Apple Designer Jonathan Ive on What's Next

Time ^ | March 17, 2014 | John Arlidge

[Swordmaker]

The response you received makes your point quite well. Who on earth believes that you own every aspect of the “Foxconn suicides,” as Steve Jobs did, if this company wasn’t even producing your products?

You better hide now, Swordmaker has a tendency to call out the entire Apple ping list if he catches anyone actually reading my posts. Afraid yet?

Oh, WOW, Star, Loonard is convinced you were agreeing with HIM, not referring to him as the idiot! ROTFLMAO!!!!

Loonard cannot even recognize a pertinent link that makes my point about the press using Apple for hits, when they are not even involved in the story, while the story is still pertinent to the overall discussion at hand. But then I guess that kind of connection is above his IQ level. It probably escapes him that this 2013 story has factual information about the 2010 suicides as well. . . but that makes it obvious he doesn't bother to read the articles in links I post now. . . Or when it was linked earlier in this thread as evidence either. He claims I don't provide links because he's too stupid to notice them and this provides absolute proof.

Loonard's non sequitur conclusions are a wonder to behold.

[Leonard210]

“ALL the other suicides occurred at manufacturing facilities manufacturing Sony PlayStation game consoles, Nokia cellular phones, and Microsoft X-Box Game Systems.”

Thoroughly documented and properly sourced as usual Swordsy. You’re a master at this stuff. Nicely done.

[Leonard210]

Way to spam your own thread big boy. You can post all the fake replies to your meticulously created straw men that you like.

You claimed that the suicides that Steve Jobs claimed to be “all over” happened in facilities that didn’t produce any Apple products. And you’ve claimed that several times while every other account points to the factories producing iPads, iPhones, and iMacs in the days surrounding the iPad launch. In 2010.

What was happening in 2010 that caused Steve Jobs to claim that we/Apple were “all over it” was not suicides at a hundred different facilities or future events from 2012 and you know damn well it wasn’t.

[Leonard210]

In context vs out of context

Posting a quote “in context” does not mean you post an entire article. It means that if someone actually clinks your link, the article supports your conclusion.

Posting an excerpt “out of context” means that you have removed a quote from an article that is surrounded by your erroneous explanation of that quote. An obfuscation intended to deceive. It’s one of the things that I noticed you doing several years ago and it prompted my request to be removed from your Apple ping list.

I don’t think you’re stupid so you must be doing that on purpose with the encouragement of your groupies. Some things never change.

Cherry Picking

You’ve been searching for articles that only support your conclusions. That’s called “cherry picking” and you know that too.

It’s exactly what Piketty is accused of doing as well as outright manipulation of data.

Financial Times: Piketty Didnt Make a Mistake, He Manipulated Data
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/05/24/Financial-Times-Piketty-Didnt-Make-a-Mistake-Manipulated-Data

Imagine that, an ACTUAL world-renowned economist is caught faking statistics and cherry picking. We’re going to have to change your name again. No?

[Swordmaker]

Apparently Loonard didn't bother or couldn't read. There were 15 distinct contemporaneous links to both primary pertinent sources and news articles in the now deleted post (apparently Loonard can't stand truth) and each of those links addressed claims Loonard has made in his posts on this thread. Loonard now seems to be claiming that I created each and every one of the "fake" articles. . . That is hilarious!!!

The specific articles I posted referencing suicides were from various dates, but most referred to the events in 2010. . . with facts learned in investigation after 2010. Yes there were 2012 articles on the reported "suicide threat by 150-300 'Apple' workers", but Loonard had referred to the mass suicide threat as though it were at an Apple assembly plant as well. . . which it wasn't. . . Loonard, like the other anti-Apple trolls, including the ones in the press, plays fast and loose with the facts. The article proved this incident occurred at a plant making Micosoft X-Boxes and Acer Computers.

I posted several examples, but let's just look at ONE "faked" article, shall we?

Report: Mass Suicide Threats at Xbox 360 Plant
By Brian Ashcraft
kotaku filed to: China January 10, 2012

On Jan. 2, over 300 employees at a Foxconn plant in Wuhan, China threatened to throw themselves off a building in a mass suicide. Foxconn makes Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony products. These workers manufacture Xbox 360s.

Follow the click bait money. No one cares when the headlines says "Mass suicide' protest at a Microsoft and Acer Foxconn manufacturer factory." Add "Apple" to your headline and your clicks go up. Make the article negative and the click bait is even more attractive!

Here's an example of how that gets erroneously "reported" elsewhere in the news food chain:

This is not the first time Apple has been under fire for mistreatment allegations at its supply factories. In fact, the factories have been accused of mistreatment for years. Most recently, reports surfaced that some Apple workers threatened to throw themselves off of a roof in a protest of unfair treatment. Foxconn later said the dispute was solved peacefully.—Mashable.com—February 22, 2012

And THAT'S how, with editorial legerdemain, Microsoft X-Box workers soon to be Acer workers threatening to commit suicide over working condition get magically, "Presto Chango," transformed into Apple workers, in the low information public's (and Loonard's) consciousness!

It allows Loonard to claim nonsense as facts.

Another section referred to the actual political donations by Apple and the late Steve Jobs over a ten year period. . . Steve's political donations average around $25,000 a year for the last ten years of his life. . . Granted all to Democrat candidates. . . and when his wife's donation were included, less than $75,000 per year, combined. For a couple worth multiple BILLIONS, this is pocket change. Apple itself did not even have a PAC. . . and still doesn't. And no, there is no evidence of the "wink, wink" behind the scenes help Loonard nastily implies. I linked to Loonard's own article which cited Jobs' 2004 interview in which he announced he and Apple were NOT going to be involved in politics because ". . . 50% of Apple's customers were Republicans!" Yet Loonard's position is that Apple and Steve Jobs are kingpins in getting nasty regulations passed. . . and are major donors to political races despite all evidence to the contrary. These are PUBLIC RECORDS. Two were links to articles about Apple's LACK of a presence in Washington lobbying and the fact that they often refused to participate, even when the regulations were going to impact them! Those articles links were from both a Conservative AND a Liberal sources. But Loonard claims I "faked" them. . . including Loonard's own link. LOL!

___________________

Why was there a sudden "jump" in suicides at FoxConn facilities in 2010 and not at other companies look with far worse records?

Beginning July 2009, with the suicide of Sun Danyong, the 25 year old engineer involved in "misplacing" a prototype iPhone, who then apparently jumped from his apartment balcony—a non-FoxConn facility—FoxConn's CEO, Terry Gou, gave the families of the suicides 400,000 Yuan (~$65,500 USD) compensation for the deaths. In another article I posted, a group of psychiatrist and psychologists engaged by FoxConn analyzed the 2010 suicides with a view toward how FoxConn's monetary compensation for the victims' families may have encouraged the suicides. According to the report, Gou's magnanimous gesture turned out to be a tragic major psychological error. It turned out that it was well known among FoxConn employees and job applicants that it was financially rewarding to suicide and leave your family a windfall of lottery proportions. . . literally a lifetime's pay—41 years of non-Apple assembly line workers' pay—tax, expenses, and cost-of-living-free, for killing oneself! At least one of the 2010 suicides left behind a note indicating that now his family's financial problems would be over. Another had been employed less than three weeks and had worked only two hours of overtime. The psychiatric consensus was that suicidal impulses could NOT have developed from work related depression after such a short time and that this "victim" most likely "sought employment at FoxConn for the sole purpose of killing himself and enriching his family."

After being shown the analysis by the team of psychologists and psychiatrists, Guo announced that FoxConn would henceforth pay only the government required "accidental" employee death benefit of 10,000 Yuan (~$1600 USD) to any future suicide, the suicides and attempted suicides suddenly dropped to only a handful a year: There were only two suicides at all of FoxConn in 2011 (see note), just one in 2012, and two in 2013. Three of those later suicides left notes indicating either homesickness or personal issues.

Why was there a spurt in 2010 in suicides at FoxConn and not at other worse run and far worse working condition companies? Follow the money!

(Note: two additional suicides in 2011 were attributed to FoxConn in some news reports even though one of them killed herself after several weeks in a government mental facility, and the other was an ex-employee who did the deed after quitting and returning to his home village. Why the sudden drop in the FoxConn suicides? )

Yet another section, gleaned from the other articles posted, compared the dichotomy in pay between the pay workers on Apple product FoxConn assembly lines at 2000 Yuan ($345 USD) per month to the other makers' FoxConn assembly lines at 900 Yuan ($132 USD) per month, demonstrating why there might be worker frustration and jealousy that might lead to problems. . . and an article AND LINK showing that FoxConn is planning to raise wages to $650 USD for all workers by the end of 2013 reducing their profit margin to 4%. Again, Loonard claims I'm "faking" that.

________________

Funny thing, Microsoft has some of their X-Boxes built by company other than FoxConn. That company is KYE Systems, which IS one of those companies, mentioned above, whose management which is far worse in working conditions!

Where is Loonard on these condition? Where was Microsoft? Where is Microsoft's Code of Conduct for Suppliers?
By Nick Eaton
Excerpted from Seattle Post Intellegencer — April 13, 2010

Labor group: Chinese teens ‘like prisoners’ in Microsoft tech factory

Thousands of Chinese teens and young adults work 15 hours a day at 65 cents per hour, prohibited from talking or listening to music, in abysmal conditions at the KYE Systems factory where they assemble Microsoft hardware that is exported to the United States, Europe and Japan.

So reports the National Labor Committee, which on Tuesday released the culmination of three years of incognito interviews and photography inside the infamous Dongguan, China, gadget factories. Though Microsoft is not the only company to outsource manufacturing to KYE, it accounts for about 30 percent of the factory’s work, the NLC said.

“We are like prisoners,” one worker told the NLC. “It seems like we live only to work. We do not work to live. We do not live a life, only work.”

Microsoft said it is taking the claims seriously and has “commenced an investigation.”

The workers – mostly women aged 18 to 25 – work from 7:45 a.m. to 10:55 p.m. They eat horrid meals from the factory cafeterias. They have no bathroom breaks during their shifts, and must clean the toilets as discipline, according to the NLC.

They sleep in factory dormitories, 14 workers to a room. They must buy their own mattresses and bedding, or else sleep on 28-inch-wide plywood boards. They “shower” with a sponge and a bucket. And many of the workers, because they’re young women, are regularly sexually harassed, the NLC alleges.

Where is Loonard's outrage at Microsoft? What did Steve Balmer do about the sexual harassment of teenage girls at Microsoft's factory? Isn't Loonard offended by Microsoft cramming twice as many people into dorm rooms as FoxConn does? How can Steve Ballmer countenance paying Microsoft's workers only HALF of the starting pay that FoxConn pays for the same work, less than one-sixth the pay FoxConn pays workers on their Apple lines, require them to work longer hours without overtime pay. . . but does ANYBODY hear about this??? Why isn't Loonard demanding Steve Balmer self-immolate over Microsoft's factory's abysmal practices? Where are the headlines? Where are the suicides???

Oh, did I mention that KYE dormitory pictures have been used as photo "stand-ins" for many "FoxConn dormitory" pictures in Internet Blogs? You can still find some labeled as such.

___________________

Loonard, thinks that all the FoxConn workers who killed themselves were somehow only associated with Apple, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

FoxConn's customer list.

As of January 2012, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.'s subsidiary FoxConn Technology Group assembles approximately 40% of the consumer electronics in the world according to numerous sources including Wikipedia and the New York Times. Here is a partial list of 50 of FoxConn's customers I've been able to compile from news articles where their contractural relationships were mentioned over the past five years, which include the period when the suicides occurred:

• Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
• Alcatel (France)
• Amazon (United States)
• Apple Inc. (United States)
• Archos (France)
• ASRock (Taiwan)
• Asus (Taiwan)
• Barnes & Noble (United States)
• BenQ (South Korea)
• Blackberry (Canada)
• Cisco (United States)
• Dell Inc.(United States)
• EVGA Corporation (United States)
• Fujitsu (Japan)
• GE Thomson
• Google (United States)
• Griffin Technologies (United States)
• Gründig Mobile (Germany)
• Hewlett-Packard (United States)
• HTC (Taiwan)
• Huawei (China)
• Intel (United States)
• IBM (United States)
• Kyocera Communications (Japan)
• Lenovo (China)
• Lenovo/Motorola Mobility (China)
• LG Lucky GoldStar (South Korea)
• Microsoft (United States)
• Microsoft MSI (Taiwan)
• Motorola Communications (United States)
• NCR (United States)
• NEC Casio Communication (Japan)
• Netgear (United States)
• Nintendo (Japan)
• Nokia Oyj (Finland)
• PackardBell (Netherlands)
• Panasonic (Japan)
• Philips (Netherlands)
• Pioneer Electronics (Japan)
• Samsung (South Korea)
• Sanyo (Japan)
• Sharp (Japan)
• Siemens (Germany)
• Sony (Japan)
• TCL Communication Technology (China)
• Telefunken (Germany)
• Thomson (France)
• Toshiba (Japan)
• Vizio (United States)
• Xiaomi (China)
• Zoostorm (New Zealand)
• ZTE (China)

Loonard would have you believe that Apple built and owns the means of production, hires all the employees, and then manages and sets the policies and working conditions for the employees who manufacture and assemble ALL these companies' products. . . and must be held COMPLETELY responsible if anything goes wrong, if anything does not meet total perfection according to LoonardLogic (Tm) standards.

__________________

While I'm on a roll, let me slay one more Loonard dragon.

Loonard keeps yawping about all the "teenage kids killing themselves in Apple's factories," implying that we should assume that all the "victims" are youngster, minors. I think we can all agree that "teenage" is well defined as 13 to 19 years of age, can we not? Adulthood in most modern cultures is considered to be reached at age 18, with anything younger being defined as still a child, a "kid."

Unfortunately for Loonard's distortions of reality, facts are again rearing their disturbing heads.

You see, of the 23 attempted and successful suicide attempts at FoxConn from 2009 through 2013, only SIX involved persons who could be defined as "teenage," and only ONE, a month shy of her 17th birthday, could be defined as a child, a kid—who survived, although paralyzed from the waist down. Specifically, the 19 suicides and attemptees ranged in age from 17 to 28, average age was a little less than 23 years old. The most common age for a worker to attempt suicide at FoxConn is 23 with four. Three each were in the 18, 19, 21, 24, and 25 years old categories. There were two 20 year olds, the one 28 year old and the one 17 year old who failed to kill herself. Oops, no "teenaged kids killing themselves." Loonard was distorting, spouting hyperbole, spreading PROPAGANDA! FUD! Of course, he will say I "faked" this all up. Delicious!

[Swordmaker]

Amazing. Loonard posts a non-sequitur article about an economist. Whooped doo. Doo. Loonard cannot stand to have evidence presented that refutes him. So he attacks ME for how I present it. If I post the entire article that refutes him it is "out of context" does one need a globe trotting time machine, disguised as a British Police Box to put ANYTHING in context for Loonyard? If I present evidence as an "excerpt" from that article, with an explanation of why it is pertinent to the subject at hand, it' s "An obfuscation intended to deceive." Finally, if I present ANY article that disproves Loonard's delusions, it's "Cherry Picking!" In Loonard's insane world, I must present 100% of every article ever written on the subject without ever citing it, posting it, excerpting it, searching for it lest I select it, or, heaven forbid, interpret it using my training, my education, or my MIND!

If that isn't a Democrat trait, what is?

Or, maybe it's a bureaucrat mindset. . .

[Leonard210]

“Apparently Loonard didn’t bother or couldn’t read. There were 15 distinct contemporaneous links to both primary pertinent sources and news articles in the now deleted post (apparently Loonard can’t stand truth)...”

I am not allowed to post entire articles from any source at FreeRepublic and neither are you. I can’t believe you thought you could get away with that crap. You wouldn’t get away with it anywhere else, so why did you think you could do it here?

Post your fake “primary sources” like Mashable and Kotaku, but stay within the rules of the site. I have to live by those rules and so do you.

[Leonard210]

I’m sorry to be the one to break this news, but Steve Jobs died in 2011. So far there have been several rumors of this rising from the dead and appearing to his disciples, but no video as of yet.

Steve Jobs, in 2010, only a year before he died, claimed that Apple was “all over” the recent spate of suicides at Foxconn Apple. In 2010. You lead, however, with a 2012 story about Foxconn Microsoft. You’re like an ADD-addled crack head, you’re all over the place!

There’s no need to get your panties in a bunch over this stuff, we’ll get to all of it soon enough. Let’s just whet your appetite a bit.

You were excited to post the take-down of Michael Moore wanna-be Mike Daisey and you should have been. Kudos. The reporter who exposed the faked translation of the video Daisey was using is a man named Rob Schmitz.

In the article dated March 16, 2012, Schmitz said this:

“What makes this a little complicated is that the things Daisey lied about seeing are things that have actually happened in China: Workers making Apple products have been poisoned by Hexane. Apple’s own audits show (PDF) the company has caught underage workers at a handful of its suppliers. These things are rare, but together, they form an easy-to-understand narrative about Apple.”

An acclaimed Apple critic made up the details
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/apple-economy/acclaimed-apple-critic-made-details

Rare does not mean they never happened. Rare does not mean that, given the choice of one bowl of rice a day or two, teenagers will not flock to the factory offering two, regardless of the conditions. And that’s kind of universal. It’s not a “Chinese” thing, as you’ve implied before.

These places are packed with kids. They all put in their hours and mostly don’t commit suicide. But some of them did. And they were directly linked to factories making Apple products. It doesn’t mater if you want to believe that or not, Steve Jobs believed it and was “all over it”.

The factory that had the highest number of jumpers was in...oh steveez, what difference, at this point, does it make? It was probably a Microsoft, HP, Sony, Nokia facility anyway. Saint Steve got it all wrong. He was known for making massively dishonest statements, so how can we believe him anyway. Nope, the guys at Mashable, they are the real primary sources.

Hey, any word yet on the fate of those “conservative” Apple board members. They’ve been missing for a couple of months. Let me know when they turn up.

[TheBattman]

I figure Leonard will have his moderator friends to delete this post too - apparently FACTS are no longer relevant here in FB, even when answering direct attacks and lies.

FreeRepublic is moving in the wrong direction...

[Leonard210]

Happy with facts. Swordmaker posted entire articles. That’s against the rules here and on every other forum on the internet. Swordmaker has every right to re-post that long, cherry picked tirade, properly edited, whenever he likes.

You seem to dislike FreeRepublic enormously. Why are you still here?

[Leonard210]

Discipleship Test: Schmitz vs Swordmaker

Rob Schmitz broke the story about Mike Daisey but cautioned that even though he lied about his video, the events he presented were, in fact, real issues at Foxconn Apple.

Who was presenting actual facts:
1) Swordmaker
2) Leonard
3) Daisey
4) Schmitz

If you chose 1 and 3, you were correct. Everyone knows that Swordmaker and Mike Daisey are paradigms of truth. Congratulations you are a true believer and official Swordmaker groupie.

Ref: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3134377/posts?page=309#309

[Leonard210]

Apple Facts vs Fanboy FUD(™)
Apple was at the forefront of establishing standards in the electronics industry.

Alternative Fanboy Bullfish(™)
No one else has standards as high as Apple.
No one else even has standards.
No one else monitors working conditions.
Apple facilities float above all the other electronics facilities in China and employees are transported on the backs of winged unicorns who follow a rainbow pathway directly from their luxurious dorms to the factory floor.

“My point was NOT that the other companies I mentioned do the same thing, but that while they use similar manufacturing tactics, those companies are not taking the higher road that Apple does, such as including in their contracts provisions that require better working conditions for the people who work on Apple’s products...” Swordmaker from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134377/posts?page=125#125

Firet of all, Swordmaker has referred to Apple contracts on several occasions, but if Swordmaker had actual Apple contracts, Apple Legal would be on him like Tommy DeVito on Billy Batts.

In 2004, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) was established by HP, IBM, Dell, Solectron, Sanmina SCI, Jabil, Celestica and Flextronics. On October 18, 2004 they published the Electronics Industry Code of Conduct. They were joined in November of 2004 by Cisco, Microsoft and Intel.

In 2005, Apple published their glorious standards for all of humanity and it was called the, “Apple Supplier Code of Conduct”. No one could have imagined the sweeping changes that would occur throughout the world due to the effort of the most profoundly unique genius that was the late Saint Steve Jobs.

Under the banner, “Labor and Human Rights,” Apple includes the sub-category, “Harsh Treatment and Harassment,” which states that, “Suppliers must be committed to a workplace free of harassment. Suppliers may not threaten workers with or subject them to harsh or inhumane treatment, including sexual harassment, sexual abuse, corporal punishment, mental coercion, physical coercion, or verbal abuse.” Apple Supplier Code of Conduct, Version 1.0, November 13, 2005

By contrast, the evil corporate villains at HP, IBM, and Dell published under, “A. Labor,” the subcategory, “Harsh or Inhumane Treatment,” which reads, “There is to be no harsh and inhumane treatment, including any sexual harassment, sexual abuse, corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion or verbal abuse of workers: nor is there to be the threat of any such treatment.” Electronics Industry Code of Conduct, October 18, 2004

Do you see the difference? No? Well, of course you don’t. The Apple Supplier Code of Conduct was not written by mere mortal men. It was written by super men, geniuses, whose intellect exceeded that of the normal human exponentially.

It’s like that throughout both documents. The fact is, Apple simply rewrote the entire set of standards from HP, IBM, and Dell, then they slapped their name on it. And initially, Apple wasn’t shy about saying so, “Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct is modeled on and contains language from the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct. Recognized standards such as International Labour Organization Standards (ILO), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Social Accountability International (SAI), and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) were used as references in preparing this Code and may be useful sources of additional information. A complete list of references is provided at the end of the Code.” Apple Supplier Code of Conduct, Version 1.0, November 13, 2005

That list, by the way, is almost identical to the list at the back of the Electronics Industry Code of Conduct. There are 13 references that are copied but Apple also lists a reference to a UN organization and, of course, a reference to the Electronics Industry Code of Conduct.

Apple Lexicon
Codes of Conduct: Exceptional standards of behavior developed exclusively by superior human beings...and then copied by Apple.
from The Apple Lexicon (™) Interpreting Apple Theology Since 1994

[Swordmaker]

What Loonard took out of context, truncating my comment, leaving out important parts, there-by turning it into a strawman for him to shoot down with a total non sequitur for which he supplies NO LINKS.

"“My point was NOT that the other companies I mentioned do the same thing, but that while they use similar manufacturing tactics, those companies are not taking the higher road that Apple does, such as including in their contracts provisions that require better working conditions for the people who work on Apple’s products...” Swordmaker from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134377/posts?page=125#125

What I actually wrote, in context from Reply #125 in this FreeRepublic Thread, with the excised words replaced:

I know the economic motives of why Apple did what they did and they are NOT the evil you impugn to them. My point was NOT that the other companies I mentioned do the same thing, but that while they use similar manufacturing tactics, those companies are not taking the higher road that Apple does, such as including in their contracts provisions that require better working conditions for the people who work on Apple's products—requirements that the owners open that damn window, so to speak—or to NOT use benzene or poly-bi-prophenolated bromines in the cleaning of the products because it will harm the workers, etc., but Apple DOES put those things in their contracts and Apple stations paid monitors in the factories to assure it happens! The other companies just accept the standard contract, have their stuff cranked out, then move on, and don't give a damn about the conditions at the factories, or the lot of the workers. Apple has several times to my knowledge PULLED Multi-billion dollar contracts from companies that violated those contract provisions, once delaying a product release because of pulling the contract for a crucial component. These are the very things YOU want a company to pro-actively do. . . preferably without a government compelling them to do it at the point of a metaphorical gun!

Loonard then goes on at great pains to try and demonstrate that Apple somehow plagiarized Apple's Code of Supplier Conduct from the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition Code of Conduct while giving full reference to the EICC as source material. . . even though every company that adopts the EICC format does the exact same thing and puts their company name on it, making it their company's official policy. Many adopt it "as written" while others, such as Apple, add to it making it more stringent. Loonard implies that Apple is not an EICC member and was not involved in formulating the EICC code of conduct. Not true. EICC Membership List

Another problem with all those other companies being touted by Loonard as "doing something," just like Apple was, is that it just not so.

Yes, they subscribed to an Industry organization's Code of Conduct for their suppliers. . . BUT they did not include that Code of Conduct as an enforceable section of the contracts these companies executed with their suppliers; Apple did. Next, the EICC was Toothless; it had no auditing, investigation, or enforcement power!

. . . While the EICC sets standards for ethics, worker safety and labor practices, it doesn’t require members to disclose findings and it lacks enforcement powers. The result is a disjointed system of self-imposed regulations that fail to hold companies accountable when abuses arise, according to labor advocates and technology executives.

“They are absolutely toothless,” said Tom Fallon, chief executive officer of Infinera Corp., a Sunnyvale, California-based maker of telecommunications equipment that hasn’t joined the EICC because Fallon says the group isn’t effective. “I don’t think they do meaningful work.”

Wendy Dittmer, a spokeswoman for EICC, said she doesn’t know of any instance of a factory losing business, permanently or temporarily, for failing to live up to the group’s code of conduct. The EICC doesn’t require companies to share those details about their relations with business partners, she said. . . excerpted from Business Week—"No Company Follows Apple's Expanded China Factory Audits"

Apple went beyond any of the other companies. . . Apple sent their own auditors in and even went into suppliers to the contractor and suppliers to the supplier. Apple has discharged contractors who did not live up to the terms included in the contract. . . which is WHY Apple included the Code of Conduct in the contracts. Loonard simply cannot see the difference in the lip service of the companies he holds up as "doing the same as Apple" when they are saying—"we belong to EICC and subscribe to their toothless Code of Conduct"—and Apple's approach of "We mean it, and will NOT do business with you if you violate Apple's Code of Conduct, and we do look! And if we catch you, you're OUT!" Apple went so far as posting teams of Apple employee monitors in factories to assure compliance. . . not one of Apple's other Competitors did that. Apple's contract allow them to subordinate inspection to third party organizations at Apple's election. This allows Apple to have an independent organization such as the Fair Labor Association to freely have access to investigate. Apple's financial clout gives them the TEETH to require compliance and to open doors and records.

Loonard does not even recognize the important differences between the wording in Apple's document and the EICC's. . . The EICC document describes conditions by saying ". . . there is to be no. . .", as though these conditions just "sort of happen" of and by themselves. Apple's document limits actions of the suppliers' management by saying "Suppliers must. . .", "Suppliers may not. . .", in very direct and explicit term, limiting CONDUCT, not merely conditions that may "just sort of happen." Apple's document's explicit wording says that Apple intends to hold the supplier responsible. . . in contractual terminology. . . and it shows it's not lip service. Again, the exact meaning and usage of words are important in the real world. . . but apparently not so in Loonard's. In his world, these two documents look somewhat similar, so they must be exactly the same.

Now here's a little zinger that Loonard snuck in:

Alternative Fanboy Bullfish(™)
No one else has standards as high as Apple.
No one else even has standards.
No one else monitors working conditions.

Loonard claims those are my words. . . They are not. But he does need to show which manufacturer places their own employees on a full time basis in any of the facilities to monitor working conditions, which IS what I said that Apple does. Show me the companies other than Apple that include their enforceable standards of conduct in the procurement contract as does Apple so that not meeting those standards are grounds for termination of said contract. It's just more LoonardLogic(TM) that makes up facts to fit his desired result.

Too bad for Loonard it doesn't match reality.

. . . Here’s a crucial paragraph from the report: “Apple’s procurement decisions take into account a facility’s social responsibility performance, along with factors such as quality, cost, and timely delivery. When social responsibility performance consistently fails to meet our expectations, we terminate business.”

"[Apple] also fired one contractor (in 2008) that was using 42 minors. Apple wants to show, quite rightly, that it means business."citation from earlier in the article.

The report shows that Apple can make a show of how it addresses these risks, but in terms of removing the conditions that come with low-cost country sourcing, the success of these audits is still limited. As several examples demonstrate, many of the factories’ liabilities and misdemeanours are hidden from sight and auditors have to be exceptionally thorough—a trend that, it seems, goes hand-in-hand with this kind of sourcing.

If there’s a temptation to point these criticisms at Apple alone, it’s probably partly because of Apple’s lofty status in the supply chain community, and partly invited by the way they communicate their activities. But, here’s a further key statistic that puts this in different light: As much as 40% of the facilities audited last year (2010, and Apple has been auditing in supply chain work conditions since ~2006—Swordmaker) said Apple was the first company to check them for social responsibility compliance. Likewise, several of the larger incidents that caught the public’s attention occurred on the premises of suppliers for whom Apple was not the only customer.

At once a brave move and a worrying admission, this report shows that turning the desire for a more hospitable supply chain into the kind of transparency needed is, it seems, a long and difficult road.

This report is a snapshot of that, and perhaps a lesson to those companies which don’t have Apple’s share of the spotlight.
—Excerpted from Procurement Leaders Magazine website "Spotlight: Apple and the Problem of Supplier Codes of Conduct—February 18, 2011

[Leonard210]

We’re just getting started, big boy, and you’re already conflating 2012 with 2008 with 2010. You links are sparse, as usual, and don’t match your claims. So we’ll go through this very slowly, that way you’ll be able to understand.

And by the way, I always quote you when I’m referring to you. You’re still experiencing some of that diaper rash.

[Leonard210]

Your article from Business Week is from 2012 and is a direct response to the suicides in 2010. Apple was doing exactly the same thing as all the other companies until kids at facilities making their products started jumping out of windows.

Apple was being hounded by the FLA and several other organizations for years prior to 2010. It was only AFTER the nets went up and the monks came by to bless everything that Apple allowed independent inspections.

[Leonard210]

Your article from Procurement Leaders Magazine, besides being littered with dead links was clear, and as you noted, “shows that Apple can make a show of how it addresses these risks, but in terms of removing the conditions that come with low-cost country sourcing, the success of these audits is still limited.”

This is exactly what Apple has been accused of doing since at least 2005, proclaiming that they’re “on top of it” when they were not. They re-purposed a bunch of documents and in 2007 started adding pretty pictures, but all of the issues with suicides, poisoned workers and fires happened in spite of their own glowing self-assessment.

[Swordmaker]

Loonard claims I use a "sparseness" of links, then doesn't like the ones I have provided, claiming I'm conflating articles from the period when item ARE being manufactured in China, about the auditing the Chinese electronic supply chain, and specifically the differences between Apple's role in auditing that supply chain compared to other companies using that same supply chain are NOT germane to the issues HE has brought up. He hasn't a clue about scholarly discussion or debate, or proofs. What is acceptable? Links about Apple and the suicide only from his approved list of FUD spreaders that were written within a week of the events? I may be forced to change his appellation to Loontard. I won't.

He complains about my links when he has only linked, count it, one, to Reply #125 in this thread, and pasted a citation out of context to misrepresent the discussion. That makes him a fabulist. . . one of the worst kind. . . because he cynically thinks none of you are smart enough to check his work. Sparse? Try ZERO useful links from Loonard. . . about par for him in this entire thread. In my last post there are, counting Loonard's poorly executed link to the #125 Reply, SIX links, all of which are germane to the topic and facts I'm discussing. I expect readers to check my sources.

Loonard, assumes that Freepers are stupid, and will accept HIS assessment that the citations I make from my linked articles and my position and argument ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ARTICLES I've linked, and he claims baldly they are not!!! However, they are, otherwise, I would not cite them or link the articles. Of course, since I have, and they do, he'll then claim they are "cherry picked!" Of course they are. I selected them BECAUSE they were germane to my argument and to the topic at hand AND because they are factually correct. I'm NOT going to pick articles that are incorrect, contain falsehoods or FUD, and that present opinions containing zero factual meat.

More proof I'm not blowing smoke like Loonard? Here's another citation that rebuts Loonard's claim in Reply #313 that "No one else has standards as high as Apple.", other claims that Apple's Assembly plants were no better than any others in many previous posts. This part of the article quotes some of the inspectors who went into the various assembly plants and supply chain manufacturers that Loonard cites, such as the China Labor Watch:

"Even before Apple joined the FLA, conditions at its factories were better than others in the technology industry, said Yuan Fan, a researcher at China Labor Watch.

“We see more improvement in Apple’s supply chain,” Yuan said. “The other companies that we talk with don’t have so many improvements. They are mainly focused on building a relationship with the labor groups as PR.”

Customer Demands

Rival technology companies may follow Apple in partnering with the FLA if customers begin to see Apple as having higher standards, said Jerry Kim, a management professor at Columbia Business School in New York.

“It will boil down to whether customers demand it,” said Kim, who researches management strategies and how companies deal with regulation. “There’s always an incentive to have the worst labor practices so long as customers don’t know. If Apple and the FLA can elevate this to a level where customers are demanding to see that certification, then competitors will have no choice but to join.”ibid. Business Week, page 3

SO WHAT IF THAT ARTICLE IS FROM FEBRUARY 2012?

Loonard wants us all to believe that no one could POSSIBLY have learned a damn thing in the 20 months of investigations and changes that took place since the suicides happened and the cited article was written. No, of course not.

After the regrettable events in 2010, other companies such as Nokia, Dell and HP began a limited auditing program either with in house auditors or through agencies engaged for audits, it is a fact that Apple was doing first and deeper into the supply chain and is still the only company with full time monitor staffing. Because of limited funding, the agencies have dropped from around 15% to only auditing 5% of their member's supply chains, while Apple has been deepening their reach into their supply chain with the goal of eventually reaching 100%. This auditing by Apple started pre-2007. When they published their first report on their supply chain findings in 2010, they included listing violations and the corrective actions Apple demanded of the suppliers. As the procurement Leaders Mag article stated, finding violations I'd difficult, even for full time and deep auditor teams such as Apple's. . . not when greater profits for the violators are on the line.

Now Loonard will claim, as he's done before, that I've somehow either created the "FAKE SITE" or coerced the author into writing the lies on it, or arranged the story, "experts," everything, all falling to my Svengali powers. . . Just To bamboozle ALL the iSheep. LOL!

Loonard's "Diaper rash" rash comment is hilarious, especially on this weekend, as tomorrow, according to no less an august organization than the Social Security Administration, I must start using MediCare for my medical needs! I'm officially a Geezer later this week, specifically on Friday.

[Leonard210]

My FUD speaker was Steve Jobs. My documents are from Apple and the EICC. You insisted that you had “primary sources” and instead post opinion pieces. Since you lie so hopelessly, I am going back to the beginning of this issue to demonstrate your deception. By conflating several issues across several years you’re just trying to obfuscate. I’ll help you sore that out.

The diaper rash is a comment about your constant butthurt that seems to be coming from your own mind reading. Try Desitin.

[Leonard210]

Fake Facts and Fanboy FUD(™)

Codes of Conduct

The Electronics Industry Code of Conduct is the outline document for annual reporting by the electronics industry. It has been since 2004.

In 2005 Apple issued their first Supplier Code of Conduct. In the second paragraph they acknowledged that it was copied from the EICC and the exact same documents that the EICC used to develop their code. Even their latest version references the EICC as a source document.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134377/posts?page=313#313

It is simply a lie to claim that Apple was doing something that no one else in the electronics industry was doing. And this wasn’t plagiarism as Swordmaker suggested because they acknowledge their sources.

Apple simply changed the wording when they rewrote their document, and it appears they intentionally tried to mislead Apple Fanboys with statements like this from the first paragraph, “This Supplier Code of Conduct goes further, drawing upon internationally recognized standards, in order to advance social and environmental responsibility.” Apple Supplier Code of Conduct, Version 1.0, November 13, 2005

There it is. Apple “goes further” than everyone else. They draw upon “internationally recognized standards”. Yes they do. And even though they used the exact same internationally recognized standards as HP, IBM, Dell, Solectron, Sanmina SCI, Jabil, Celestica, Flextronics, Cisco, Microsoft and Intel in 2004, when Apple uses those exact same internationally recognized standards you can be assured that Apple has taken a “higher road” because Apple Fanboys insist upon it!

The original EICC from 2004, however, encourages all companies adopting their code to, “go beyond legal compliance, drawing upon internationally recognized standards, in order to advance social and environmental responsibility.” Electronics Industry Code of Conduct, October 18, 2004

Do you see how morally superior Apple was compared to their evil competition? Evil corporations only “go beyond” while Apple “goes further”. There you are unbelievers. Bend the knee and acknowledge the superior genius of Apple and the late Saint Steve Jobs.

Apple Lexicon
To Go Further Than The Competition: To shamelessly copy industry standards then act as if they were invented in Cupertino.
from The Apple Lexicon (™) Interpreting Apple Theology Since 1994