iDont want to make any more of this stuff ...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Why the iMac aint so good
Next: iPads here in the UK!
From: Jim on 27 May 2010 06:21 On 2010-05-27, J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: >> >> Plus, as has been pointed out, 10 or 12 suicides per year in a workforce of >> almost half a million may well have nothing at all to do with the company, >> but instead just be the usual numbers you'd see in any group of 500,000 >> people in China. Or the West for that matter. > > See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate> > > A suicide rate of 2/100.000/year is very low indeed, > incredibly low even, It seems to be closer to 70 per 500,000 based on the 1999 figures, if I read them correctly (average of about 14 per 100,000) Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "RESEARCH showing that men lie more than women is proof they should stop asking them awkward questions in the first place, say scientists." - The Daily Mash
From: chris on 27 May 2010 06:22 On 27/05/10 09:52, Woody wrote: > chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/05/10 08:44, T i m wrote: >>> My thoughts ... (and this is ignoring corporate greed etc), if it cost >>> �50 to assemble an iPhone in China and �75 to have it assembled in the >>> UK, would that just knock Apples profits by �25? >> >> I don't have any hard figures, but I'd imagine the cost difference is >> *much* larger than that. Something in the region of �20 in Taiwan and >> �200 in the UK. Don't forget we have unions, pensions, NI, sick pay, >> maternity/paternity pay, corporation tax, health and safety, etc. that >> all add to the cost of manufacturing any product here. >> >> There's a reason why Dysons are much more expensive than similar >> products. It's partly the technology and partly the higher costs of >> being a UK-based company. > > Except they are still as expensive as they were even after they closed > down their UK factories and moved to malaysia. They had already built up their market and the move was probably more for their benefit rather than the consumer (i.e. better margins). In a weird way, I'd bet if dysons were cheaper they wouldn't sell as well. There's an elitist feel for people to say they have 'a dyson'. >> I have to agree that Apple is being unfairly singled out here. It's the >> cheap as chips manufacturers that need to be targetted, as they are the >> ones driving prices and standards down. e.g. Primark and George(a)Asda >> have been criticised for the labour they use, but not the likes of M&S. > > I was recently wondering that. There was a shirt I looked at in M&S > which was �29. The same sort of thing was �7 in primark. I know that > primark stuff is all made from the blood of unicorns, the tears of > children and thread made from live skinned kittens, but on the label it > appears that M&S stuff is made in the same place. That's because <voice type="husky woman">It's not just a shirt, it's an M&S shirt</voice> ;) Seriously, though. It could well be made at the same place, but with 'responsibly sourced' raw materials and better paid staff. Also, I'd imagine M&S's overheads are much higher than primark (pack 'em high, sell 'em cheap).
From: Peter Ceresole on 27 May 2010 06:32 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > A suicide rate of 2/100.000/year is very low indeed, > incredibly low even, It would be interesting to know how reliable the figures are- especially in a tightly controlled society like China's. Also, the (comparatively) extremely high figure for suicides of women. Would this have some relationship with the single child policy of population control? As it is, nobody seems to be mentioning the main imperative for China, which is wealth increase. At the moment China is, in general, extremely poor. It's making a bid for wealth, and one of the ways is does this is to provide low cost labour- low cost, because it is socially poor. So Apple, by manufacturing there, is actually benefiting the Chinese. Fairly soon, that advantage will disappear as the manufacturing generates wealth, but low cost electronic goods for wealthy countries is one of the ways China bootstraps itself into the First World. Being Chinese, they are pursuing a very intelligent and far-sighted policy of research in all fields, so that brain power will take over from muscle power as a main driver in the economy. But, for instance, India is doing the same. And I have a lot more confidence in India, in the longer run. The reason is that China is still pursuing a largely Stalinist (literally Stalinist) policy of rigid control, inevitably allied to terrible political and financial corruption. This has led in the past, and is likely to do so again, to rebellion and chaos, which will for a time undo a great deal of the economic advance. Which is why India, which is also corrupt but infinitely more democratic and capable of change, is more likely to progress. But people who criticise 1st world companies who manufacture in the 3rd world are being soft and short sighted. Quite wrong headed. And it seems that in human terms, Apple are doing about as well as they possibly can. -- Peter
From: Sak Wathanasin on 27 May 2010 06:34 On 27 May, 10:57, use...(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > Sak Wathanasin <s...(a)nan.co.uk> wrote: > > On 27 May, 09:52, use...(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > > > > I was recently wondering that. There was a shirt I looked at in M&S > > > which was £29. The same sort of thing was £7 in primark. I know that > > > primark stuff is all made from the blood of unicorns, the tears of > > > children and thread made from live skinned kittens, but on the label it > > > appears that M&S stuff is made in the same place. > > > They may be made in the same place, but the M&S stuff use better > > material - Primark stuff fall apart after a couple of washes. You pays > > your money... > > Understandable if they did, but when I first started going back into the > office 4 years ago or so, I got some office shirts (had managed to avoid > wearing them up until then) as I didn't think it was a permenant thing. > I still have them and they are still fine. I have some M&S ones too, and > tbh, without looking at the label I can't tell which is which Don't have any Primark shirts so can't comment on those, but their tracksuits and leisurewear just fall apart. My wife got me some ("hey, we can get 3 of these for the price of 1 of the branded version"). Well, I play badminton twice a week and coach on another 2 days, so they get kinda sweaty and consequently, get washed a lot. None of the Primark stuff survived more than a couple of months.
From: Woody on 27 May 2010 06:39
chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/05/10 09:52, Woody wrote: > > chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 27/05/10 08:44, T i m wrote: > >>> My thoughts ... (and this is ignoring corporate greed etc), if it cost > >>> �50 to assemble an iPhone in China and �75 to have it assembled in the > >>> UK, would that just knock Apples profits by �25? > >> > >> I don't have any hard figures, but I'd imagine the cost difference is > >> *much* larger than that. Something in the region of �20 in Taiwan and > >> �200 in the UK. Don't forget we have unions, pensions, NI, sick pay, > >> maternity/paternity pay, corporation tax, health and safety, etc. that > >> all add to the cost of manufacturing any product here. > >> > >> There's a reason why Dysons are much more expensive than similar > >> products. It's partly the technology and partly the higher costs of > >> being a UK-based company. > > > > Except they are still as expensive as they were even after they closed > > down their UK factories and moved to malaysia. > > They had already built up their market and the move was probably more > for their benefit rather than the consumer (i.e. better margins). Undoubtably. The price didn't go down once they sacked the UK workforce. Seemed odd that just after that mr Dyson was asked to provide advice to the government on manufacturing (I guess he said 'sack the british workers and move abroad') > In a > weird way, I'd bet if dysons were cheaper they wouldn't sell as well. > There's an elitist feel for people to say they have 'a dyson'. I think that is probably true for a lot of people. We got one as we had some friends raving about how good they are, and while I find the technical design fairly good, and like the no bag thing, I don't find the actual physical quality of it to be any better than any other vaccum cleaner i have tried. It is plasticy and fussy. Overall, when it dies and I am looking for another one, I will be checking reviews obviously but I certainly won't be paying anything over the odds for the name. > >> I have to agree that Apple is being unfairly singled out here. It's the > >> cheap as chips manufacturers that need to be targetted, as they are the > >> ones driving prices and standards down. e.g. Primark and George(a)Asda > >> have been criticised for the labour they use, but not the likes of M&S. > > > > I was recently wondering that. There was a shirt I looked at in M&S > > which was �29. The same sort of thing was �7 in primark. I know that > > primark stuff is all made from the blood of unicorns, the tears of > > children and thread made from live skinned kittens, but on the label it > > appears that M&S stuff is made in the same place. > > That's because <voice type="husky woman">It's not just a shirt, it's an > M&S shirt</voice> ;) > > Seriously, though. It could well be made at the same place, but with > 'responsibly sourced' raw materials and better paid staff. Also, I'd > imagine M&S's overheads are much higher than primark (pack 'em high, > sell 'em cheap). Well, I just looked at the primark site, and they have a page about ethically sourcing materials etc. Obviously they would say that though. Clearly they must save a fair amount of money by just ripping off everyone elses designs and their shops must cost a lot less to run than M&S but it is still a huge price difference. -- Woody |