[HN Gopher] Apple warns suppliers to follow China rules on 'Taiw...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple warns suppliers to follow China rules on 'Taiwan' labeling
Author : lucasjans
Score : 360 points
Date : 2022-08-05 14:00 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asia.nikkei.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (asia.nikkei.com)
| bamboozled wrote:
| I'm done with Apple.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Doesn't surprise me. Money talks louder than sovereignty of some
| state. :(
| protomyth wrote:
| You cannot offend China if your company is a China-based
| manufacturing company. Tim Cook didn't make sure Apple was am
| America-base manufacturing company and spent a lot of Apple's
| money on China. Thinking that Tim Cook will not march to Xi
| Jinping's drum is absurd. His criticisms of American
| manufacturing can all be solved by Apple investing the same
| money.
|
| This should be a bigger story. He should be seen as someone who
| spent American money to build China's supply chain.
|
| [edit: gotta love the Tim Cook apologists]
| BudaDude wrote:
| This should honestly be picked up by a larger news organization.
| If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more
| chips to the US, Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese
| profits. Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia
| on their badges.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| droptablemain wrote:
| Yeah, great idea, let's wage a proxy war with China whilst in
| the middle of waging a proxy war on Russia. What could go
| wrong?!
| 99_00 wrote:
| >If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan
|
| US isn't even serious about protecting themselves.
|
| "Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI
| director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in
| the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from
| expanding...in China?"
|
| "private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby,
| National Security Council coordinator for strategic
| communications
|
| https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034
|
| But the administration has no problem telling business what to
| do when it cares about the issue, for example telling gas
| stations to lower prices.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and
| USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC,
| PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government
| of China. Even so there is still only one China.
|
| Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the
| international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level
| official from US.
|
| Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it.
|
| As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company
| founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history,
| performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war,
| and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally
| coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc.
|
| They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are
| the original sin that drives all sorts of evil.
|
| You got the whole cause and effect reversed.
| seabrookmx wrote:
| The USA has imperfect history for sure. But that doesn't
| change the fact that currently, none of those things you
| mention are actively happening.. whereas the critiques of the
| PRC are based on current events like the Uyghur genocide and
| removal of freedoms in Hong Kong. A nation is molded by it's
| history not identified by it. Nobody fears the Nazis when
| visiting Berlin today.
|
| > the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one
| China policy
|
| Notice how you use the term "legally." You know that in fact,
| most nations around the world treat Taiwan as a de-facto
| independent nation. The USA's formal word on this is as
| follows: "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the
| Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan
| is a part of China"
|
| Notice how it does _not_ claim that the _USA_ thinks there is
| only one China. Only that it recognizes PRC and Taiwan do.
|
| > Apple need to operate in the boundary of law
|
| Apple need operate in the boundary of PRC law if they want to
| keep their Chinese factories, workers and profits, and that's
| what this critique is all about. Nobody else cares if they
| have "made in Taiwan" on their parts or products. In fact,
| I'd prefer if they did as it's more transparent!
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Well said, I do mostly agree with your points. They are
| mostly consistent with the backdrops of my comment.
| helloworld97 wrote:
| "Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it."
|
| Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it
| uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and
| influence on other sovereign nations with respect to
| protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is
| generated overseas.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Ask Apple, they are more knowledgeable than you and I
| combined.
| helloworld97 wrote:
| That was a rhetorical question - I know the answer to it
| already. I don't think you do though.
| tz18 wrote:
| How many yuan you get for this post?
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties
| work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some
| "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on
| this.
|
| Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and
| personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I
| said would have comprehensive references, because I am not
| a full-time political practitioner.
|
| Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory
| comments help no one.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| >Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it
|
| Forgive me for being naive here but how does Taiwan buy
| weapons? Are all the arms manufacturers selling to them
| breaking the law?
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| You should ask reputable international law experts for
| these.
|
| Fox news might not be reliable on this matter. Nor myself,
| or any other unidentified HN visitor.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Flippant replies to everyone attempting to meaningfully
| engage you are not productive and contribute negatively.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Unfortunately, that's the best I could give to you. Not
| really intentionally trying to dodge the question. My
| comments are based on number casual exposure from my
| personally reputable sources which I don't have time and
| energy to sort out, as I am not a full time intentional
| law practitioner.
|
| The best my comments can give is for someone who is
| genuinely interested in learning history to spend time to
| look for reputable sources.
|
| HN for things outside of tech industry generally offers
| sharply lower quality. So you generally should not treat
| anyone here including myself too seriously.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Ok got it.
|
| So then the answer is no, those weapons companies are not
| breaking the law. They have been selling weapons to
| taiwan for decades, and they do not have to worry about
| international law.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is an act of Congress that
| requires America to make weapons available to Taiwan so
| they have the means of defending themselves. What that
| means precisely is decided by the President and Congress.
| wahern wrote:
| > You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan
| and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not
| PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized
| government of China. Even so there is still only one China.
|
| > Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by
| the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high
| level official from US.
|
| One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC;
| it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC),
| and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without
| having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except
| perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
|
| Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the
| United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement
| between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC
| would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then
| the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note
| that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a
| face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from
| using military force over Taiwan.)
|
| But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very
| careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm
| not aware of any principal of international law that is per
| se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a
| law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't
| administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written
| and normative international law; it just is what it is.
|
| Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan,
| especially a permanent presence, then that would be another
| story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but
| it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC
| agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the
| subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S.
| doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least
| not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the
| Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S.
| perspective, this is the no-go line.
|
| If you want to talk about violating clearly written
| international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that
| wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the
| formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the
| envelop of what normative international law can speak to.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Looks great, a well rounded analysis of the situation.
|
| But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the
| event and the actual international laws at the time of the
| end of WWII.
|
| The situation is more like the China domestic war was not
| ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the
| strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been
| the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.
|
| One China policy is recognized by international law not
| because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of
| international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws
| actually has the most legitimacy.
|
| And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's
| representation of this one China. That's just an automatic
| derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in
| UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is
| quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view
| everything as if they were always under US leadership, and
| claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under
| check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind
| of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that
| eventually US are going to revert.
|
| Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical
| struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and
| legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the
| case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to
| admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and
| strength, which has always been the driven force of
| geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.
| anovikov wrote:
| What's the problem? Taiwan is the Republic of China.
| bfung wrote:
| The official name of China is "People's Republic of China",
| PRC.
|
| Taiwan differentiates by using "Republic of China", RoC.
|
| Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Taiwan doesn't differentiate from PRC, they were the ROC
| first. The PRC named themselves after the ROC.
|
| PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China
| in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan.
|
| But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to
| hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for
| the people.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Taiwan follows the "One China" policy. They view themselves as
| Chinese even more so than the PRC, not part of some sort of
| separate, "independent" culture/nation. So the "China" badge is
| quite justified on its own terms.
| [deleted]
| wongarsu wrote:
| Isn't Apple's stance exactly what the US government does:
| formally not recognizing Taiwan, while at the same time working
| with them? Everyone is a little bit angry, but nobody so much
| that they do something about it.
|
| And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made
| in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the
| US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this
| label didn't exist
| VictorPath wrote:
| This is correct. The US does not recognize Taiwan as an
| independent country. The Taiwanese government doesn't
| recognize itself as a separate country from mainland China. I
| guess some people want Apple to have some US ultra-jingoist
| Opium Wars attitude to China that the US (aside from perhaps
| Pelosi) does not.
| klipklop wrote:
| There is a large faction in the US that supports Taiwan
| independence.
|
| This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism.
| Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how
| great things are under unification.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP.
|
| The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the
| people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of
| culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free
| from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many
| Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be
| tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced
| identity. A very real sort of oppression.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| > To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence"
| would be tantamount to denying their history and self-
| experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
|
| Source?
|
| I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The
| Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.
| yorwba wrote:
| Asking for sources while not providing the ones you claim
| to have is kind of ironic.
|
| If you check Taiwanese opinion polls
| https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
| you'll see that there's a plurality of opinions. People
| who want independence outnumber people who want
| unification, but the majority prefers to keep the status
| quo, for now or forever.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| I am not naming people I know personally, especially not
| in this context. There is no irony, I am telling you,
| that there is a Taiwanese source behind my statement. I
| would have been happy with the same statement from OP.
| wongarsu wrote:
| After WWII, Germany lost a large section of their Eastern
| Territory to Poland, and everyone from there was
| resettled within the new German borders. Those people
| were furious, and as a result German policy was to demand
| that territory back, and a refusal to recognize the new
| borders. A couple decades later a lot of the people who
| grew up there had died of old age, and the new generation
| had no relation to the old territory. As a result public
| sentiment changed, and Germany publicly recognized the
| new borders when it was politically advantageous.
|
| Taiwan is probably going through the same process, just a
| bit slower since it's not just about territory but about
| national identity. Each generation weakens the ties to
| the old "Chinese" identity and strengthens a "Taiwanese"
| identity, until a tipping point is reached.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Nowadays both Germany and Poland are part of the EU, and
| people have freedom of movement in both territories. So
| if anyone wants to move to their "historical" homeland,
| they can easily do so. Interestingly, this is also partly
| the case wrt. the PRC and Taiwan, as a result of the One
| China policy.
| pxc wrote:
| > Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on
| their badges.
|
| These do not seem at all comparable to me
| [deleted]
| baybal2 wrote:
| hosh wrote:
| Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating in China. The
| Taiwanese businesses knew they were shooting themselves in the
| foot but opened up factories in China anyways.
|
| The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I
| think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name
| is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of
| Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War,
| there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling
| party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After
| WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the
| Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and
| retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of
| Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the
| Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland
| China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after
| year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over
| reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing
| politics in Taiwan.
|
| Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same,
| ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having
| preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not
| (Cultural Revolution).
|
| Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two
| major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before
| CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way
| into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being
| protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances.
|
| It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > is not a buffer state between two major political powers
|
| Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though.
|
| Only Americans see it like that, after they regained
| independence from USSR.
|
| Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine,
| separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes.
|
| Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in
| mainland China.
|
| Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that
| they are different from Spaniards, but _the conclusion is
| that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese
| are the same ethnic people_
|
| EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots
| pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should
| stay like that.
| hosh wrote:
| A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example,
| North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and
| South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about
| geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed
| by ethnic groups.
|
| If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically,
| Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-
| dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the
| kingdom of Korea as one.
|
| As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are
| vassal states.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > North Korea
|
| That is inhabited by the same Koreans that live in the
| south and only exists for geopolitcal reasons.
|
| Just like east and west Germany.
|
| Ukraine exists because Ukranian people exist.
|
| Belgium is more of a buffer state than Ukraine
|
| (no, I'm not Ukranian, far from it)
| INTPenis wrote:
| It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start
| ww3. It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry
| about, it's the fucking commenters.
|
| Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging
| with China. Nobody wins.
| BudaDude wrote:
| To be fair, China was ready to start WWIII a few days ago.
| prepend wrote:
| I don't think it would be ww3 as China would get
| roflstomped by US and Japan.
|
| They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy
| for a few decades.
|
| But I'm not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a
| regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don't
| think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved
| unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.
|
| China's military just isn't strong enough yet. Maybe in
| 20-50 years.
| wins32767 wrote:
| China has done an awesome job in building a military that
| can win a war for Taiwan. They have a very strong
| integrated air defense system, enough short range
| missiles to effectively deny the South China Sea to
| surface vessels and enough long range missiles to crater
| all of the nearby airfields the US would use in any such
| conflict. It's not clear they could successfully invade,
| but can they sink any ship bringing food into Taiwan?
| Probably, and realistically that's all they need to do to
| win.
|
| On the flip side, what can the US do to get China to stop
| fighting if they don't want to give up? An invasion
| couldn't possibly take over the whole country and might
| trigger a nuclear reprisal, a blockade would take longer
| to work against China than Taiwan, and the economic
| consequences would hit the US quite hard. How many
| Americans want to buy war bonds and go on rationing to
| protect Taiwan? Especially with the current political
| polarization?
|
| I don't think it's a sure fire win for China, but it's
| already in the realm of plausibility.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > I don't think it would be ww3 as China would get
| roflstomped by US and Japan.
|
| Yes, a country with nukes would get "rolfstomped". I
| expect this opinion from a hacker news commentator.
| wongarsu wrote:
| I agree that China can't project military force far
| outside China. But they don't have to, a large portion of
| the world's population and manufacturing capacity is in
| their neighborhood. If they take over Taiwan, occupy
| Vietnam and get countries like Laos and Thailand which
| have good relations with China on their side, then other
| countries might join against China to protect their
| interests and supply lines.
|
| Meanwhile the US has failed to roflstomp much smaller and
| weaker countries that didn't prepare for this exact
| scenario. China can't take the war to the US, but they
| can defend their costal waters and core territory longer
| than the US can maintain popular support for a war.
| iconhacker wrote:
| Only when provoked by US.
| yccs27 wrote:
| How is this even remotely a provocation justifying this
| kind of response? It's a diplomatic gesture confirming
| the US's support for the decades old de-facto status quo.
| China's insistence on their power fantasy is the
| permanent provocation here.
| klipklop wrote:
| Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few
| speeches?
|
| That is one rather weak provocation. Compare that to the
| CCP launching missiles over the island of Taiwan. Who is
| provoking whom?
| Covzire wrote:
| China does look very weak when they behave exactly like
| North Korea does. They think it's a show of strength, and
| in a way it is, but it's also a dangerous weakness
| stemming from fear and insecurity, the kind that may
| start WW3 some day, and China and particularly the CCP
| will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with a lot
| of us.
| eagleal wrote:
| Wasn't that after removing the infamous "Taiwan Is Part
| Of China" from the Taiwan Fact Sheet, and the proposal
| for expansion of military aid to Taiwan? That old lady is
| also the US House Speaker, second in line for POTUS
| succession among other things.
|
| Not exactly irrelevant.
| whoevercares wrote:
| Except The old lady is -
|
| > The order of succession specifies that the office
| passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is
| simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also
| incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency
| pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives
| klipklop wrote:
| As you stated there are many steps before Pelosi is in a
| position to "push the button." Xi today at this vary
| moment is practicing/simulating the murder of the people
| in Taiwan so he can complete his grand vision of
| 'unifying' 'China'.
|
| One is using words and the other weapons. We should not
| tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know
| it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the
| end of the day they are still not military drills and
| missile launches.
|
| Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't
| agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom
| for the people of Taiwan.
|
| People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi
| speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable
| in their level of sophistry.
| MrRiddle wrote:
| > Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few
| speeches?
|
| This statement is just ridiculous.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| Sure. But many countries have their "weak" spots.
|
| Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet,
| without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.
|
| Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a
| submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its
| independence.
|
| All independence is based on having some autonomy
| (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.
| stale2002 wrote:
| No, actually. I do not think many people would care if Xi
| made some speech in texas.
|
| Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do
| that.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| This sad orientalism: neither China nor Russia are some
| weird state machines that are "provoked" or "forced" to
| do anything, or kids that we have to constantly placate
| to not start crying in the middle of the mall.
|
| Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a
| result of their own choices and they are the one to bear
| consequences.
| 99_00 wrote:
| "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are
| weak." The Art of War, Sun Tzu
|
| It amazes me how many people assume China has a strong
| military without doing the most basic research.
| Atatator wrote:
| Hmm Military Watch Magazine places China into "TIER ONE
| MILITARY POWERS" list
| https://militarywatchmagazine.com/forceapp/countries/
|
| Do you have any source saying that China's military is not
| as strong as it appears to be?
| 99_00 wrote:
| Right behind Russia. Who would be defeated in Ukraine
| with a hand full decommissioned f-16s and a-10s.
| klipklop wrote:
| Yes, we should just appease the people that will attempt to
| end the world if they don't get their way.
|
| I recall an appeasement policy in Europe didn't work so great
| in the 1930s.
| heartbreak wrote:
| When open conflict with China would also "end the world"
| the exact same could be applied to OP. You want a world in
| which China is not appeased, and you're okay with ending it
| all if that's what it takes.
| Clubber wrote:
| >It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start
| ww3.
|
| Ya, and if that happens, expect a draft. The US military is
| having difficulty finding volunteers. They'll need a whole
| lot of soldiers, sailors and marines if we went all out with
| China.
|
| >It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry
| about, it's the fucking commenters.
|
| Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with
| Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a
| political stunt is pretty disgusting. I'm done with all these
| war mongers.
|
| I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
|
| Also, seems some people stole $6B from Chinese banks. One of
| the accused was allowed to flee to the US.
|
| https://menafn.com/1104402647/China-Banking-Scandal-May-
| Invo...
| koshergweilo wrote:
| > Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with
| Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for
| a political stunt is pretty disgusting
|
| The only reason she went was because the US military deemed
| it safe to do so. No one wants a war right now.
|
| > I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
|
| Why not listen to her words?
|
| "We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resilience.
| Taiwan is a leader in governance ... . At the same time,
| Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global
| corporations to cut ties with the island, intimidating
| countries that cooperate with Taiwan, and clamping down on
| tourism from the [mainland]. In the face of the Chinese
| Communist Party's ... accelerating aggression, our
| congressional delegation's visit should be seen as an
| unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our
| democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom."
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| Apple's market cap is $2.7 trillion. How hard could it be for
| them to get a few nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and tell
| China, "We refuse to comply with your labeling requirements.
| Just try to stop us"?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered
| aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6
| billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90
| Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support
| craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would
| seriously strain Apple's budget.
|
| And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles
| and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend
| that money.
| ch33zer wrote:
| Not to mention that I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't want
| it's private companies running their own Navies and going
| toe to toe with foreign forces
| lupire wrote:
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits.
|
| Raison d'etre of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not
| whatever you think of it.
|
| Shame on everyone involved - the Corporation, the short-sighted
| shareholders, the customers that enabled this behavior.
|
| > If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing
| more chips to the US
|
| It's the opposite, you want to "bring more chips in the US" so
| that the US is able to back off from protecting Taiwan.
| criddell wrote:
| > Raison d'etre of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not
| whatever you think of it.
|
| There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is
| a corporation.
| Aunche wrote:
| If making a label that complies with Chinese customs is really
| such a matter of protecting Taiwan, then you should ask these
| Taiwanese manufacturers to not export their products to China
| in the first place. Given that they are exporting to China,
| Apple is correct that they need to comply with China's rules,
| no matter how arbitrary.
|
| IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is
| the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected
| world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M
| voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer
| boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed
| factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and
| H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue
| signal when it is economical to do so.
| autosharp wrote:
| We should just make it easy for Apple and other companies by
| forbidding this mislabeling.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| > If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan
|
| It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build
| factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official
| state department website specifically said that the US does not
| support independence. Even now it still says that it's official
| stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe
| that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions).
|
| But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see
| what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would
| like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately
| the reality looks a bit more grim.
| mancerayder wrote:
| It's selective wokeness by employees of Apple. Or an American-
| centric attitude with no interest in universal principles of
| self-determination by all peoples.
| eevilspock wrote:
| A lot of people here making comments without knowing anything
| about the 70 year-old issue of the definition of "China", as
| well as the "one country" philosophy that _both_ Taiwan and
| Mainland China adhere to officially.[1][2][3]
|
| I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was
| married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from
| China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to
| Taiwan.
|
| Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official
| policy.
|
| To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual
| sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan
| populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as
| well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5]
|
| But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their
| official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One
| China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China,
| why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that
| Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an
| American company, push any particular angle, especially when
| there is position they can take that is compatible with the
| policies of both Taiwan and China?
|
| If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit
| and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell
| you there are far more important stands to take, including a
| serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people
| dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the
| exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have
| the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then
| I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.
|
| ---
|
| [1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page:
| "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)"
| www.taiwan.gov.tw
|
| [2] See Taiwan's own constitution, even after modern
| amendments, continues to hold that China is one country.
| https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93
|
| Note that the constitution also claims Mongolia and Tibet as
| part of the Republic of China. _Even Mainland China doesn 't
| claim Mongolia._
|
| The amendments adopted afterwards have not rescinded the idea
| of One China implied by the original:
| https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95
|
| They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China"
| and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the
| people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area,
| and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified
| by law."
|
| [3] See this comment on this same thread
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180
|
| [4] There is a good Wikipedia article on the issue:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
|
| [5] An ongoing debate within Taiwan about changing the
| constitution:
| https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05...
| galdosdi wrote:
| Well, one difference is the US is a lot more beholden to China
| (PRC) than to Russia. The loss of Russian energy supplies would
| be far less damaging to the US economy than the loss of Chinese
| manufacturing, for which there really is not substitute right
| now. China has more leverage vis a vis the US and the west than
| Russia does, in other words.
| rob_c wrote:
| And we all know which 2 political groups oversaw the export
| of labour to foreign lands... Maybe if the population was
| interested in actual change it would stop with three
| political theatre and vote for the things which impact them
| most...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Speaking of shaming Apple for their dealings in China, does
| anyone remember the time Ricky Gervais ripped Apple (and
| Hollywood by association) over their sweatshops at the 2020
| Golden Globes?
| paulcarroty wrote:
| > Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on
| their badges.
|
| Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere,
| 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change:
| Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| Ukraine is a Sovereign Country, recognised by UN, Taiwan is not
| and technically it's still China.
|
| In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in
| China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made
| (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized
| by International institutions)
|
| edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I
| still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty
| of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to
| recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.
| awinder wrote:
| Apples phones have always said made in China, designed in
| Cupertino. This is an issue about parts coming into China
| from Taiwan that are:
|
| 'Using the phrase "Made in Taiwan" on any import declaration
| forms, documents or cartons'
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| sorry, I'm not English native speaker, I intended exactly
| that: it should be there, because it's where they were
| physically manufactured.
|
| Made in Taiwan is, at the moment, legally like "made in
| California", which is a fine Beach Boys album, but not a
| recognized country of origin label.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition.
|
| Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you
| declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain
| control of its territory and prevent its territory from being
| controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time,
| is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is.
|
| Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for
| decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not
| sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully
| invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign.
|
| Just a little English vocabulary lesson!
|
| See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition.
|
| There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the
| legality of sovereignty of countries.
|
| Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"?
|
| > Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you
| declare
|
| You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the
| readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign
| country, which is a legal construct, we have developed
| International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them,
| using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land
| where my house is built upon "a sovereign country".
|
| I clearly can't, can I?
|
| If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an
| invasion.
|
| It makes a big difference.
|
| > Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory
| for decades
|
| So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
|
| edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's
| an elected government.
|
| > Just a little English vocabulary lesson!
|
| maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on
| the vocabulary.
| galdosdi wrote:
| > There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the
| legality of sovereignty of countries.
|
| No, neither I nor the parent were talking about
| "legality" just sovereignty. This "legal" sovereignty is
| a concept you and you alone have introduced to the
| discussion, and frankly I think it's a pretty useless and
| nonsense concept in practical terms. (There is no world
| government, after all, and laws are different in every
| country, so legality at an international level is a kind
| of meaningless philosophical question in the absence of
| someone able and willing to enforce it)
|
| Please look up "sovereignty" in the dictionary:
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > No, neither I nor the parent were talking about
| "legality" just sovereignty
|
| moving the goalpost much?
|
| I specifically talked about "sovereign countries
| _recognized by the UN_ "
|
| So yeah, I introduced it, because it's the only thing
| that matters.
|
| Nobody cares about sovereignty outside of legal borders
| and international recognition.
|
| Are Catalans sovereign in Catalonia?
|
| Nobody cares unless they can get international
| recognition.
|
| Are Lombard sovereign in Lombardy?
|
| Who cares?
|
| Nobody, unless they can obtain the recognition of the UN.
|
| I'm sovereign in my bedroom, too bad nobody cares.
|
| Anyway you wrote " _Taiwan is a sovereign country by
| definition_ ", no, it's not.
|
| It's a disputed territory, the matter is very complex,
| there are strong opposing interests of various natures
| conflicting over it, for a part of the World there are
| humanitarian reasons to support their claims, but
| technically it's still part of China (PRC), the one the
| international authorities recognize.
|
| Why is there the US army to defend them against a Chinese
| take over, if there is no way to enforce anything
| internationally?
|
| Also, go and read about the 2021 referendums
|
| _The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on the island of
| Taiwan has been criticized for selling the interests of
| the people of Taiwan out in exchange for US support of
| its secessionist political pursuit
|
| [...]
|
| Taiwan residents have expressed great concern over the
| import of pork containing ractopamine, an additive banned
| by many countries, as this issue impacts the health
| interests of every Taiwan resident, Zhu said.
|
| Thousands of people flooded Taipei's streets in late
| November for a protest march, with much of the anger
| focused on the DDP authorities' decision to ease
| restrictions on imports of US pork.
|
| The DPP authority has allowed the import of thousands of
| tons of ractopamine-contaminated US port since January 1,
| according to media reports.
|
| This is enough to expose the fact that the DPP has
| ignored the interests of the people on the island, and is
| aimed at currying favor with certain political and
| economic forces in the US_
|
| What do you think would happen if at the next elections a
| President pro reunification with mainland prevails?
|
| So their sovereignty is still not "by definition" in any
| sense.
|
| No matter what side you are on.
|
| > There is no world government, after all
|
| There is, however.
|
| The fact that you don't recognize it, it's irrelevant.
|
| If tomorrow New Yorkers declare themselves sovereign over
| the NY territory, do you think the US government will let
| them print money and elect a president?
|
| Enlighten me on why not, please.
|
| > No, neither I nor the parent
|
| the parent wrote
|
| " _Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label
| Russia on their badges_ "
|
| and I explained why it would be different.
|
| Made in Ukraine it's a thing, because Ukraine is
| recognized as sovereign Nation, while Russia is another
| country, currently trying to occupy Ukraine by force.
|
| Made in Taiwan no, not legally, it's like made in
| Palestine, made in Catalonia, made in Sicily or made in
| Calgary.
|
| If it's made in Taiwan, it's made in China, if it's made
| in Ukraine it's not Russian (at least for now)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It is stupendously astounding that NYT hasn't written anything
| about Apple's ties with China in scathing detail.
|
| Even this story was not featured:
| https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...
|
| The Information is one of the most reputable sources of
| information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely
| ignored.
|
| I would like a massive investigative journalism project,
| perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos
| investigation by John Carreyrou.
|
| American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in
| China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the
| elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares.
| That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on
| China".
| [deleted]
| ericmay wrote:
| Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like
| much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an
| assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that
| investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established
| international organizations would result in liberalization
| (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in
| global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP
| rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the
| prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a
| long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and
| other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable
| counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing
| Chinese profits".
|
| And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods
| so we're all complicit too.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're
| all complicit too.
|
| its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers.
| There's hardly anything made elsewhere.
| rexreed wrote:
| It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to
| buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where
| and how things are manufactured (overseas and in
| sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the
| 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work
| overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always
| have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term
| choices.
| mhoad wrote:
| I don't know exactly where the line is when it comes to
| who's responsibility it is about "products made in China"
| but I would make the argument that trying to push
| decisions focused around things like national security,
| geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer
| level is basically a bullshit move.
|
| Regular people don't have the right level of knowledge to
| make those decisions and it's not realistic to expect
| that of them. I would much rather talk about the party
| who not only had the right level of information but was
| also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to
| this situation to begin with.
|
| At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for
| than regular consumers.
| unity1001 wrote:
| "Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself
| always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its
| closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak
| that is used when pressuring other governments to open up
| their economy. Not your own.
| rednerrus wrote:
| The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the
| cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries
| to open their markets to us.
| unity1001 wrote:
| Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite
| amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done
| exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago?
| Something which no other civilization, less, society,
| enjoyed ever in human history?
| bodski wrote:
| > But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global
| good will
|
| Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view.
| The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own
| 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| Textbook example of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| the_af wrote:
| I don't think shouting Whataboutism whenever someone
| points out US-centric points of view or double standards
| makes for an interesting conversation.
|
| It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant
| comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.
| Resurface6349 wrote:
| Well, in all fairness, it _is_ a powerful way to change
| the topic while also getting people to sow doubt in a
| major source of your criticism in the first place, in
| political contexts.
|
| Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate
| tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist"
| when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that
| the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they,
| too, can lie.
|
| But at a certain point you realize that things aren't
| great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.
|
| And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that
| whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the
| eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.
|
| Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall
| under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't
| need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind
| of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep
| things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which
| are easily exploited.
|
| Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but
| "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking
| about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed
| territory in this day and age, just feels a little
| disingenuous.
| the_af wrote:
| I understand what you're saying, but let's see the other
| side:
|
| I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't
| live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards
| the democratic system they have over there, or their
| government, just like the US has been historically a
| mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining
| our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned
| with Washington or various American business.
|
| So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one
| that is respectful of other countries choices and
| sovereignty, but I'm not _responsible_ for it, and if my
| criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral
| system, then how _weak_ must they really be!
|
| So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US
| says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism"
| to remind everyone about this, every time a government
| official says something about China, Russia or whatever
| country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting
| international treaties, or using threat of military force
| to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with
| knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."
|
| And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a
| very apt remark.
|
| Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are
| talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not
| the US!" feels lazy to me.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| I think it's textbook definition of Duplicity.
|
| Rules for thee and not for me.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other
| sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant
| regards for any "rules-based-order".
|
| Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and
| conventions that are are part of that "rules based order",
| like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
| ericmay wrote:
| The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this
| rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it
| 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes,
| things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly
| there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that
| it's _mostly_ adhered to.
|
| If you are looking for specific examples and further
| elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and
| you'll have to look at global events and decide for
| yourself.
| cma wrote:
| The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a
| democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they
| were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be
| geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for
| access to natural resources), with democracy being
| ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies.
|
| If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to
| rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US
| military, like Tibet.
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some
| of those things are spreading democracy and self-
| determination. That doesn't mean the US values them to
| the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships,
| energy security, regional stability, and military
| alliances.
|
| Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift
| toward becoming democracies, in part because of the
| influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea
| started off as dictatorships propped up by the military
| backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and
| eventually transitioned to democratic government.
|
| As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been
| defended by the US Navy, I'm sure it would still be
| independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might
| still be independent. But it's landlocked and
| mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of
| the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at
| the same time the international community was responding
| to the invasion of South Korea.
| cma wrote:
| > The US values many things in its foreign policy, and
| some of those things are spreading democracy and self-
| determination.
|
| I think they are valued, but ancillary.
|
| > As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have
| been defended by the US Navy, I'm sure it would still be
| independent.
|
| I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If
| they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may
| be considerably less likely to unless there was oil
| exploration going on or it was an important position for
| an airbase.
| [deleted]
| rob74 wrote:
| Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that
| investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and
| bringing Russia into the established international
| organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually
| for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than
| for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a
| much more important economic player than Russia, so let's
| continue ignoring it...
| josephcsible wrote:
| > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese
| goods so we're all complicit too.
|
| I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I
| only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of
| product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power
| bank made somewhere other than China.
| ericmay wrote:
| Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made
| in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're
| going to criticize Apple for making things in China,
| ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your
| own buying of things made in China, particularly when you
| have options (power banks notwithstanding).
| rurp wrote:
| For a large amount of products consumers don't have a
| choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't
| made in western countries any more because the work was
| all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average
| citizen wanted.
|
| I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled
| by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they
| are buying from China 99% of the time.
| ericmay wrote:
| I think there are a number of American-made or western-
| made products on the market. Everything from plates and
| dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to
| honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I'm not sure but I
| think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside
| of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that
| doesn't have to be true forever.
|
| I think the case is that most people don't actually care,
| and most people can't be bothered to look at the origin
| of the products they're buying. And I think unfortunately
| most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of
| an $1,800 iPhone.
|
| It's kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once
| they went higher. Frankly I think it's bewildering how
| cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into
| producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the
| gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative
| externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of
| milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every
| time I think about it I think the "real" price is
| probably like $30-$40/gallon.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > most people can't be bothered to look at the origin of
| the products they're buying
|
| Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon)
| usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have
| no way of finding out until it arrives?
|
| > But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby?
|
| This is only true because the government holds the price
| of milk artificially high.
| ericmay wrote:
| > Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon)
| usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have
| no way of finding out until it arrives?
|
| I'd say the problem is when you (not you specifically)
| claim to care about buying things that are made in China
| and then not do any basic research on the products and
| their origin. Also just don't buy from online retailers
| like Amazon. It's just a digital Wal-Mart.
|
| > This is only true because the government holds the
| price of milk artificially high.
|
| Sure it was just an example.
| the_duke wrote:
| Alternative view:
|
| Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap
| Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise
| and supply chains to the point where they are now completely
| beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing
| rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical
| influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for
| well over a decade.
|
| Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam
| I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis
| tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to
| ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the
| components would be next to impossible.
|
| And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.
|
| It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because
| India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce
| dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
| frozencell wrote:
| Apparently [0] Apple is relocating production progressively
| in the US starting with Texas.
|
| [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-
| pro-to...
| billyhoffman wrote:
| I am glad that there is native manufacturing, but let's
| but that in perspective:
|
| Apple doesn't publish units-sold figures, but Iphone
| revenue is 5x that of Macs [0].
|
| The Mac Pro is the least popular Mac. Again, I don't have
| number breakdowns, but Apple did say in the most recent
| keynote that launched the M2 Macbook Air that the Macbook
| Air, and the 13" Macbook Pro are their 2 most popular
| models.
|
| So it's safe to say the Mac Pro represents an extreme
| fraction of Apple manufacturing.
|
| [0] https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/07/apple-
| announces-83b-fisca...
| geodel wrote:
| Another thing to note is China is not just producer but
| huge consumer of Apple products. India with its rather
| small population of folks who can really afford Apple
| products, and primitive manufacturing capabilities at scale
| compare to China is going to remain minor distraction for
| at least couple of decades.
|
| So sensible diversification is in distant future than many
| imagine.
| JackFr wrote:
| > but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow
| if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up
| capacity elsewhere.
|
| Would not be painless for China though. The thing about
| trade is, it's trade. While Apple and American consumers
| benefit, so does China or obviously they wouldn't trade.
| They're not making our phones as a charity to us.
| cronix wrote:
| Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their
| military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.
| Retric wrote:
| China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends
| 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at
| 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between
| them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_milita
| ry_...
|
| I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of
| military spending is one of their strengths.
| sxg wrote:
| What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on
| defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend
| disproportionately more on the military to support
| allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the
| rise of competing superpowers?
|
| https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
| dwheeler wrote:
| China has the second largest military spending in the
| world, second only to the US. What's more, you really
| need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically,
| it costs less to do things in China, and that really
| matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in
| the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) receive far
| lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's
| hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's
| important to acknowledge. One article about this is here:
| https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-
| pari... - which argues that US military spending is
| basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered.
| Also, there's geography to consider. If China is
| attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to
| defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily
| cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing
| military spending much more complicated, as well as
| depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will
| be avoided.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > China has the 2nd largest military budget but only
| spends 1.7% GDP on it
|
| Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state
| spending on a purpose as a share of it (even _if_ GDP
| were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend
| across regimes with vastly different degrees of state
| /industry integration both generally (because of effect
| on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of
| effects on spending measures.)
|
| Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures,
| either.
| roamerz wrote:
| That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or
| more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the
| intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes
| advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the
| the US military and supporting businesses must conform
| to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build
| it's weapons of war. It's much economical for China to
| wage war than the United States.
| elefanten wrote:
| Trend rapidly changing, they were focused elsewhere
| previously.
|
| The part that matters is what they'll use it for (so far,
| signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign
| political entities)
| Retric wrote:
| As a share of GDP it was higher in 2019 at 1.9%, so it's
| growth it really a function of economic growth.
| baybal2 wrote:
| nixcraft wrote:
| India and Vietnam, which are already sites of Apple
| production, are among the countries being seen as an
| alternative option to China[1]. However, parts for iPhone,
| iPad and Macs come from around the globe and are assembled
| in China, India and Vietnam. Apple depends upon a global
| supply chain to make final products. The production of the
| iPhone doubled this year in India because of ongoing geo-
| tension and strict lockdowns in China. However, that is
| just 7% of production iPhones. Anyway, I hope China and the
| USA reach some middle ground and keep Taiwan safe. Any war
| between these two giant countries would disaster the world
| economy and escalate to world war 3.
|
| [1] https://www.business-
| standard.com/article/companies/apple-in...
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry
| besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of
| their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer
| chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from
| China[0], for example.
|
| 0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-
| market-sh...
| smoldesu wrote:
| So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a
| bad thing, then?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| At the same moment, the rest of the works is realizing
| the fact that us pretty much dictates what happens around
| the world.
|
| Want to build your own x86 Chios? Guess what? You can't
| because Intel/and won't let you and even if they did , if
| it were one of the "not our allies list" people, the govt
| will step in. Same for Netherlands fab machine makers.
| They dictate who can they sell to or not..
|
| That is why nations are investing in stuff like risc-v.
|
| Tomorrow MasterCard/visa can be "ordered by govt " to
| pull out of a country and suddenly their card economy
| collapses. Unless they have an alternative, like India
| does with rupay or UPI which is being exported to other
| countries as a technology they can locally implement.
|
| Same for stuff like aws or Google or github or basically
| the entire american internet giants.
|
| You know if tomorrow whatsapp is ordered to stop service
| in say India what will happen? Without a local
| alternative already in place, WhatsApp and ipso facto us
| govt can literally hold that country for ransom. Whatsapp
| is a silly example but think about it.
|
| Sure China is bad for labour but its not like Americans
| aren't fighting anszon for Union rights or for $15/hour
| pay and benefits? I'm not trying to say they are equal,
| just that its a spectrum.
|
| For non Americans and non Chinese, Be it India or Russia
| or Iran, these two nations are just as offensive in
| different manners and it's just a matter of perspective
| smoldesu wrote:
| I get what you're saying; the US is far from the shining
| example of what a democracy should look like.
|
| On the other side of that coin, though, China is taking
| us for a ride. Politically speaking, it's unwise to
| continue giving them power over our supply chain.
| Ultimately it's a monster fight with no real winners, but
| ensuring that world superpowers stay competitive with one
| another is how we prevent mutually assured destruction.
| Even for China's allies, I fail to see how hamstringing
| the CCP is a bad thing.
| powerhour wrote:
| I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal
| with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea
| (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes).
| Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental
| and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would
| probably make a good sized dent.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| China's long bet is that greed will outstrip any desire for
| North Americans to intervene with their autocracy. So far
| they've been absolutely correct.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Well there were enough examples from the past that made
| that a pretty safe bet.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| > Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap
| Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering
| expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now
| completely beholden to a foreign country.
|
| Up to a point there's a cost advantage, but Tim Cook has
| also pointed that Apple uses Chinese factories because it
| allows them to take advantage of the local manufacturing
| capabilities, which are substantial. [0] In fact to hear
| him tell it those capabilities are simply not available
| elsewhere. I take him at his word on this topic at least.
|
| [0] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-
| this-...
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| Tim Cook also invested a third of a trillion dollars in
| China because they did _not_ have the manufacturing
| capabilities to build the iPhone how Apple wanted at the
| time of the investment. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tim-
| cook-275-billion-c...
| Torifyme12 wrote:
| And Cook mocked the US because we didn't have the right
| tooling to make screws for his Mac pro, he went all over
| the news and kept spewing how bad our industrial sector
| was.
|
| One of the tooling engineers that had previously worked
| with Apple before they were offshored said, "Well, we
| couldn't wait around for him to come back to us, we have
| to eat too so we switched to making different things.
| He's welcome to invest in our production and we'll make
| whatever he wants"
|
| Cook loves helping out China, not sure why. /s
| arvindamirtaa wrote:
| A somewhat warped understanding on "manufacturing
| capabilities".
|
| While Apple may have had to spend money setting up the
| specific assembly line, fabrication plants, train staff,
| etc because they simply didn't exist prior to their
| requirement, the fact that they were able to set it up
| someplace, and continuously feed raw materials, parts,
| labour etc with dozens of redundant suppliers for EACH
| component, is what indicates manufacturing capability.
|
| Manufacturing is more ecosystem than "capability".
| s3r3nity wrote:
| > In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are
| simply not available elsewhere.
|
| This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate
| regarding the supply chain.
|
| You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one
| place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather,
| probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills
| supply_ problem.
| leereeves wrote:
| People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's
| what China did and Americans can do it too if
| multinational companies support US manufacturing.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| America doesn't allow the labor or environmental
| manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so
| effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods
| coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental
| protections cost more and those coming from countries
| with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it
| also has to be transitive so China can't just launder
| their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the
| Czech Republic would have to have a similar border
| adjustment policy in order to qualify).
| leereeves wrote:
| Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple
| could choose to support manufacturing in countries with
| better labor/environmental protections without any new
| laws.
|
| I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I
| won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such
| poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.
| praptak wrote:
| No, because then they'd get easily undercut by
| competition without such ethical scruples.
|
| This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need
| central enforcement.
| leereeves wrote:
| Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower
| prices? Many have tried.
|
| But yes, that could happen to other companies, which
| shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring
| the labor and environmental conditions.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or
| environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of
| materials for our products much less information on the
| labor or environmental conditions. The problem is
| systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating
| blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and
| move on.
| leereeves wrote:
| That is not true. We all know China has poor
| environmental protections and low wages, and yet we
| choose to buy products made in China.
|
| And the consumers who don't care are also voters who
| don't care, so the rules won't be fixed.
|
| But a few powerful people could create huge changes all
| on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless,
| it's our best hope for change.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > That is not true. We all know China has poor
| environmental protections and low wages, and yet we
| choose to buy products made in China.
|
| It's _100%_ true, and we often buy from China because
| overwhelmingly there simply aren 't alternatives, the
| alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the
| alternative is another developing country with similar
| labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is
| laundered through a country with good regulation (a car
| is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--
| the bulk of its value--are produced in developing
| countries without regulation).
|
| > And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be
| fixed because most people don't care either as consumers
| or as voters.
|
| Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians
| that corporations do. This is a different and worse
| systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to
| shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the
| 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you
| are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather
| than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian"
| advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that
| insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a
| deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in
| home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry
| currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate
| change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't
| need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to
| switch to veganism and give up their cars").
|
| > But a few powerful people could create huge changes all
| on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless,
| it's our best hope for change.
|
| I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public
| policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to
| protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly
| inadequate.
| leereeves wrote:
| Interesting examples. How'd they work out?
|
| More disposable bottles and fossil fuels are sold now
| than ever before. You can still buy cigarettes, and
| they're still as poisonous and addictive as ever, but
| most people don't want to buy them anymore.
|
| Public policy worked in 0/3 cases. Changing consumer
| behavior worked in 1/3.
| skoskie wrote:
| > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese
| goods so we're all complicit too.
|
| The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone.
| China makes them all.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs
| or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters'
| products/services more expensive. At the end of the day,
| the politician that wins elections is the politician that
| delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
| nrp wrote:
| The vast majority of Samsung phones are made in Vietnam,
| India, and South Korea. Samsung Mobile no longer owns
| factories in China, though they may or may not contract out
| manufacturing for low end phones for the local China
| market.
| miles wrote:
| > The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone.
| China makes them all.
|
| Not exactly:
|
| Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5,
| plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply
| Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
|
| "If you want a smartphone built outside China and the
| walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA
| may be for you."
| https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
| _-david-_ wrote:
| >Librem 5 USA
|
| The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run
| Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone
| is just not there yet.
| ericmay wrote:
| > The problem is that it is $2000
|
| Well what would you expect? Lol that's the whole point!
| What you're saying is you care more about price than you
| do where the product is made. That's fine, but just be
| honest with yourself about it.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I am completely fine paying $2000 if I feel like it is a
| decent product. The problem is I don't think it is good
| enough to actually use on a regular basis. I wouldn't
| even pay the non-US price ($1300) for the US version.
|
| Some of these things may have been fixed, but last time I
| looked there were multiple issues that make it a deal
| breaker. The battery life is not good, the phone is huge,
| app compatibly is not good, cooling issues, etc.
|
| I prefer to buy Western made products even if they cost
| quite a bit more money. I just want to get a decent
| product for the price and I don't think the Librem 5 is
| worth anywhere near the price.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| that's a toy
| salawat wrote:
| Gotta start somewhere.
|
| Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They
| were still fully functional telecommunication devices.
| Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry
| Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow
| the domestic supply chain.
|
| The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by
| networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route
| around, and reinforce alternative routes.
| SllX wrote:
| In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have
| been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for
| two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese
| interests.
|
| Why?
|
| Because it's a single-party dictatorship and because the
| interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of
| the people who control the State. That's true in America too,
| which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and
| though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable
| metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who
| already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the
| peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of
| transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today
| are less than peaceful.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple
| (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation
|
| It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in
| last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy
| to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it
| was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give
| them huge edge to grow their business later in that area).
| But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where
| it impacts their bottom line.
| 30944836 wrote:
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese
| goods so we're all complicit too.
|
| You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders
| choose for us?
| ericmay wrote:
| If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of
| agency.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings
| across all companies to make the decision to move
| production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet
| frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still
| shitting myself in a diaper.
| ericmay wrote:
| Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that
| are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of
| course there are some products for which there are no
| alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from
| making economic decisions that align with your stated
| values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then
| saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity
| made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Did you learn _nothing_ from the Prisoner 's Dilemma?
|
| We don't actually have any options that leverage massive
| economies of scale _and_ manufacture in the US, because
| our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas.
| Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules,
| that 's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our
| wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the
| tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
| ericmay wrote:
| You can enact regulation (which takes time, and which I
| support) and _also_ buy things that aren 't made in China
| right now. This same thing applies to environmental
| considerations as well. You don't need to wait for the
| government to ban plastic bags for you to stop using
| them. Both can happen together.
| [deleted]
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Such regulation doesn't just take time, it's basically
| politically unfeasible given how both entrenched
| interests (businesses) and the individual voter are
| incentivized towards cost-savings. It's essentially like
| calling for raising taxes- not literally impossible, but
| virtually so.
|
| You're setting up an ethical dilemma that is always going
| to default to one direction, and castigating those who
| don't go the impossible route. This is "If you don't like
| this government, why don't you move to another country?"
| or "If you don't like this platform, why don't you build
| one?" levels of impracticality.
| kingaillas wrote:
| But what to do or how to fix it?
|
| All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the
| free market, except in this case where corporate America
| sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit
| margins today.
|
| Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being
| unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-
| seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we
| have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.
| ericmay wrote:
| So all you're telling me is "you have no options, there's
| nothing that can be done, and nothing will change".
| What's the point of that? If that's the case why bother
| caring?
|
| If it's politically impossible to do something that's all
| the more reason for personal change. Sure you can't buy a
| MacBook that isn't made in China, but you can spend more
| money and buy other things made outside of China.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > If that's the case why bother caring?
|
| I don't know, you're the one who started with the "And
| basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods
| so we're all complicit too" defeatism in the first place!
| And then turning around and condemning people for buying
| Chinese goods when 1) legislation for reducing trade
| dependence on China is very difficult, leading to 2) few
| consumer choices that have non-Chinese made alternatives
| in many product areas.
| ericmay wrote:
| Everyone choosing cheaper goods is just an observation.
| And yea, most people were very happy to buy cheap stuff
| from retailers and they are in fact complicit because
| they want their cheap goods. And yea, most people even
| today would choose cheaper goods over goods sourced in
| western countries.
|
| As a point of contention, I don't like the grandstanding
| I'm observing over stuff "made in China", especially here
| where we can all choose to buy products made in western
| countries and pay more money for those. Are there
| exceptions? Sure! But just because Apple makes the iPhone
| in China doesn't mean you can't buy a barbell made in
| Ohio or cast iron skillets made in Tennessee.
| kennywinker wrote:
| What agency do we have? Consumer choice only goes as far
| as the options available. What computer or phone can you
| buy that isn't made under dubious or known-bad labour
| conditions? The option of no phone or no computer is only
| generally an option if you have the money to not require
| a job at all
| jjoonathan wrote:
| I sure didn't vote to permit labor and environmental
| arbitrage, to usher in Dutch Disease. It was painfully
| obvious what would happen, who would win and who would
| lose, but the money swooped in and demonstrated who
| really owns the country.
|
| It's wild to watch the people who pushed for it slide
| down the Narcissist's Creed. It's fine! Oh, it's not
| fine? Then it isn't a problem. Oh, it is a problem? Then
| it isn't a big deal. Oh, it is a big deal? Then it's not
| my fault. Oh, it is my fault? Well, I didn't mean it. Oh,
| I did mean it? _Well then you deserved it._
| aidenn0 wrote:
| A smartphone is probably the quintessential "Chinese only"
| product.
|
| Nevertheless, there is one smartphone made in the USA
| (Librem 5). None of its parts appear to be sourced by
| Chinese companies, but some of the parts manufacturers have
| factories in China (I would not be too surprised to find
| out that the Samsung front-camera is made in China, for
| example). I can't say for sure that it's lacks any china-
| manufactured items in it, but it's at least pretty darn
| close.
|
| I don't have one because I don't want to spend $1300 on a
| phone. If that's not me choosing cheaper Chinese goods,
| then I don't know what is.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| > I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone
|
| It is worse than that. The regular Librem 5 is $1300, but
| the one made in the US is $2000.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher
| GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were
| necessities during poverty. Like punishments.
|
| In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a
| village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and
| finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know
| because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In
| particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national
| level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work
| conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like
| sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro
| spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway.
| These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time.
| Attempted murder in the best light.
|
| So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and
| it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open
| his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they
| feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for
| stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat
| our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.
|
| Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be
| cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on
| from starvation so...a caning for instance.
|
| Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a
| teacher who had taught at the international school he went to
| and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like
| WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like _how can I fuck these locals
| off to the point they carry out corporal punishment_ like _I
| don 't need to follow any law country I live because the
| punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an
| American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no
| matter how many cops tell me what_. And he did, and they did,
| and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.
|
| You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and
| would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and
| slandering their correct and successful approaches for
| getting out of it.
|
| Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-
| fed to understand.
|
| [1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American
| submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh
| man.
| rexreed wrote:
| Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win
| from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from
| large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of
| their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on
| dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning?
| There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know
| exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.
| [deleted]
| cheaprentalyeti wrote:
| Obviously the tariffs on the goods Apple imports from China and
| from "China" aren't high enough.
| NhanH wrote:
| Officially, Taiwan agree to the "One China" stance. They even
| agree in the 1992 consensus that RoC and PRC does not agree who
| is the legitimate government of both mainland China and Taiwan
| islands, but the One China stance itself is not something in
| dispute.
|
| The constitution of Taiwan claims sovereignty over mainland
| China, although they added an amendment to differentiate "free
| area" citizens (Taiwanese) and citizens under control of the
| "rebellions" (I don't know if they removed the specific wording
| yet).
|
| You could argue that Taiwan have to agree to One China by force,
| as the PRC has made it very clear that the PLA (People's
| liberation Army) is invading if Taiwan abandon the stance.
|
| With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really similar
| to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And until the
| situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with label it
| "Taiwan, China"
| tuxoko wrote:
| > They even agree in the 1992 consensus
|
| This is only a "consensus" between KMT and PRC. Even then the
| reading is completely different between KMT and PRC. While
| Taiwan is still called ROC officially, there's no policy on
| Taiwan or DPP side that there's only one China. DPP's stance is
| that Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation that is called
| ROC right now.
|
| > The constitution of Taiwan claims sovereignty over mainland
| China
|
| The ROC(taiwan) constitution does not define it's territory. In
| fact, there was a supreme court case regarding this, and the
| judges' ruling was that this was a major political issue, and
| thus they could not decide on it.
|
| It's true that there are amendments that define the "free area"
| for practical purposes, but they do not define what are the
| other areas.
|
| > With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really
| similar to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And
| until the situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with
| label it "Taiwan, China"
|
| This is complete BS propaganda language. The situation of China
| and Taiwan is pretty much the same as Koreas, the only
| difference is that the balance between NK and SK isn't that
| tilted. And the world have no problem labeling Nk and SK
| differently.
| PTOB wrote:
| Definitely a Civil War, but it's been going on for almost 100
| years. According to Taiwan (NRC), the PRC is an ongoing
| rebellion. Hindsight being 20/20 Taiwan should have cut its
| losses back in the 1960s, admitted defeat, and seceded. PRC now
| has too much military power for that to be a real option.
| bnchrch wrote:
| As someone who has spent a significant amount of time living in
| Taiwan.
|
| These facts grossly do not represent the reality of today. In
| minimizing Taiwan sovereignty you hurt a whole nation of people
| only to benefit a terrible regime saving face.
|
| Taiwan is its own country.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Taiwan has a unique political arrangement but they view
| themselves as China, not as a separate country.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| > is invading if Taiwan abandon the stance.
|
| That is never the truth. They threat for armed attack like
| since forever 'everyday'. To the point people here just
| outright ignore their claim and do their daily work.
|
| If somebody even be serious about that. Then they would need
| live in the air-raid shelter everyday. But who would do that?
|
| > similar to a civil war
|
| Hell no, in my 30 years of live, I have nothing to do with PRC
| at all except saw them on the TV that they will never give up
| attacking Taiwan.
|
| Discalaimer: I live here.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Thanks for chiming in! Always great to hear perspectives from
| people actually living in the places being discussed.
|
| If you had to guess, where do you expect TW/CH relations to
| be in 50 years? Do you still expect there to be disagreement
| between the two governments on respective borders and
| sovereignty or will they someday reach a fully amicable
| agreement?
| mmis1000 wrote:
| I don't think there will be a agreement as long as China is
| still held by current government.
|
| Although we still speak chinese. The culture already
| differs too much to the point that there isn't any
| belongingness in young people.
|
| And thing that is more interest is. Statistically, the
| lower the age is, the lower the belongingness to PRC they
| have.
|
| When people grows. The average belongingness will be even
| lower.
|
| I think that is why PRC is so eager about that currently.
| 'Before everything is too late.'
| ArnoVW wrote:
| Amazing sum up, thanks. Just though, I'd say that neither is a
| secessionist (both want 'one china'). And technically the PRC
| is a bunch of rebels that are illegally preventing the Taiwan
| govt from exercising their democratic mandate.
| bena wrote:
| Technically, wouldn't mainland China/PRC be the secessionist.
| The ROC was the legitimate government of China until the civil
| war and now considers itself a government in exile with the PRC
| illegally occupying the country.
|
| Of course, the entire situation is vastly more complicated
| because, you know, the Taiwanese natives have their own ideas.
| And also the various factions have evolved their stances so I
| think there are like 4 or 5 different possibilities being
| tossed around.
| eating555 wrote:
| Current government doesn't agree on the 1992 consensus. The
| agreement on "One China" doesn't exist.
|
| Discalaimer: I live here.
| serf wrote:
| >With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really
| similar to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And
| until the situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with
| label it "Taiwan, China"
|
| this is contrary to nearly everything I have witnessed in my
| life regarding Taiwan (a place I visited in the earlyish 90s).
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| It will be painful. It will cause huge economic disruption. There
| will be a fall in living standards and severe inflation.
|
| But, it's time for US companies to pull out of China. The moral
| imperative to help China rise out of poverty through trade is
| done. They are no longer a poor country. Now we are compromising
| our values for something stupid ... for cheaper iPhones.
|
| Long term our Grandchildren will all be under the boots of the
| CPC if we don't take the pain now.
|
| I'm not suggesting we war with China. I'm suggesting we remove
| their leverage from our economies. As long as EU and America need
| Chinese goods to subsidize their massively irresponsible fiscal
| policies, Chinese dictators will have leverage over Western
| people.
|
| You have to sacrifice material well-being for freedom at the
| right time, or you will have neither in a generation.
| sam36 wrote:
| I've thought this for the last 10+ years or so. I even tried to
| not buy anything that was "made in china" for many years. I'm
| so amazed that people were fine with the recent higher gas
| prices because it would be helping the war in Ukraine. But yet
| no one wants to end trade with china because it would rise the
| costs of goods. Just 40 years ago there was literally nothing
| coming from china. They flood our markets with cheap crap that
| is made by burning coal, nobody cares that the end product
| breaks in mere days or weeks because you can just "buy another
| one". They've ruined the entire aftermarket parts industry for
| cars as almost every replacement part you buy at autozone is a
| chinese knockoff that will leave you stranded on the side of
| the road (my family runs an auto shop, the parts reliability
| issues are insane while autozone stock goes to the moon).
|
| And then the main issue is all this cheapness is possible
| because workers are paid pennies a day and take meth so they
| can work 15 hour days doing tedious hand assembly because the
| person labor is cheaper than using a machine to automate. And
| now our media is flooded with news bites about how oppressive
| and racist america is while china gets away with literal
| slavery and everyone there believes all non-chinese are
| inferior.
|
| Screw these people and their government.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This is unsurprising. The reality is that the US, China and even
| much of Taiwan actually or effectively supports the One CHina
| policy.
|
| It would be suicide for China to invade Taiwan. The economic
| damage this would do to China is immense. China may well
| collapse. Aside from that, it's not that easy either. China may
| well have a much larger military but a sea crossing is no easy
| feat.
|
| Look at Britain. It hasn't been successfully invaded by sea in
| almost 1000 years (1066 being th elast time). On a clear day you
| can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais (~17 miles across
| the English Channel) yet the might of Nazi Germany could never
| cross it.
|
| Even though the US has legislation to protect Taiwan, if push
| came to shove, the US simply wouldn't trigger a direct war
| between nuclear powers in the sam eway that the US isn't getting
| directly involved in Ukraine.
|
| And much of Taiwan is happy with the situation as is. Pushing
| independence is going to seriously rock the boat.
|
| So everyone is happy with the situation of China having an
| official policy that Taiwan is part of China without anything
| actually changing _including China_.
|
| I'm personally not a fan of Western companies being influenced by
| the CCP dangling the carrot of access to the Chinese market when
| it's a mirage. China will _never_ allow a Western company to
| dominate the Chinese market. Yet we have Hollywood, for example,
| kowtowing to China.
|
| China really took an L (IMHO) over the Pelosi visit. She's not
| the first House Speaker to visit (Newt Ginrich being the last ~25
| years ago). By taking a public position, China really gave the US
| no choice but to proceed rather than back down. It's just
| mishandled all the way.
|
| So we'll have symbolic things like "Made in --Taiwan--China" as
| retaliation.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The PRC could blockade Taiwan rather than engaging in the
| enormous task of outright invasion, but you're right, the
| resulting economic fallout would be immense blowback to them.
| China's government throughout all this, regardless of Xi's
| rhetoric, has been engaging in slow and steady, non-disruptive
| actions. Saber-rattling with military exercises is one thing
| (there have been multiple Taiwan Strait crises already in past
| decades), engaging in _open war_ would be hugely disruptive
| both to the international order and to the international trade
| that the PRC has built its rise upon.
| leephillips wrote:
| What's wrong with the original title? The re-written title here
| makes no grammatical sense and misrepresents the story.
| lucasjans wrote:
| Agreed. This new title strikes me as washing away the true
| meaning of what's happening.
|
| There's no mention of Taiwan, which is is specifically related
| to.
|
| Who can rewrite titles on hackernews? Can we get an explanation
| who made the change and why?
| FirstLvR wrote:
| I HATE the fact technology has to be influenced so much by
| politics. The only reason we are not travel the stars by now is
| our own fault.
| nicce wrote:
| U.S. made nuclear submarines are really interesting from that
| point of view. We had technology in 1960s to make reactors
| which need to be refilled once per 15-20 years without
| significant incidents. But because of the fear of misuse and
| technological theft, we have energy crisis.
| msabalau wrote:
| We don't have interstellar travel because Apple's suppliers
| have to meet labeling requirements?
|
| But yes, there are nice things that the money that goes to
| defense budgets could be spent on, if there weren't
| authoritarian leaders making irredentist threats against
| democracies.
| BudaDude wrote:
| Agreed. It's sad that we as species just can't get it right
| when it comes to getting along with each-other.
| president wrote:
| Fiduciary responsibility over moral responsibility is what killed
| America
| alexnewman wrote:
| But i thought 1 china :). Seriously was this an issue, of people
| mismarking components?
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| Taiwan one day has to be strong enough just continue to label
| Taiwan. Tbh if labelled as china does it subject to china
| embargo, tax, ...
| sequoia wrote:
| Seems like they're just following local import/trade rules? I
| think the rule is bad but presumably plenty of local trade rules
| are stupid. One doesn't get to pick and choose which to follow.
|
| I guess the implication is that going along with China's stance
| on Taiwan is "going to far" ethically and Apple should refuse,
| but I can't quite see this.
| nomel wrote:
| > Taiwan is "going to far" ethically and Apple should refuse,
| but I can't quite see this.
|
| And we won't see it from any big name company, since nearly
| everything is manufactured, in part or whole, in China.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Moreover it's about sales in China. If Apple refuses to
| follow China's rules, they'll suffer consequences in sales.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I bought some tools at Harbor Freight recently that were
| stamped "Made in Taiwan"
| gumby wrote:
| They presumably were shipped from Taiwan To the US where
| these rules do not apply.
|
| This rule only applies to goods manufactured in Taiwan and
| shipped to China.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| This all is highlighting the dangers to public companies about
| political positions potentially destabilizing the business. Part
| of the responsibility of C level execs is to shield the
| shareholders from such uncertainty. AAPL should not be dependent
| on any single region for product and the political climate &
| COVID restrictions are prime examples why businesses now need to
| dramatically shift their supply chain dependencies to dilute the
| risk.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| This is ridiculous. Taiwan is a free and independent country.
| Shame on Apple.
| kepler1 wrote:
| Hey, I'm so glad you recognize this principle!
|
| I'm of the belief that Hawaii belongs to the native Hawaiian
| people who the islands were stolen from by the US one hundred
| years ago, and whose descendants have been advocating that it
| be returned to them as a free and independent people and
| country.
|
| You're in favor of that, right?
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Sure why not? I doubt an independent Hawaii would shut down
| friendly relations with the US and punt its military
| presence.
|
| They can have a referendum and see if they would like to lose
| their US citizenship Medicare/Social security.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Perhaps.
|
| OTOH, my experience (modest n) is that a fairly large
| percentage of people are happy to say "Shame on Apple" for such
| things. Vs. a near-zero percentage are actually willing to
| avoid buying products made in (mainland) China, or with major
| components made there.
|
| Talk was cheap long before "Performative Activism" had its own
| Wikipedia page.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >" Vs. a near-zero percentage are actually willing to avoid
| buying products made in (mainland) China, or with major
| components made there."
|
| Personally, I make a sincere effort to buy products that
| aren't made in China. I've been doing this for years but
| unfortunately avoiding things made in China is surprisingly
| difficult. When I end up buying products made in China, it
| isn't because of a lack of conviction, it is because there
| was no alternative I could find.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| So OP can't shame Apple for this moral behavior because
| others buy Apple's product?
|
| Would you apply that same standard and does it hold up to
| other scenarios?
|
| If people were buying textile products from the slave trade,
| would you say "perhaps" when other (or the same) people
| shamed those industries for supporting slave labor?
|
| If people were buying nuts and fruit from exploited migrant
| workers, would you still be able to shame the industries for
| better conditions or to hire minimal wage workers?
|
| If people were buying cobalt or lithium mined from child
| slaves would you be able to shame those industries into
| sourcing minerals in a more humane way even though people buy
| EVs?
|
| Or because people bought those products those
| companies/industries have immunity from criticism?
|
| You cannot avoid products made in China because of the
| current status quo for the same reasons you couldn't avoid
| textiles made with slave cotton.
|
| That doesn't mean you can't advocate change to the status
| quo.
| bell-cot wrote:
| OP is free to say "Shame on Apple", boycott Apple, and
| publicly pray for the gods to smite Apple from On High. If
| OP's actual interest is in discouraging such corporate
| behavior, then only the second of those options seems
| likely to accomplish anything.
|
| Re: Cotton - even if every ill-treated cotton worker
| suddenly became a well-treated union member, there's still
| the huge moral problem of how much of the Earth's scarce
| fresh water and farmland are devoted to growing cotton -
| when millions of poor people face grim shortages of food
| and safe water. I admit that being an old geezer makes it
| easier, but my approach is to buy _far_ fewer new clothes
| & textile products than the average American. That strategy
| completely fails to grant me 100% moral purity on the
| issue. OTOH, it does far more good than fashionable kids
| decrying the deplorable status quo.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| First, my reply was to your retort of "perhaps" to GP's
| shaming of Apple. It's not perhaps, they should be
| shamed.
|
| Second, I was talking about the textile industry both in
| the past and today, ie: the transatlantic slave trade and
| Ughyur slave labor in China today.
|
| Sometimes you can't boycott because the entire industry
| is doing the morally corrupt thing.
|
| I and many people I know avoid Chinese products, but
| sometimes it's impossible. At the same time we can also
| voice our concern.
|
| There's not much a normal person can do other than
| boycott and protest, and I'm suggesting both. You're
| suggesting only one.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| But how can I live without their 1% better touch pad and
| build quality?
| amelius wrote:
| Why not put "US" on the shipments instead, as it's closer to the
| truth?
| axus wrote:
| If Trump had exchanged Taiwan for Puerto Rico, we could, but
| missed opportunity.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| yeahhh I'm going to need Puerto Rico's parallel tax structure
| for as long as possible so if we could not alter their
| territorial status and also keep Congress split on everything
| that would be greeaaaaat
|
| just keep posting "red waaaave" on your instagram account and
| "blue waaaave" on your twitter account so that everyone stays
| in their respective echo chamber, I think at least till 2025
| would be good for me, I'll probably have cleared all my US
| earnings from taxes and left (w/ a different excuse) by then
| trebbble wrote:
| _Clicks the "learn more" button_
| yieldcrv wrote:
| So US citizens have to pretty much just ignore the entire
| offshore industry for legal tax avoidance, but
| fortunately the US offers US citizens many ways to not
| have a tax bill.
|
| Some US territories have a parallel tax system that isn't
| underneath the Federal Government, whereas states are
| under the federal government, so a resident of a state
| has to pay state taxes as well as federal taxes. Although
| there are "categories" of types of territories, these
| categories are pretty much made up on the spot and each
| territory is its own separate case, as the US only has 5
| inhabited territories all with unique tax and citizenship
| conditions.
|
| Long story short, Puerto Rico has a tax system that is
| treated like being a foreign country, but checks the box
| for total Federal US tax compliance.
|
| Under Puerto Rico's "Act 60", which mainland transplants
| to Puerto Rico can apply for, many transactions are taxed
| at zero percent, most importantly capital gains (for
| trades initiated while on the island and sold on the
| island, pro-rata based on time for longer held
| positions), while "PR sourced income" is taxed at 5%, or
| an up-to-4% corporate tax rate (so the same activity done
| through a corporation is taxed lower, and the dividends
| are tax free, and the sales of shares are tax free)
|
| So if you want to clear all your money in the eyes of the
| Federal government, then living a year in PR to execute
| or finish a specific plan is good.
|
| Congress has a little control over PR, but its more
| beneficial and easier to perpetuate division in Congress,
| at least at this class level, than pretend to have some
| other trendy cause that your friends want you to espouse.
|
| and finally I made a reference to renouncing citizenship.
| If you leave "for tax purposes" then there exit taxes. So
| the goal is to keep more of your money at your own
| discretion, and then leave for any reason that isn't "tax
| purposes".
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| They should make their chips at CSMC instead of TSMC then.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| Why is this interesting? Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics as
| Chinese Taipei or whatever. Yeah, any place that China can
| influence, it makes Taiwan call itself China.
| jeswin wrote:
| It is interesting because it exposes Apple, which as a company
| often tries to present itself as a champion of freedom, and
| other modern values. Yet as is reaffirmed here (and previously
| with AppStore etc), when profits are involved it is willing to
| overlook the most egregious forms of injustice and violence.
|
| Literally every tech company stands up for good causes like BLM
| and LGBTQ+ rights; but the true measure of courage is when
| there are consequences involved with taking a stand.
| mickael-kerjean wrote:
| A couple years ago, they removed the VPN apps from the
| chinese app store, anything after that is nonsense marketing
| blabla for everyone not living in the US
| balls187 wrote:
| I don't think Apple ever portrays itself as a champion of
| freedom.
|
| And even if they did, that ethos does not give them carte
| blanch to pick and choose which laws they will adhere to.
| StevePerkins wrote:
| > _Literally every tech company stands up for good causes
| like BLM and LGBTQ+ rights_
|
| Well, in the countries where it is good PR to do so. They
| tend not to show the same face worldwide, in countries where
| it would not be good PR.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I don't think you can pass it off as PR when their CEO is
| out, and publicly supports the cause.
| type-r wrote:
| Does he support it publicly? I'm not really aware of
| anything noteworthy other than when he came out a decade
| ago. Not saying it's necessary but I wouldn't
| characterize him as an LGBTQ activist.
| lostlogin wrote:
| He has been in a pride parade in the past and has
| mentioned it in interviews/tweets. I wouldn't call him an
| activist at any stretch, but he doesn't hide his support.
| klodolph wrote:
| So we... expect Apple to break the law in China in order to
| make some kind of moral stand?
|
| And that moral stand is over the sovereignty of a country?
|
| Even though the US government, with vastly more resources at
| its disposal and more ability to withstand the consequences
| of Chinese anger, does not make this stand?
| LunaSea wrote:
| Maybe Apple shouldn't be in China then?
| upupandup wrote:
| If the US is willing to compromise even in a non-military
| standoff, imagine their willingness in an actual military
| conflict that emerges in Taiwan.
|
| This is not great news for Taiwan. Besides empty assurances, I
| am now certain that Taiwan is largely on its own.
|
| No nuclear armed nation is going to fight another nuclear armed
| major power.
| josephcsible wrote:
| It's interesting because it shows how much influence the CCP
| has over the American company Apple.
| FabHK wrote:
| In the EU, Apple posts prices including VAT, just as local
| regulations require. That's because the EU has this enormous
| influence over the American company Apple.
|
| Or is it because companies generally tend to follow the law
| of wherever they operate?
| LunaSea wrote:
| If they were operating in North Korea, should they be
| leaking the names of anti-Kim Jong-un employees to the
| authorities as well if that were the law?
| josephcsible wrote:
| It's not unjust or morally wrong to post prices including
| VAT, so I have no complaint about Apple doing that. When a
| foreign country's laws require companies to do things that
| are unjust or morally wrong, I want companies to choose not
| to operate there rather than follow them. Similarly, I'd
| want companies to pull out of Australia rather than
| backdoor their encryption.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Taiwan calls itself China. The official name is literally the
| Republic of China. Both China and Taiwan agree that there is
| just one China, but disagree about what formal unification
| would or should look like.
|
| Edit: The USA also agrees that there is one China, at least
| officially, though it's not like the US doesn't like to change
| its mind frequently.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communique
| warning26 wrote:
| Everyone knows Taiwan is its own country, the US et all
| merely engage in the "one china" pretense to keep the PRC
| happy.
| sneak wrote:
| Yes, but the own country on the island of Taiwan is called
| the "Republic of China".
| bpodgursky wrote:
| This is kind of dated view [1]. The median position in Taiwan
| is something like "change nothing" (status quo). Essentially
| nobody wants reunification in any realistic manner.
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-china-politics-identity-
| inde...
| happytoexplain wrote:
| The USA _officially_ agrees - which is a critical qualifier
| when talking about political entities. _The USA_ ,
| colloquially, is miles from agreeing.
| Lio wrote:
| As I understand it the PRC are also objecting to labelling
| that says "Republic of China" too, not just Taiwan.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| The Republic of China is or was the official name. The
| mainlander terrorists overthrew the legitimate government and
| that government fled to Taiwan. Some revisionism of history
| now has mainland China the "legitimate" China all due to
| Tricky Dicky visiting in 1972. The government of mainland
| China if full of contradictions.
| eric-hu wrote:
| This is brought up often on discussions about Taiwan and
| China. To be clear, the vast majority of politicians in
| Taiwan do not actually believe they wield power over mainland
| China. That Taiwan still calls itself "Republic of China" is
| because mainland China has made it clear that a name change
| would be seen as a Declaration of Independence and a trigger
| for war.
|
| The situation is akin to someone held hostage at gunpoint
| telling you they're fine.
| jhbadger wrote:
| Both East Germany (when it existed) and West Germany were
| "Germany" and at least theoretically belived their government
| was the legitimate one for the whole territory, but products
| made in both were generally distinguished on their labels.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| At least from the East German side this was only the case
| for a short period during the 50s (the idea that there was
| only "one Germany" - which from the point of view of the
| GDR and Moscow should of course be a "socialist Germany").
|
| In the 60's and early 70's the GDR dropped this idea and
| worked towards being recognized as its own souvereign
| state, and insisted that there are two German states (the
| GDR and the FRG).
|
| This eventually resulted in the "Basic Treaty" from 1972,
| and the GDR joining the UNO in 1973 (see:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Treaty,_1972, or the
| much more detailed entry in the German Wikipedia:
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundlagenvertrag)
| chrchang523 wrote:
| That isn't the issue here; the requested "Taiwan,
| China"/"Chinese Taipei" labeling does still distinguish the
| source.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Who is claiming that the primary quality of this article is
| being "interesting"? Unsurprising evils must still be visible,
| and it is harmful to try to hide them under the pretense that
| they are not surprising.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| It looks to me that this is only shipments from Taiwan to China
|
| > Apple has asked suppliers to ensure that shipments from Taiwan
| to China strictly comply with Chinese customs regulations after a
| recent visit by senior U.S. lawmaker Nancy Pelosi to Taipei
| stoked fears of rising trade barriers.
|
| Am I missing something? I do not see a requirement that all
| package from Taiwan say they are from China.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| You're missing the biggest practical source of fake news:
| people are absolutely determined to comment on articles after
| reading only the headline, and headlines optimize for
| attention-grabbing rather than informativeness. You're
| completely right about what actually happened here, but the
| majority of people who see this while it's on the front page
| are going to walk away confident that Apple did some much more
| problematic thing.
| [deleted]
| nhanhi wrote:
| https://archive.ph/mZaR9
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| I have a friend working for a company whose biggest clients are
| in the Emirates. One of said client is the government, and it is
| asking them to buy some very specific equipment, knowing fully
| well this equipment is only sold in Israel.
|
| However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay
| for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling
| one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They told them
| to ship everything first to the UK. There, they should unpack
| every single object, and package them again with different
| country labels. Once the box has passed custom, nobody will raise
| the topic about the equipment origin.
|
| And so this is what they do.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Why go all the way to the UK to do the swap, though?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Don't know. Maybe they have a platform here.
| ycombinete wrote:
| > the Emirates cannot trade with Israel
|
| This is no longer true. The UAE normalised relations with
| Israel, almost two years ago[0]. There are even Israeli VCs,
| like Entree Capital, funding startups in the UAE.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emi...
| Jugurtha wrote:
| Yes. Some do it in Marseille, France.
|
| Citizens of many countries would be in big trouble if they have
| a stamp from Israeli customs on their passports. Customs
| apparently issue a separate document not to put a stamp on the
| passport as a result. This enabled many tourists who are "not
| supposed" to go there to nonetheless go there.
| a4isms wrote:
| This is also what used to happen when a citizen of the US
| (and anyone else who requested it) entered Cuba. Cuban
| immigration would take a little piece of paper, place it in
| the passport, and then stamp the piece of paper.
|
| If the traveller happened to remove that piece of paper once
| the returned from Cuba, so be it.
| balls187 wrote:
| Something similar happens in Turkish occupied Cyprus.
|
| The Turkish airport in Turkish Cyprus is not recognized by
| Greek Cypiriot government, so if you do fly from Turkey to
| Cyprus, it is not considered a valid port of entry.
|
| Thus you will get a stamp on a piece of paper, which you need
| to leave the country back to Turkey.
|
| When traveling between the Turkish and Greek side of the
| island, the checkpoint guards will inspect your passport. As
| Greek Cyprus is part of the EU, EU laws require all EU
| Memberstates to allow free travel for any EU citizen.
| Likewise, due to agreements between the US, Cyprus and the
| EU, US citizens are too allowed free-travel. Citizens from
| other countries run the risk of being denied entry.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I was annoyed by this - I wanted the stamp as a souvenir. The
| first time I went to Israel I got the "stamp on a sticker"
| thing, but the second time I just asked and they explained
| the reasoning, I affirmed my intent, and they stamped it.
|
| That passport is since expired (it only had 3 years on it, at
| time of stamping), and my new passport book will get me
| wherever I happen to go. The souvenir sits safely in my safe.
| lostmsu wrote:
| As a non-aware, are you talking mostly about citizens of
| Middle East countries?
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| Citizens of middle eastern countries that are hostile to
| Israel would care the most, but other international
| travelers also benefit from avoiding the Israel passport
| stamp to avoid unnecessary difficulties if they need to
| visit those middle eastern countries in future.
| wheybags wrote:
| Before they started doing that, my dad was able to get a
| second passport just for Israel. Technically you were not
| allowed to have more than one passport (Ireland, 70s), but
| they made an exception.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Cuba does the same thing for American tourists who might run
| afoul of America's export/trade ban.
| TakuYam wrote:
| I'm not sure if they still do but you used to be able to hold
| two passports simultaneously. One that was 'clean' for
| countries that didn't recognise Israel and another for
| Israel.
| bloak wrote:
| Israel stopped stamping passports years ago, as I
| understand it. They give you a separate piece of
| paper/plastic instead.
|
| There may well be other combinations of countries that
| justify a person having multiple passports.
| [deleted]
| kolencherry wrote:
| You still can in the US. [0] This exact use case is listed
| as one of the reasons the US Department of State will issue
| a second passport book.
|
| [0]
| https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-
| pa...
| Jugurtha wrote:
| I meant citizens of the other countries that don't have
| diplomatic relations trying to go to Israel. They only have
| one passport and would be in trouble if they visited as
| their passport would be stamped, thus the scheme of a
| separate document. Meanwhile, the government buys things
| from Israel that transit via some nearby country to
| "simplify imports" through "creative incoterms" and naming
| and all.
| vidarh wrote:
| Differs by country, but certainly true some places. Norway
| for example allows you to apply for a second passport, and
| the need for a "clean" one is one of the valid reasons you
| can give.
| robotnikman wrote:
| Somewhat odd, considering that NSO group sold their services to
| the UAE
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel,
|
| that's a ruse used only internally to foment hatred against
| "the Jews"
|
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/25/the-uae-spends-big-on-i...
| lostlogin wrote:
| It is possible to disagree with a state and it's policies
| while being fine with its people. I'd put quite a few
| countries in this category.
|
| I'm pretty confident that's not what the UAE are doing, and
| don't support them.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| I know some storys with relabeling some products in Switzerland
| to. A country would not deal with the EU. So stuff came to
| Switzerland, got a new label and got shipped.
|
| International trading is a kind of funny place. I know a women
| who works on a company who make also things for large gas pipes
| (process industrie). She said, long before the war started,
| funny thing happened with a lot of involved companys.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > She said, long before the war started, funny thing happened
| with a lot of involved companys.
|
| Are you able to give any examples?
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Got new banc accounts, changed owner, etc.
|
| Most prominent example: Germany Launches EUR10 Billion
| Bailout for Gazprom's Local Unit
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773314
| lostlogin wrote:
| Isn't that all long after it started though?
| josephcsible wrote:
| > the Emirates cannot trade with Israel
|
| Is "cannot" really accurate? Isn't it more like they
| voluntarily chose not to do so?
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I read that as shorthand for "Emirates-based entities
| cannot..."
| kps wrote:
| Used to. Israel and UAE normalized relations in 2020 and
| signed a free trade deal this spring.
| rr888 wrote:
| That's what I thought too, not sure why OP said "Emirates
| cannot trade with Israel", maybe its an old anecdote.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Old anecdote, and I'm French, so I'm probably using the
| incorrect tense to tell the story.
| rr888 wrote:
| Yeah makes sense. I love the politics like this where
| everyone is firmly in solidarity but everyone is making
| deals out the back door. Like Europeans at war with
| Russia but buying gas, Americans hating China but
| spending all their money on stuff made there, Communist
| leaders hating America but sending their kids to school
| there.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Cuba getting stuff from America, pro-life manifestants
| getting abortions, USSR smuggling US computers, KKK
| members surfing Ebony adult sites.
|
| That's just humanity at this point.
|
| We are full of contradictions.
| lupire wrote:
| josephcsible wrote:
| Sure. My point is just that the UAE could have done that
| whenever they wanted; nobody was ever forcing them to not
| trade with Israel.
| avh02 wrote:
| I'm not sure that, at least historically, that would be
| looked upon amicably by their neighbouring countries or
| populations. That has changed over time though which has
| allowed this to happen.
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| There is this human convention about "can/cannot" that
| assumes the reader is able to figure out the nuance of it.
|
| If I say, "I can't walk it the street naked", I'm expecting
| you to understand the underlying causes. I'm not expecting
| that I have to explain to you that, yes, nothing prevent me
| physically to walk in the street naked, but indeed, I chose
| every day not to do it because I don't want to pay the social
| and/or legal price for it.
|
| In the same way, given that tensions in the Middle East are
| pretty famous and that political issues between Muslim & Jews
| have implications in international trades, I'm making the
| assumption readers understand what "cannot" means here.
| josephcsible wrote:
| My point is that the UAE is a sovereign country. The only
| law that prevented trade with Israel was the one they made
| themselves. There wasn't any legal price for repealing it.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Indeed, and again, I'm expecting you to understand that
| they are making this choice because they don't want to
| pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short
| way to state that.
|
| Now, from reading your comments, I'm going to assume you
| are in good faith, and you simply can't see what
| consequences they can face.
|
| Although we can't know for sure such things without being
| an expert in middle-east politics, one can understand
| that if two groups of people have been at odds with each
| others for a long time, suddenly doing business with the
| opposite party is going to have political consequences.
|
| E.G: assuming you are American. If you are a republican
| group, you can get financed by a left-leaning
| institution, but this will have political consequences.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > they are making this choice because they don't way to
| pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short
| way to state that.
|
| I don't think that's a short way of saying the same thing
| though, for the kind of consequences you mean at least.
| Imagine if I were a vegan for ethical reasons. It'd be
| fine for me to say "I don't eat meat", but a lie to say
| "I can't eat meat", since I'd be perfectly capable of
| doing so, and be fine if I did, and just not want to
| anyway. Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome
| and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could
| truthfully say "I can't eat that".
| drc500free wrote:
| Someone with alpha-gal can absolutely eat meat. Nothing
| is stopping them from chewing and swallowing meat.
|
| It would be a terrible idea, with drastic consequences.
| But they absolutely can.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Sure. What I was trying to distinguish was between
| something that would cause real harm for reasons outside
| of your control, versus something that goes against some
| principles you made up for yourself but with no other
| consequences.
| drc500free wrote:
| When Gaddafi was overthrown, they sodomized him with a
| bayonet before shooting him. There are serious
| consequences to having your populace hate you.
| karpierz wrote:
| > Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and
| someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could
| truthfully say "I can't eat that".
|
| If the person said: "eat this steak and I'll give you a
| billion dollars or don't, and I'll kill everyone on this
| planet in the most painful way imaginable, including
| you", I doubt your response would be "I can't eat that".
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Being neuro-atypical, I understand the desire to be
| "technically correct, the best kind of correct". It would
| be so much better if we used each word for their exact
| meaning.
|
| But that's not how most human communication work. When
| people say "I cannot come tomorrow", they usually don't
| mean they can't. If you gave them one billion dollars to
| come, chances are they would.
|
| This is a fairly common convention, and most people in
| the English language are using this approximation and
| assumption.
|
| You can chose to ignore it of course.
|
| I consider I've done my part in this conversation, and
| wish you a nice day.
| trebbble wrote:
| > But that's not how most human communication work.
|
| It's not even how it _can_ work. See the Malicious Genie
| problem for a memorable demonstration of the fundamental
| problem. Chasing "precision" beyond what's necessary
| tends to harm communication, not aid it. Norms and
| context are super-important.
| stale2002 wrote:
| So then since relations have been normalized, no there
| would not be significant consequences to them engaging in
| trade, so it would be mean that yes they can trade.
|
| Using the definition that you gave, yes they would be
| able to trade, because many of those bad consequences of
| trading have gone away.
| slim wrote:
| political issues between Muslim & Jews
|
| There are no political issues between muslim and jews. You
| maybe meant : - there are political issues between the
| jewish state and it's muslim majority neighbours - there is
| a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel
| southerntofu wrote:
| > there is a conflict between jews and muslims in
| Palestine and Israel
|
| There's a conflict between the settlers/gentrifiers (and
| their police State, military industrial complex, and
| security apparatus) and the rest of the population. From
| what i hear there is still an anti-nationalist/anti-
| colonization/anti-war jewish movement in Israel, what
| remains of a once-strong internationalist
| socialist/anarchist jewish movement.
| geph2021 wrote:
| Tell your friend to tread carefully with requests like this.
|
| My yearly "Business Conduct Training" (required by my employer)
| explicitly lists things like this as against company policy, a
| fireable offence, not to mention potentially illegal
| (circumventing embargoes, trade restrictions or sanctions).
| outworlder wrote:
| My "Standards of Business Conduct" training says exactly the
| same thing.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Americans have extra rules to follow, so they simply can't do
| work like this and they are done by other companies who are
| either not subject to such rules, or exist in countries that
| won't enforce those rules.
| alyandon wrote:
| Same here - for $VERY_LARGE_COMPANY.
| balls187 wrote:
| In the US at least, running afoul of Export/Import controls
| and laws guarantees a stay at Club Fed.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| European here: Is Club Fed slang for prison?
| smugma wrote:
| It's a play on Club Med (which is more of a European
| thing, Med being short for Mediterranean, and here Fed
| short for Federal, as in Federal crime/prison).
|
| I had never heard the term before today, but did
| appreciate its cleverness.
| balls187 wrote:
| Yes, apologies and thanks for asking for clarification.
| It's slang for Federal Prison, but for white collar
| crimes (less austere accommodations).
| [deleted]
| TrapLord_Rhodo wrote:
| People seem to be overinflating the hell out of this.
|
| > Apple has asked suppliers to ensure that shipments from Taiwan
| to China strictly comply with Chinese customs regulations
|
| Duh! it's to China! You're just going to piss off your contract
| manufacturers who have government officials overlooking their
| supply.
| amelius wrote:
| But they have to lie in order to comply. It's not just about
| following stupid rules.
| eevilspock wrote:
| Lie? If it's a lie, then it's a lie promoted by the Taiwan
| government itself, on its official government website and
| even in its constitution. Taiwan, like mainland China, even
| still claims Tibet as its territory. They do mainland China
| one better, they claim Mongolia as well. See supporting
| references in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358560
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, it's a lie as CCP has had no meaningful governmental
| role in Taiwan so far.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| So what? That doesn't change the fact that, practically,
| Taiwan is Chinese. The language and writing system, if
| nothing else, kinda give it away. Taipei's "One China"
| position merely acknowledges this fact, without
| committing to any stance that the CCP is the legitimate
| government of any country.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| > That doesn't change the fact that, practically, Taiwan
| is Chinese. The language and writing system, if nothing
| else, kinda give it away.
|
| So the US is English?
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Why would they? England itself is only a minor part of
| the British Isles. They would however have a chance of
| being part of a broader Commonwealth of Nations, were it
| not for a troublesome Declaration they circulated in
| 1776. This is why claims to "independence" should not be
| made carelessly, and why official U.S. policy is
| especially careful to avoid them wrt. Taipei.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| You said that Taiwan's language and writing system made
| them Chinese. By that reasoning, the US would be English.
| But thanks for clarifying that sharing a language and
| writing system with another country, doesn't necessarily
| make you part of that country.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| But this is not about "being part of a country"; it's
| first and foremost about sharing a common culture and
| history. Facile claims to "Taiwan independence" that
| ignore these nuances are tantamount to a denial of this
| shared past and common identity that is part of the
| continuing lived experience of many people in Taiwan.
| They are oppressive, dehumanizing and hurt the feelings
| of the Chinese people who live on the island.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| What's the relevance of any of this? You originally said
| that Taiwan's language and writing system made them
| Chinese. I've repeatedly demonstrated that such reasoning
| is nonsense.
|
| There may be other arguments that Taiwan is Chinese, but
| I haven't really given you my thoughts on those
| (hypothetical) arguments.
| spookie wrote:
| A link [1] referenced in your supporting evidence suggests
| it is but a remnant of the Chinese Civil War. But even
| then, Taiwan's constitution does state that a vote may be
| held in order to change such territorial claims. This only
| made it in the 7th revision, in 2004 [2].
|
| I would also like to make it clear that mainland China is
| the only one that has ever put these claims (except for
| Mongolia) into practice.
|
| [1] https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/20
| 21/05... [2] https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93
| eevilspock wrote:
| 2004? That's nearly 20 years ago.
|
| Taiwan until around 1990 froze into place representatives
| from all the mainland provinces in its legislature,
| thereby effectively nullifying the democratic voice of
| the people who lived on the island.
|
| Taiwan's "Wai Sheng Ren ", those born on the mainland and
| who fled to Taiwan at the end of the civil war, took over
| the government, suppressing the views and interests of
| the "Taiwanese", the Chinese who speak the local Chinese
| dialect and who lived there before. You know, kinda like
| what Russia wants to do with Ukraine.
|
| The Taiwanese themselves previously took over the island,
| suppressing the view and interests of the aborigine
| people, who are Austronesian, not Chinese. Again, kinda
| like what Russia wants to do with Ukraine.
|
| So if we're going to talk about democracy and freedom and
| sovereignty, we need to be less tribal/self-serving about
| it and more honest.
|
| If we're going to castigate China, are you also going to
| castigate America about Hawaii? If not, then I don't
| think that's honest. If you don't know what I'm talking
| about, I recommend you read about what Native Hawaiians
| feel about America. There's also Puerto Rico. And the US
| taking the Southwest form Mexico, and then closing its
| border, treating migrant workers from south of the border
| like shit, all the while looking the other way as we can
| make them work for below minimum wage and no protections
| all so we can have cheaper produce and have cheaper
| restaurants and all the other things that depend on cheap
| brown labor. We can go further and talk about Europeans
| taking it all from the indigenous people.
|
| I'm not defending China or Russia. I'm pointing out the
| huge amount of self-serving cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| I don't think you can compare this to Russia and Ukraine
| at all. Russia (at least the western part) and Ukraine is
| Slavic. Ukraine and Russia were one country for 450 years
| and before the beginning of the 20th century that current
| nationalist movement did not exist. Ukraine literally
| means borderlands in old Slavic language.
|
| If anything, it was the Slavs in that region that
| expanded eastward and resettled conquered territories
| e.g. Tatars(Crimea) to the eastern parts.
|
| Taiwan was inhabited by Austronesians, some of which were
| butchered by the dutch when they first drove them out,
| then by Portuguese, later by the Japanese (for a while a
| lot of Taiwanese considered themselves Japanese, while
| others on that Island fought of the invaders in the east)
| and sometime in between all that Hakka and other Han
| Chinese settled the island.
|
| After loosing the civil war as you know Chiang Kai-shek
| settled there while running a brutal dictatorship where
| the first thing he did was take all the local currency
| and reissue his own. I think the biggest giveaway on how
| problematic Taiwans history with China is, is that some
| of the biggest treasures that Mao tried to destroy are in
| the national history museum in Taipei.
|
| I agree with you that Taiwan never accepted changing it's
| own constitution(i.e. passports are still issued as RoC,
| not as Taiwan), but you absolutely cannot compare Ukraine
| to Taiwan. Neither in geography nor in history.
| eevilspock wrote:
| My point is about the hypocrisy all around, not about
| making perfect comparisons between all these situations.
| przemub wrote:
| Trade is really a matter for the government, and the US (sadly)
| adheres to the One China Policy. This just reflects the official
| policy, and having the companies pick this fight instead of the
| country is hypocritical.
| sneak wrote:
| I disagree. The largest company in the country is not a passive
| participant in the government's policies.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| True. But as a tech company it is much better they fight tech
| battles like privacy policy, acceptable law enforcement
| behavior, acceptable tracker use, etc.
|
| Let some other company fight the battle over what to put on
| the label.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| They aren't just a tech company though are they? They are
| one of the largest companies in the world with an annual
| turnover comparable with small countries like Denmark or
| Norway.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| That is true but they aren't a country. They don't set
| international policy. They have little to gain and a lot
| to lose picking this battle.
|
| For one thing they have close business relationships with
| people in both china and Taiwan. They have employees in
| both countries. Vendors. Human relationships. Those might
| get kinda awkward if they picked this battle.
|
| And what do they gain picking this battle? A few internet
| points?
|
| It's just not worth it.
| trasz wrote:
| >US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy
|
| How terrible of them to adhere to the policy Taiwanese
| themselves prefer!
|
| EDIT: To clarify, from what I remember the public opinion on
| Taiwan independence has been steadily shifting and now it's the
| majority's preference compared to becoming another province of
| China. At the same time the vast majority of Taiwanese prefer
| the option "let's keep things as they are now", if that option
| is available in the poll. Taiwan does have some special ties
| with continental China, particularly in economy and travel;
| it's more like EU than two entirely unrelated countries.
| outworlder wrote:
| Citation needed.
|
| Either that or... are you talking about Taiwan and West
| Taiwan?
| przemub wrote:
| Do they? Pan-Greens have a majority now.
|
| Mind that Taiwanese politics is not something I know a lot
| about, so I'm happy to be corrected.
| tuxoko wrote:
| First, US's One China policy is US's policy. It makes no
| sense for Taiwanese to adheres to a US's policy.
|
| Second, US's One China policy is only a word play. It
| acknowledges China's position regarding Taiwan but doesn't
| actually agree or disagree to it. That's why it still provide
| defense for Taiwan.
|
| Third, your comment about public opinion is a complete
| nonsense. Taiwan is a democratic nation. If the majority
| prefers being a province of China, it would have already
| voted to do so. And the only reason people choose to "keep
| things as they are now" is to avoid provoking a war with
| China.
| trasz wrote:
| First, it's China's policy that US claims to adhere to.
|
| Second - yeah, your point being?
|
| Third - yes, it is a democratic nation, and the prevalent
| majority of that democratic nation wants to keep things as
| they are, as evidenced by polls[1]. This nation doesn't
| want war. Compare this with the standard modus operandi of
| US. Sometimes they are the good guys, sometime they kill a
| million people in Middle East, but it's always about a war
| somewhere far away from US.
|
| 1. Notice how different this is from Ukraine. Ever wondered
| why there are so many... persons equating China and Russia?
| chmod600 wrote:
| There's some nuance here.
|
| We have free speech in the US. Freedom means choice, so there's
| still an obligation to act morally. China is more than willing
| to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some
| kind of cultural counter to that.
|
| For instance, see how China manipulated the NBA and Activision
| Blizzard during the Hong Kong protests.
| kshacker wrote:
| As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south
| send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box?
|
| We make decisions to curtail free speech everyday so how's
| this different?
| spookthesunset wrote:
| I'm sure they could and I bet some do. How that maps into
| sales is a different story.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I'm not American, so I may be missing some details, but is
| that actually not allowed? Or is it rather the case that
| some people may not like that, so companies try to avoid
| upsetting some customers?
| garettmd wrote:
| Yes, that is totally allowed. It is trivial to find
| products with the confederate flag printed on them.
| kshacker wrote:
| As others said, it may be allowed, and I did not know
| either ways but it was a rhetorical point.
|
| Now even if it is allowed, suppose this was a Federal
| government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such
| flags? Nope. Once that happens, it can be easily
| demagogued.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will
| Feds buy something with such flags? Nope._
|
| Actually, probably. If the item meets the specs and the
| price, that's what matters.
|
| Just as there is no shortage of federal buildings, and
| even military installations named after Confederate
| things.
|
| This HN discussion illustrates how bringing up
| Confederate themes, you can really tell when someone
| isn't an American.
| mwint wrote:
| I'm an American, but not involved in any kind of federal
| purchasing. I would have assumed that a federal purchaser
| would make up a reason not to buy my otherwise-perfect
| product if it had some unpopular statement on it, like a
| Confederate flag.
|
| Do you know of any counter examples where a company was
| able to make a successful bid with a product that had
| good fit, but an inconvenient non-functional addon like
| that?
| Ancapistani wrote:
| It is allowed, and some companies have based their
| business around it.
|
| For that matter, I've received written correspondence
| from people while doing genealogical research with the
| return address listed as "Mobile, Alabama, Occupied CSA".
| There are definitely cultural norms that come into play
| here, but in that particular case - it was from an
| officer of a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
| and contained photocopies of Confederate military records
| - I was amused by it. I kept the envelope and included it
| in my own archives.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yes, we can put whatever odious symbols on our products.
|
| The Confederate flag is a bit weird because there's
| enough of the population that apparently doesn't see it
| that way, so some stores will even display products that
| have it. (Personally I find it to be an awful symbol and
| wouldn't stick around if I saw it displayed).
|
| An example that is more like what you've described is
| something like a Nazi swastika -- technically you can
| sell something with a swastika on it (I'm 99.9% sure) but
| almost no stores would be willing to put it on the
| shelves, certainly no major chains or whatever.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| > As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in
| south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the
| box?
|
| Yes. Yes they can.
| Aunche wrote:
| > China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages
| with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that.
|
| No we don't. China may act peeved that foreign companies are
| virtue signalling, but they'd secretly relish at the
| opportunity of finding an excuse to boycott or ban these
| foreign products, so that their wealth stays circulating in
| their domestic economy. Look at what happened to Nike and H&M
| after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. The CPC organized
| consumer boycotts of these companies, but happily allowed
| factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to them.
| China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue
| signal when it is economical to do so.
|
| The NBA and Blizzard made the correct decision to kowtow to
| China, economically as well as morally. Getting them kicked
| out of China does not help Hong Kong, but would threaten to
| free world as the balance of trade would make us even more
| beholden to China. In a complicated, globalized world,
| marginal thinking is the only option.
| pphysch wrote:
| > Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced
| concerns about Xinjiang.
|
| A global company that wastes resources engaging in
| hysterically overblown State Department propaganda is a
| company that compromises the credibility of its leadership
| to make intelligent strategic decisions.
|
| We're out of the unipolar era, and companies that are stuck
| it in it will get outpaced.
| cromwellian wrote:
| I think Google proved you can live and thrive without the
| China domestic market.
| pphysch wrote:
| Google doesn't have any full-spectrum peer competitors,
| much less any that are operating in both PRC and USA.
| trasz wrote:
| >China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages
| with money
|
| Compared to a country where companies literally buy
| congressman, and freely manipulate public opinion for the
| highest bidder?
| cromwellian wrote:
| But competing messages are allowed so while the rich
| manipulate public opinion, they are not unitary and other
| voices are still heard, wealthy battling wealthy and large
| social movements too.
|
| These false equivalence's are really tiring. China's
| control of public speech and media is on a wholly different
| plane.
|
| It's not even remotely comparable to manipulation in the
| West.
| trasz wrote:
| So how's China different here? Or do you really believe
| there are no conflicting opinions there?
|
| I mean, some people believe there are no public elections
| in China, so...
| yuubi wrote:
| i recently got an electronic product that said Zhong Guo instead
| of Zhong Guo on the label (traditional vs simplified
| characters). i wonder if this was meant as a subtle indication
| that it was from traditional-character land.
| lucasjans wrote:
| This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most
| of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits.
| America's future is at stake and we won't wake up until it's too
| late.
| sneak wrote:
| > _they always have an eye on Chinese profits_
|
| Not really. Pretty much every iPhone sold everywhere is
| manufactured in China, and they all use chips from Taiwan.
|
| There is no Apple without China. Hundreds of thousands of
| Chinese nationals, working in Chinese-jurisdiction factories,
| produce Apple's products. Without the full consent and
| cooperation of the Chinese government, _there are no Apple
| products_. Full stop.
| k12sosse wrote:
| One can dream.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It reads to me like Apple is warning suppliers that it's parts
| may not get to factories in China if it does not comply with
| Chinese law.
|
| You would like Apple to... stop importing parts from Taiwan to
| China? That doesn't seem right, it would hurt Taiwan. Stop
| manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious. Ignore the
| situation and just accept assembly lines being halted because
| of lack of parts stopped at border? Other?
|
| I don't totally see how America's future is at stake requiring
| current escalations to challenges to China's long-standing
| statement that Taiwan is part of china. You think America may
| cease to exist unless the government chooses right now to
| change their policy and refuse to let China maintain this
| fiction? And that private corporations start challenging it too
| even before the government does? Or else America may cease to
| exist?
|
| Just curious, I would like to learn more about what you're
| looking for here. I'm curious if you are hoping for a shooting
| war between the US and China, if you think that would be good
| for "America's future"?
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Stop manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious.
|
| Apple's profit margins are so high that they'd probably still
| be positive even if they did this without raising prices at
| all. (Remember nobody's saying they should have to move
| manufacturing to the US. There are plenty of countries with
| low labor costs that are less evil than China.)
| babypuncher wrote:
| Even for a company like Apple it will take years to move
| manufacturing out of China.
|
| This is also something they are already in the process of
| doing. They have been significantly ramping up
| manufacturing in Vietnam and India.
| throwaway_4ever wrote:
| Apple has repeatedly said that it's not China's cheaper
| labor. They don't have as cheap labor anymore, especially
| compared to India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. they say it's
| because of the complex specialized knowledge of suppliers
| around Shenzhen and I'm inclined to believe them. You can
| choose to not trust them.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| I mean what are they supposed to do? Choose your battles. If
| your home country says Taiwan is part of China the easiest path
| with the least resistance is to label stuff from Taiwan as
| "made in china".
|
| Of all the fights Apple can choose to pick, it seems like this
| one just isn't worth it. Much better they pick fights about
| police having the ability to unlock phones or something.
|
| Choose your battles. Let some shoe company pick that battle or
| something...
| [deleted]
| melling wrote:
| "America's future is at stake"
|
| Please. It's 2022 and the China buildup was funded by the
| American consumer over the past 3 decades.
|
| It's already too late but it's easy to criticize companies that
| gave us they cheaper products we so desired by offshoring
| gedy wrote:
| > gave us they cheaper products we so desired by offshoring
|
| This is kind of silly to blame average people on the street
| for buying something cheaper that shows up in their local
| stores. This is all on the government (both parties), and
| large corporations for pushing this. People didn't "want"
| NAFTA, slave labor, etc.
| kipchak wrote:
| I think it's only reasonable to place blame on the
| population if you figure elected officials are
| representative of their constituents, and that the
| population has a responsibility to make sure it stays that
| way. Simultaneously you could make a pretty good case going
| the other way, or that we're well past that point.
| elil17 wrote:
| Does it matter what Apple does? I would think that reading
| "Made in Chinese Tiapei" only serves as a reminder of China's
| policy.
| mountainb wrote:
| Apple will knuckle under in about 3 seconds when the war
| starts and do whatever the US government asks them to do.
| sneak wrote:
| 100% of Apple's important chips depend on Taiwan continuing
| to be Taiwan (and TSMC continuing to be TSMC).
|
| ~100% of Apple's manufacturing depends on China continuing
| to permit hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals in
| Chinese factories (Foxconn's plants in Zhengzhou and
| elsewhere) building Apple products.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by "knuckle under" in this
| context, but Apple is, today, wholly dependent upon
| Taiwanese _and_ Chinese manufacturing (for chips, and
| assembly, respectively).
|
| If there is a war between China and Taiwan, or China and
| the US, Apple stands to lose the most of any single
| organization, I think.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Damn. "Any _single_ organization" is a hell of a
| qualifier. I mean if there was some war every company
| that builds physical shit would get fucked. But I'm hard
| pressed to think of any other _single_ org that would be
| more fucked.
|
| Would that be true based on market cap? Cause I'm sure
| countless auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers,
| elevator manufacturers, consumer goods manufacturers, and
| god knows what else would be equally fucked. But by
| market cap none of them would be as fucked as Apple.
|
| Hmmm. Weird...
| squarefoot wrote:
| To me the only left long term solution is to move as much
| technology and specialized workforce out of China to
| rebuild chip farms in different countries. I understand
| it's a very long and costly process, but also the mere
| starting it could work as a leverage.
| sneak wrote:
| Another solution is simply "don't have a war with your
| trading partners".
|
| What we have today is working fine.
| mountainb wrote:
| Yes, they are dependent on China and Taiwan, but they
| will knuckle under to the point to which the company is
| seriously disrupted if not destroyed once the war starts.
| I think it behooves everyone at Apple to prepare for the
| war and to figure out likely alternatives, and to also
| assume that the usual grey market way of getting around
| it will be anticipated by the federal government, and
| under war conditions the federal government may have a
| harsher point of view on it than they usually would with
| country of origin manipulation.
|
| Even if the US wins a war over Taiwan, it'd probably take
| a long time to resolve, and trade would be disrupted for
| long enough that nothing is getting off the island until
| peace is re-established. Right now, if nothing changes
| with the US-China trajectory, war is coming. If the
| trajectory changes, that might change.
| shoulderfake wrote:
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like
| most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese
| profits.
|
| To be fair, it's not fair to use this as an occasion for Apple
| bashing or America bashing.
|
| The whole Taiwan thing goes much deeper. For example, if you
| look at ISO3166, the country code standard.
|
| If you look up Taiwan in ISO3166[1], you will see it listed as
| "Taiwan (Province of China)".
|
| So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to
| maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual
| countries or their companies ?
|
| N.B. The UN does the same [2]
|
| [1]https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW
| [2]https://service.unece.org/trade/locode/tw.htm
| [deleted]
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| > So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit
| to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for
| individual countries or their companies ?
|
| The body was most certainly not neutral.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Neutrality in politics doesn't refer to a Platonic ideal
| where the existence of a conflict doesn't affect you in any
| way. Neutrality is a pragmatic message: "I understand you
| two have a conflict, I'm not going to take it upon myself
| to solve it, but I'd like to operate here regardless".
|
| One option is of course to say that nobody should be
| neutral in the conflict between China and Taiwan, but the
| obvious objection is that Taiwan does not want this.
| Taiwan's economic links with the mainland are enormous and
| it's absolutely routine for Taiwanese businesses to export
| to China or do business in China under Chinese regulations.
| (For example, you may be familiar with Foxconn, a Taiwanese
| company with over a million Chinese employees.)
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I don't know why you're over-complicating this. The body
| that decided on that terminology didn't even invite
| Taiwan to participate. The terminology was chosen at the
| behest of China. That body was obviously not neutral.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It just doesn't seem useful to adopt a concept of
| "neutrality" so strong that no international organization
| meets it.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Once again you're over-complicated this. The organization
| could have invited Taiwan to participate and asked them
| what they'd like to be called. That would certainly
| satisfy those questioning the organization's neutrality.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It would satisfy them because they think Taiwan is an
| independent country, and not satisfy China because they
| don't agree.
|
| Of course, you and I know that China is wrong and Taiwan
| really is an independent country! But that doesn't mean
| it's neutral to say so.
| yunohn wrote:
| Well yes, like all the other "neutral" international bodies,
| the ISO is dictated by its more powerful members.
|
| Taiwan is not a member, and been intentionally and
| continuously excluded.
|
| Source: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3812381
| PuddleOfSausage wrote:
| Just a note, the ISO standard and the United Nations are
| intrinsically linked. A country can only enter ISO 3166-1 if
| it appears in the United Nations Terminology Bulletin
| 'Country Names'. And I suppose one could argue the UN is not
| neutral.
| blfr wrote:
| Apparently, People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic
| of China (ROC) are in agreement that there's only one China.
| They differ on which government is legitimate.
| wongarsu wrote:
| It's worth noting that in the ROC (Taiwan) that position is
| losing popularity, and since about 2007 they seem to be
| moving towards becoming an independent nation that claims
| only the island of Taiwan. It's a politically difficult
| topic however, which is why no name change happened so far.
| sam_dal wrote:
| Apparently it's Kissinger's fault (with the secret treaty
| with China). From then on UN stopped recognizing Taiwan and
| gave the seat to China. See this video at 16min mark [1]
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5POKVD8XMg).
| ncr100 wrote:
| I disagree, Apple is acting exactly as it claims are its
| ethics, here. The part that needs discussion is how it
| prioritizes adhering to laws versus less specifically defined
| ethical values.
|
| In my view, China acts abusively in many ways. And the country
| is currently important to modern global manufacturing.
|
| In my understanding changing where a physical product company
| manufactures everything is horrifically difficult.
|
| Apple very discretely talks about the ethical standards that it
| adheres to:
|
| https://www.apple.com/compliance/policies/#:~:text=Apple%20t...
| .
| jjulius wrote:
| >Change is typically hard, in my understanding of life, and
| changing where a physical product company manufactures
| everything is horrifically difficult.
|
| Yes, but if any company has the money and the power to make
| those changes happen, it's Apple.
| ncr100 wrote:
| [edited op] Yes.
|
| Yeah I agree.
|
| I don't think Apple is overtly advertising any morality in
| it's policies.
|
| I think that's something that we have to do as shareholders
| of Apple. Shareholders and customers. We have to say, "Hey
| we don't like how your company is from our moral
| perspective. Please change your policies so that they
| conform to our morality."
| differentView wrote:
| The United States government has always had a One-China policy,
| regardless of which party is in power. Why is this on Apple? Be
| mad at your elected leaders if you don't like it.
| [deleted]
| dhx wrote:
| I wonder what Apple would now list if updating their FY20
| supplier list[1] which simply states "Taiwan" for manufacturing
| locations for many of their suppliers.
|
| Some of the suppliers in the list[1] operate manufacturing
| facilities in both mainland China and Taiwan, and their websites
| refer to a combination of "China", "Taiwan" and "R.O.C.". I do
| wonder how difficult it would be for these companies to deal with
| both governments at the same time! For example, the visa policies
| of each government towards each other appear to be very
| restrictive[2][3].
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-
| Supp...
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Taiwan#Chinese_...
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_mainland_China#...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-05 23:02 UTC)