Perhaps you are still partying like its 1997 ‘in praise of cheap labour‘. Maybe you see making more stuff as the only route out of this decades-long employment funk for the US and others. On the other hand, you might not actually mind paying a bit more for your gadgets. Or, it could be you think we should just leave Apple to do what Apple does best. Whatever your thoughts we would like to know.
Should Apple stick with current labour standards if it reshores manufacturing to the USA?
Over the course of this week, I will post a couple of pieces looking at all of this in greater detail. Hopefully, with the help of the poll results and your comments below, we can tease out some ideas about the tensions and potential steps forwards for the likes of Apple and their ilk. And before you ask, we have chosen Apple because these days, where it leads…
Two big hits in a world that seems to hang on big numbers:
4 million new model iphones sold by Apple over its launch weekend.
7 billion people expected to be sharing this planet on October 31st.
Ok, so the phones aren’t really a big deal but think about this. The new iphone has only launched in 6 so-called advanced nations and is set to be available in 70 more countries by the end of the year. As per the bombastic game of being the greatest, latest, best thing since sliced bread that we all play in product launch world, records tumble, bought media swoon, etc.
Despite Apple missing an earnings forecast for the first time since 2004 the company is lauded and applauded the world over for the best global product launch since the last Harry Potter installment. And all the while the $80-odd billion wad of cash burns a hole in Tim Cook’s chinos.
Collaborative consumption has a huge role to play in shifting attitudes to owning more ‘stuff’ and showing up those who talk about sustainable consumption and shifting more units in the same breath.
Corporate efforts so far have mainly dealt with work around reducing waste, reducing resource use in production, raising labour standards, promoting certification standards and adding socioeconomic benefits to products and services. All good but, at its heart sustainable consumption must mean buy/use less stuff. Read More…
There is no contest in a footrace between a well-oiled, just-in-time-schooled car maker, looking to shift as many units as possible in a new market, and a decision-by-committee megacity administration trying to put in place an urban infrastructure fit for the 21st century. Handily, the auto maker also gets to socialise the losses (more gridlocked roads, fuel dependency, air pollution, deterioration of public space etc) and move on. Read More…
Have you seen the app which takes your photo and makes it look like you’re really fat? Yes. And the game where you land all the planes on the runway? Yes, that too. Hey, how about this thing with the funny red monster that repeats everything you say? Please leave me. Please just leave me here to die. (C Brooker)
The above clip from Futurama and the article by Charlie Brooker in today’s Guardian, add a dimension to the e-waste/toxic mineral/assembly line debate which I think points to a smarter future for the consumer electronics industry. If you add together conflict minerals, e-waste, toxic chemicals used in production, and the now well-documented unrest among Chinese assembly line workers, the satisfaction footprint of our gadgets is miniscule. Read More…
Off to see Clay Shirky talk tonight about his new book Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Lots of ideas about human potential in the 21st Century and living in a world that is moving to being less about consuming and more about doing.
I’ll be intrigued to find out how far down this road he thinks we are. Does the Foxxcon assembly line worker in Shenzen or the Mcjobber in the suburbs of Sao Paulo get to be part of this creative rebalancing? Or are they just allowed to be the last targets for growth hungry legacy companies of the 20th Century and an easily forgotten part of our own personal supply chains? Read More…
Howard Davies, former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, current Director of the London School of Economics spoke at the LSE last night about where China was up to with its financial reform (download slides here). Davies, a member of the advisory boards of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (since 2003) and the China Securities Regulatory Commission, is ideally placed to talk about reform and the impact of the stimulus.
Davies main tenet: The crisis has meant that China will reform its financial system in its own way and at its own speed. Additionally, the crisis has not derailed the party’s development policies so don’t expect much dramatic change in the model for now.
