second-largest smartphone market after China, but India is an extremely competitive, price-conscious market that Apple has struggled in, only capturing around 3 percent of the market. One way for Apple to lower prices in India is to build phones locally, allowing it to dodge Indian import fees that are especially high on goods made in China. The Wistron plant, naturally, makes Apple's cheapest phone, the iPhone SE.

You mean, after the Foxconn PR fallout? And to my knowledge the "main reason" they moved out of China was to reduce their dependence on China due to ongoing political tensions, not that they were feeling bad about worker wages.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKCN0YG2LW

> NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India has said Apple Inc must meet a rule obliging foreign retailers to sell at least 30 percent locally-sourced goods if it wishes to open stores in the country, a senior government official told Reuters.

> Apple is hoping to expand its retail presence in India, one of the world’s fastest-growing smartphone markets, at a time when sales in the United States and China have slowed.

> A change in legislation last year exempted foreign retailers selling high-tech goods from the rule, which states 30 percent of the value of goods sold in the store should be made in India.

> However, Apple’s products were not considered to be in this category, said the official, who has direct knowledge of the matter.

Regarding your issue, let me copy-paste randomly [2]:

> “With India’s labour cheaper compared with China, and the gradual expansion of its supplier base here, Apple will be able to use the country as an export hub,” Neil Shah of Hong Kong-based tech researcher Counterpoint said.

> India is also working to boost electronics manufacturing by firms such as Foxconn and last month launched a $6.65 billion plan, offering five global smartphone makers incentives to establish or expand domestic production.

> Building more phones in India will also help Apple save on import taxes that further push up its prices.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CINZhtB2aHU

Edit:

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-india-apple-exclu...

No, that's the PR spin on why they (moved part of) their production to India. They could have moved OUT of China (citing bad Chinise gov etc.) and IN TO Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, etc. were countries operate under properly functioning democracies. Buuuuuut they didn't.

They only moved IN TO India for the reduced costs (aka capitalism). And when India salaries outgrow e.g. country XYZ salaries, they will move there (in a decade or so).

The political tensions is BS imho. Capitalism is capitalism, and Apple offers master classes in capitalism.

Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking China is not a reliable partner, or that Apple cares much about worker rights here (see wage fixing between FAANG as one example that likely affects many here at HN) or abroad. This was purely about expanding into a new market.

Without that are we sure it is just the recipient cutting corners

Oh, hello there, my breakfast.

If it were about the planet they would say something like: "You're eligible for a free charger if you need it."

It's the company that sells headphone ear cushions for 77 EUR.

This choice was dumb even if their expressed environmental intent is authentic and it wasn't a marginal revenue grab.

I feel like USB-C has proliferated sufficiently. Not denying your perspective, just offering an alternate one.

The only USB-C chargers I've had included with a device are from my iPad and my laptop. For those of us in Apple-land, that started around 2016 for laptops and 2018 for iPad Pros. The iPad Air just went USB-C a few months ago, and the base model iPad I assume still comes with a USB-A charger (though I didn't check).

But at least with USB-C instead of MagSafe I can get a $17 multi-port charger with 60W power delivery and 3x USB-A ports to hook up at my desk, and keep the laptop brick handy to toss in a bag or use elsewhere without digging it up from under my desk every time. https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=24425

My wife does have a Nintendo Switch, so there's that. (IIRC, the Nintendo Switch's USB-C is non-standard? I might be misremembering.) I don't think I could use it as a phone charger on a regular basis, just for logistical reasons.

Just because the actual action can also be spun in q environmental friendly way doesn't mean the company actually did it for that.

They didn't want to include a charger and just used the environment as an excuse so they can argue all criticism away

If it were about saving the planet and not just reducing costs they could have included a discount voucher to allow anyone buying an iPhone who genuinely needs a charger to get one without incurring an extra expense.

Ultimately it is a good thing if we reduce the number of unused chargers being manufactured, but right now I suspect many iPhone 12 buyers had to buy a new charger anyways and wound up paying extra for it. In that case it’s rather cynical of Apple to pass it off as being for the environment when the benefits accrue to them.

I believe they lowered the price on the bricks for everyone, not just new iPhone buyers.

I am glad I wasn't drinking my coffee, there would have been cleaning involved. :D

As far as I can see, they stopped including chargers partly because of EU pressure (new law?) that mobile phones should be sold without chargers in order to reduce e-waste because everyone already have a box-load of these at homes. Hence also the push to standardize so that any charger works with any device.

Of course, commercially this allows manufacturers to potentially cut costs while keeping the price of phones the same... But why not, nothing wrong with that.

From an environmental point of view, making people specifically pay for chargers is the best way to make sure they only get the number of chargers they actually need, which fulfils the aim of reducing e-waste.

But apples cables are notorious for breaking easily.

But I have been using the same cable since X years and it's working fine.

Goddamn, this is why I really fucking hate Apple so much. Its why I fucking hate the fact that I picked up a base model Mac Mini. I can't argue its better for many use cases and that I switch between it and my 3900X workstation throughout the day for various workloads, but fucking Christ in Heaven it pisses me off that I have to, to begin with.

I fucking hate giving that shit company even a dollar.

When buying the iPhone 12 one could chose to get the charger ( free ).

If you need one, buy one.

I don’t see any practical, technical, ethical reason to include one. I see environmental and simplicity reasons to not include one.

The means by which people will bend over backwards to paint Apple in a good light is insane.

But yeah drop the user guide too and put it on a website, good idea. The box, not that because it protects the product leading to less wastage.

As for those missing chargers, they probably have multiple reasons for not including them. The environmental impact may even play a small role. Ultimately though, the main reasons are going to be business driven (e.g. reduced manufacturing costs and perhaps increased sales of chargers). If these people were truly interested in protecting the environment, they wouldn't be in the business of selling disposable consumer goods.

If people are going to buy consumer goods anyone trying to make it a bit better should be celebrated.

[0] https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT208137#:~:text=You%20can%2...

This is beyond false and way into absolute nonsense.

Been there since iPhone 8.

https://www.ipitaka.com/blogs/news/everything-you-need-to-kn...

I realize this isn't the whole solution - part of this is Apple's heavy handed way of squeezing margins, but for at least the "supply chain labor compliance" part, could blockchain be a useful tool for labor unions and workers' rights to ensure that workers are paid their fair share?

In the wrong conventionally, according to our morality developed in the system it works for? Sure. But on a matter like this, I'm personally more than happy to take another look. Many moral systems that serve the current structures we are rightly critical of - the moral system that had no problem with slavery or marital rape, for instance.

I imagine the people destroying property might just feel the same way about Apple's right to property, and the system which provides it.

Huh? It was Wistron that was witholding and lowering wages, not Apple.

> No doubt they respond with the usual "When we worked with factories promising us cheap labour and massive profit we didn't realise people and the planet would be exploited. No one could have known".

Again, wut? That cheap contract labor helped the Chinese middle class, and also helped China set up the most advanced technical manufatcuring pipeline and supply chain in the world, and now China is the first place the western world goes to make their stuff. No doubt that conditions were sometimes terrible (like creating nets around the building in case workers would try to commit suicide), but those workers (probably) got paid their promised wages and the China realized some benefit.

It's not always all exploitation by Apple all day everyday. And again, those Indian folks are employed Wistron, not Apple.