Of course we have a free and open media. As long as you don’t criticize the corporate gatekeepers. From Geek.com:
Apple removes Sweatshop iOS game from sale because it made them uncomfortable
[The game] tasks the player with running a sweatshop producing clothing and footwear. It is aimed at young people in a bid to get them thinking about where the clothes we buy come from and the conditions workers in some of these factories suffer through.
Over its 30 levels the player has to deal with ever larger orders, more types of products to make, but also problems like fires, no toilets, unions, and employees getting tired or ill. It’s realistic because the choice of what to do–look after the workers or complete the orders–falls to the player, and hopefully teaches them the difficulties in balancing the two in the process.
Hit a little too close to home, did it, Apple?
I love Apple products. I don’t love how they’re made. I guess being “insanely great” doesn’t extend to the company’s manufacturing methods. I guess it’s easier to pretend sweatshop conditions don’t exist — and to hide the truth from those who don’t already know it — than, you know, doing something insanely great about it.
And this, as per the earlier QoTD, is why topics of international trade turn me into a ranter.
So rant. :->
*deep breath*
The thing about markets is that they are fundamentally amoral. You can describe market pressures in purely mathematical ways and point out the efficiencies, but none of that math takes morality into account.
So many modern economists, MBAs and politicians have adopted a “free market fundmentalist” stance where market efficiency = morality, to the point where all the moral considerations are overwhelmed by the financial ones. As long as the rules make China the most profitable manufacturing centre, then market pressure and the threat of lawsuits from shareholders is going to force most manufacturing there.
Governments are great at adding barriers through regulation, taxes and state-owned competition that change the conditions of success in the market, much the way building a dam or levee changes the behaviour of a river. Unfortunately our culture has become so enamoured with the unfettered market that even liberal economic icons like Krugman and DeLong can’t consider any trade policy except for Free Trade.
We need a trade policy that enforces global environmental standards, and protects labor, rather than economic sectors. Allow trade with everyone, just ensure the tarriff equalizes the labour cost of exported goods with the minimum wage of the importer. That would remove the downward pressure on wages and standard of living help eliminate trade deficits, while still allowing nations with competitive advantages to trade, and increasing consumer choice.
*gasp, collapse*
Apple? Apple won’t even allow a programming language onto iOS. People might realise that their phones and tablets are general-purpose computing machines that anyone can learn to program, not just money suckers to benefit Apple and the technohieratic masters. (And I say this as a technohieratic master.)
I’m curious what you mean by this. Is Objective-C not a useful language? Or are you referring to the issues of installing one’s own app onto iOS devices without jailbreaking? Or something else entirely?
Personally, I agree that the tight hold Apple has on the iOS app market is pernicious, at least. But then again, there are so many awful iOS app, and so many more aggressively useless Android apps, that I don’t worry too much about it.
A programming language that runs on iOS, rather than needing some other computer.
Lots of people don’t even own “proper” computers now; they just have their iToys. They will never meet even the idea of programming; it will always be something Other People do.
But many people — perhaps most people — have zero interest in programming. Is that a bad thing?
How about Python?
Gotcha
Many women have no interest in becoming soldiers. Does that mean they should’t be allowed to do so?
OK, that just doesn’t track. I mean, those aren’t even remotely analogous situations.
You might want to have a look at Apple’s statement of “Supplier Responsibility” and see what you think. It might not qualify for “insanely great”, but I think it’s accepted to be “at least better than the other corporates who use exactly the same factories and suppliers”. http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/
This strikes me as a PR move after some news articles mentionned that conditions were so bad that safety nets had to be installed at the factories that assembled Apple products in order to prevent employees from committing suicide by jumping out the window. The point of having suppliers as opposed to employing workers is largely to avoid having the responsibilities (and costs) that having employees entails.
Have a bit of a dig round and see how you feel beyond your initial response.
Can that now be run on an un-jailbroken iOS device, and allow the user to write and share programs without needing a developer licence?
Sure. You’re not going to create a beautiful app with it, which may be what you wanted if not what you asked. Personally, I won’t be happy until they put HyperCard on iOS.
In any thread criticizing Apple, you will invariably eventually get someone pointing out that virtually *all* of the electronic and computer crap we buy is made under sweatshop conditions, that it’s not just Apple doing this. But the thing about Apple is that, of all the huge corporations that make these items, they squeeze out the most profit-per-employee of anyone. They are famous for tracking and squeezing the last penny out of every low-level employee, whether it’s a factory worker or the salespeople in their stores. Their workers and low-level employees are pretty much used like tissues and then thrown away
when the profit that can be gleaned from them drops the slightest bit.
But they do not ever, ever, EVER pass the savings on to the consumer, nor do they ever use a penny of it to aid or reward any of their low level employees. They’ve got it down to a science. They are a particularly egregious and souless example of just what a corporation does, and every other corporation wants to be like them. Their massive profits go to their top execs and investors, to PR and marketing efforts to continue to convince the buying public that their products are not over-priced, and to buying politicians, who are writing our laws to keep the status quo and prevent any measures to stop corporations from draining our society further than they already have.
Right, Apple is an ideal example of how the system works, but it’s certainly not unique.
Another Good example: Gap. New jeans from Gap are about $60-70, and last I checked, were made in Hondouras for pennies under seriously shitty conditions. At the time that labor report came out, there was only one place in town which carried clothing made in Canada, and that was largely limited to one brand of jeans. Those jeans were $20.
Where was that extra $50+ going?
Pretty much every brand name has crazy mark-up on it, because people are willing to pay that. Most companies didn’t move overseas to sell their products here for less, they moved overseas to pocket more profit from the sale.
Again, it’s not just China. Bangladesh has some of the worst working conditions in the world, which is why it’s crazy popular with textile companies. Check your tags, bet you have a lot from there.
We are well past the point where market influences are going to make any change. Even if you accept the idea that “voting with our dollars” is in any way a fair system of governance, in many areas we are devoid of practical moral commercial choices.
So your point is not that Apple is evil because it exploits workers, but that it is evil because it doesn’t pass the profit back to you?