> The problem with Apple criticism is a lot of it seems full of cheap shots and unfair framing, like this Panorama report.

Well given Apple insane margins,and other tricks they pull(like tax avoidance in Europe),Apple case stands out more than other brands because of the company reputation,"success" and wealth.

> because every idiot journalist looking for a controversial story

There is no controversy here.Apple(and other brands) are clearly taking advantage of poor working conditions in China and other Asian countries.Nobody in the west would accept these conditions.I'm talking about the slavery like working conditions that existed in the west at the dawn of the 20th century before workers rebelled against it.

In China,well,it's just impossible for such a movement to exist.China is a bloody dictatorship.Western PR just succeeded in convincing us it wasn't.

And frankly,that story isn't really about Apple.Judging by the comments below the article,it's more about us and our denial to accept the fact that the comfort we live in is built on the pain and suffering of others on the other side of the planet. And that's how most wealth have been created through history,exploitation,through colonies,slavery, or other means.

Some people are fine with it,some people don't care,others think it doesn't exist,others think workers "are treated what they are worth",and have no problem spending insane amounts of money in the end product because of its marketing,and a last group understands that effective modern capitalism is just "rationalized predation".

edit: I edited my last sentence because I want to dissociate what thinkers like Adam Smith and others "described",and what we have today.

> And frankly,that story isn't really about Apple.Judging by the comments below the article,it's more about us and our denial to accept the fact that the comfort we live in is built on the pain and suffering of others on the other side of the planet.

I agree. But the problem with framing it in terms of Apple (like these articles often do) is that it provides people an easy out: "Oh, those Apple people are bad eggs, I would never buy something they make!". But it's not just Apple, it's our entire economy, and we as a culture won't ever have to face it if it's pinned on one or two companies.

Reminds me a little of how people somehow don't believe McDonalds when they reveal their food sources. Because people love to hate on them, McDs and Apple have higher standards than their competitors.

Is a rational posture, when companies became that BIG they get above the law. I don't trust that companies neither the controls organisms in charge.

See also: Facebook and security/privacy

Or Google and privacy/surveillance. A lot of criticism is just fashion or signalling.

Confused about these two comments. Are you both literally arguing that Google has higher standards for privacy/surveillance than its competitors and that facebook is better than its competitors for security/privacy?

Per TazeTSchnitzel's remark on Apple & McDonald's, also Facebook and Google seem to be held by public to a higher standard than other companies.

Ah, I understood that comment as saying that MacDonalds actually do have higher food sourcing standards because of the public scrutiny.

There also seems to be an implied complaint here that the public are being hypocritical, however it makes perfect sense that the larger the example, the more people would be interested in holding them to a high standard. This doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.

I am by no means an Apple fan anymore, but I feel the exact same way.

There are more idiot Apple apologists than there are idiot journalists, so it should equal out.

Foxconn has an anti-suicide policy. There's a reason.

Foxconn's suicide rate turns out to be lower than the Chinese general population's suicide rate. They've got the population of a good sized city. Per Wikipedia:

> Although the number of workplace suicides at the company was large in absolute terms, the rate is still low when compared to the rest of China. (However, the country has a high suicide rate with over 20 deaths per 100,000 persons.) In 2010, the worst year for workplace suicides at Foxconn with a total of 14 deaths, the total employee count was a reported 930,000 people. The average workplace suicide rate for Foxconn that year was 1.5 per 100,000 making it well below the national average suicide rate (around 7% of the national average).

America and most other nations have no-suicide policies, too. Try it and you'll likely find yourself detained and treated involuntarily. I'm not sure why you're considering such a thing to be a shocking fact.

Congratulations for proving the parent post's "The problem with Apple criticism is a lot of it seems full of cheap shots and unfair framing" statement, though.

Did you see any numbers that compared it to employed people of similar age?

(Per http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/chin.pdf suicide rates in China are significantly higher above the age of 60)

> Foxconn's suicide rate turns out to be lower than the Chinese general population's suicide rate.

Foxconn employees' workplace suicide rate. In general I'd expect the workplace suicide rate to be a small fraction of the overall suicide rate. Maybe Foxonn employees never leave their workplace and the figures are the same, but that's not great either.

> Maybe Foxonn employees never leave their workplace and the figures are the same,

They don't—their workplace is an entire city, pretty much.

> but that's not great either.

It's not, but it's a very different issue, and conflating the two is harmful to handling either.

I think you need to review your position in support of sweatshops and exploitation of people in developing regions.

Also, we are talking about statistics posted in China. Are you fucking kidding me?

If you're contending Foxconn has a dramatically higher suicide rate than reported, is there any evidence for the accusation?

I would contend that Foxconn employees' overall suicide rate is likely to be larger than their reported workplace suicide rate, for reasons that are presumably obvious.

Edit: Looking at http://www.wellness.com/news/6427/us-workplace-suicides-jump... , it looks like in the US workplace suicides are less than 1% of overall suicides. Doubtless different in China, but hopefully makes the point that comparing the two statistics is likely to be problematic.

My understanding from news reports - correct me if I'm wrong - is that Foxconn employees tend to live in dorms and spend most of their time on company grounds.

Even if they're all going home and committing suicide there, the only evidence I've seen put forward for the supposed wave of suicides is the workplace ones. The stats there don't back up the claims.

Uh, does the fact that these employees tend to live in company owned dorms (ever heard of Mill Villages, "Company Store") and spend most of their time on company grounds not within and of itself something to question? Or even the fact that this has something to do with a (possible) higher suicide rate? Can you imagine living within a few hundred feet of your 60 hour manufacturing job with 3 other people in a 10 by 10 room, no time to visit family or have fun, enjoy yourself?

I think it's both a problem companies like Apple can do a lot more to address and likely to be significantly better than the alternatives most of the employees have available.

People aren't joining Foxconn from jobs where they've got 40 hours a week and vacation time. They're often joining from rural areas with subsistence farming, poverty, shittier jobs, etc. International attention on Apple and Foxconn likely prevent at least some abuses that are rampant elsewhere in China.

All that said, there's no reason we in places like the US can't pay $20 more for an iPhone.

Perhaps you should present data in support of your own point instead of make accusations about the sources presented without backing them up.

The Foxconn suicide rate is (often significantly) lower than the rate of every US state, let alone China's.

Nobody would even be commenting on this if Microsoft or some other company [were] unfairly framed.

Anyway, there seems to be plenty of data that working conditions at Foxconn are harsh. https://www.google.com/search?q=foxconn+site%3Achinalaborwat...

Stop defending Apple just because you are totally in love with them people...

> You wouldn't even be commenting on this if Microsoft [were] unfairly framed.

Yes, I would, and that's actually one of the problematic parts of the Foxconn reporting - they make components for Microsoft and many other companies, but for some reason coverage focuses on just one of their clients, Apple.

Foxconn's working conditions are indeed harsh by developed-world standards, and I'd happily pay a bit more for a phone in order to improve them. At the same time, I can acknowledge that working for Foxconn is likely better than the subsistence farming of the Mao days, and that Foxconn is probably fairly similar to other companies in China doing similar work.

Perhaps you would give your attention to this if it were Microsoft, but about 90% of the people here would not. So, my point is - if Apple, as the single most profitable venture that uses slave labor, is sacrificed for getting attention on this topic, what does it matter?

Why nitpick the journalism when there is a much larger issue at stake? Besides that - Apple is the most profitable company in the world. People look at them as an example. So, I think it's perfectly fair that journalists target them.