It's pretty obvious I wasn't saying that passing the blame was the sole purpose of outsourcing.
But if that's what you thought then I apologise.
I'm regularly told off for using a 1000 words when 10 would have done, but I do try and avoid having disclaimers for everything I write in case people take things too literally.
My point hasn't actually changed, although it was always an aside as this thread is about manufacturing and in particular, Apple.
And Apple, like others yet to be exposed, have a real problem. I prefer not to think too much about it, as I've got plenty of Apple products at home and plenty of kit from LG, HTC, Sony, Asus, Acer and others.
About the only kit I have hardly anything of is in fact Samsung because I don't really like their phones or tablets.
If I have misunderstood you, then I too apologise. I was not trying to be pedantic at all.
Why do people outsource? Because it gives them flexibility and speed. Building a factory takes time and is a huge commitment. Outsourcing lets you bypass the time taken to build the factory, letting you get your product to market faster, and gives you the ability to ramp up or reduce production when you need to with minimal penalty.
Outsourcing isn't a dirty idea. When you put a stamp on a letter and post it you're outsourcing the delivery of that item to the Royal Mail. If the unknown to you the Royal Mail underpays some of its staff or something similar does that make you responsible? Of course not.
That's not to say that Apple doesn't have a responsibility to check what's going on in its supply chain but the company does demand that the companies it outsources to meet much higher than average standards and perform inspections to check that those standards are being met but, of course, it can't police every factory 24/7 and if some companies are overworking their staff behind Apple's backs that's entirely different to Apple approving of it and not giving a damn.
Why do people outsource? Because it gives them flexibility and speed.
That's not always true. You're mixing sub contracting with outsourcing. If someone else has a factory and you need what that factory makes, you saying 'make me 10,000 widgets please' is not in the least 'outsourcing', it's 'sub contracting'. Or actually just 'buying things' in fact.
Outsourcing is specifically the notion of contracting another company to perform an internal business function that you currently provide in-house. HR, IT, manufacturing, whatever. They key point is you can't ousource something you haven't actually been doing anyway.
And it can be more flexible and it can be cheaper, but I'd say it's very, very rarely quicker. By definition, when you have to open a communication line to a third party to provide a service, that's going to be slower than in a internal communication. Unless your internal communications are utterly crap, in which case outsourcing stuff isn't going to help you. Yes, buying stuff is quicker than building a production line yourself but that doesn't make buying components 'outsourcing'.
Outsourcing isn't a dirty idea. When you put a stamp on a letter and post it you're outsourcing the delivery of that item to the Royal Mail. If the unknown to you the Royal Mail underpays some of its staff or something similar does that make you responsible? Of course not.
Again, you're mislabelling things. Everyone who provides a service for you is not an 'outsourcer', that's a ludicrous notion. I've not outsourced killing animals to the guy I buy meat from. Outsourcing is, again, the act of taking something you previously did yourself and paying someone else to do that thing for you. Nobody delivers their own post, except maybe christmas cards to your neighbours. Hardly anybody builds their own cars. I haven't 'outsourced' my transportation needs to Toyota. I've just bought a car.
That's not to say that Apple doesn't have a responsibility to check what's going on in its supply chain but the company does demand that the companies it outsources to meet much higher than average standards and perform inspections to check that those standards are being met but, of course, it can't police every factory 24/7 and if some companies are overworking their staff behind Apple's backs that's entirely different to Apple approving of it and not giving a damn.
It's a negotiation process. Apple is the customer, the chip or screen or whatever maker is the supplier (on in the case of assembly, it's the labour that is supplied). As part of the negotiation process in agreeing the contract to supply, Apple can stipulate various basic standards of treatment they would like for the workers in the sub contracting plant. Now the company that owns the plant can agree to those terms, or not and propose different ones, and so on. While Apple are a big buyer of components, there are only a couple of very specific markets where it's the major buyer and thus has a lot of sway. In general there are only a couple of places that make each type of cutting edge tech components, and many companies that want what they make. It's far from true that Apple can 'demand' things and the suppliers have to comply.
And it can be more flexible and it can be cheaper, but I'd say it's very, very rarely quicker. By definition, when you have to open a communication line to a third party to provide a service, that's going to be slower than in a internal communication. Unless your internal communications are utterly crap, in which case outsourcing stuff isn't going to help you.
I think you're overestimating how long it takes to do business these days.
Again, you're mislabelling things. Everyone who provides a service for you is not an 'outsourcer', that's a ludicrous notion. I've not outsourced killing animals to the guy I buy meat from. Outsourcing is, again, the act of taking something you previously did yourself and paying someone else to do that thing for you. Nobody delivers their own post, except maybe christmas cards to your neighbours.
Thanks for letting me know what I do and don't post. And there was me thinking I chose to post something to my local council a week ago rather than drop it round to their offices a mile away because it was more time efficient for me.
It's a negotiation process. Apple is the customer, the chip or screen or whatever maker is the supplier (on in the case of assembly, it's the labour that is supplied). As part of the negotiation process in agreeing the contract to supply, Apple can stipulate various basic standards of treatment they would like for the workers in the sub contracting plant. Now the company that owns the plant can agree to those terms, or not and propose different ones, and so on. While Apple are a big buyer of components, there are only a couple of very specific markets where it's the major buyer and thus has a lot of sway. In general there are only a couple of places that make each type of cutting edge tech components, and many companies that want what they make. It's far from true that Apple can 'demand' things and the suppliers have to comply.
You're really missing the point I was making, aren't you? I'll try to make it again as simply as possible: what Apple has agreed with a supplier/outsourcer/contractor/whatever you want to call them and in good faith believes is happening might not always be happening, but if that's because of deception on the part of that partner that's not Apple's fault.
Put another way, if you agree to buy something from me because I assure you that it'll be made a certain way and I lie about it, is it your fault that I've lied or mine?
Oh blimey.
That was pretty shocking. Not just the hideously way that people were treated on the factory floor but the knock on effect.
I didn't find it shocking in the slightest. Its just like the two UK factories I have worked for so far in my 35 year career in engineering. I ended up leaving both companies with suicide attempts. Its galling seeing your former bosses pass you in thier posh cars, but as far as my experience goes those conditions are common practice.
Comments
If I have misunderstood you, then I too apologise. I was not trying to be pedantic at all.
Why do people outsource? Because it gives them flexibility and speed. Building a factory takes time and is a huge commitment. Outsourcing lets you bypass the time taken to build the factory, letting you get your product to market faster, and gives you the ability to ramp up or reduce production when you need to with minimal penalty.
Outsourcing isn't a dirty idea. When you put a stamp on a letter and post it you're outsourcing the delivery of that item to the Royal Mail. If the unknown to you the Royal Mail underpays some of its staff or something similar does that make you responsible? Of course not.
That's not to say that Apple doesn't have a responsibility to check what's going on in its supply chain but the company does demand that the companies it outsources to meet much higher than average standards and perform inspections to check that those standards are being met but, of course, it can't police every factory 24/7 and if some companies are overworking their staff behind Apple's backs that's entirely different to Apple approving of it and not giving a damn.
Outsourcing is specifically the notion of contracting another company to perform an internal business function that you currently provide in-house. HR, IT, manufacturing, whatever. They key point is you can't ousource something you haven't actually been doing anyway.
And it can be more flexible and it can be cheaper, but I'd say it's very, very rarely quicker. By definition, when you have to open a communication line to a third party to provide a service, that's going to be slower than in a internal communication. Unless your internal communications are utterly crap, in which case outsourcing stuff isn't going to help you. Yes, buying stuff is quicker than building a production line yourself but that doesn't make buying components 'outsourcing'.
Again, you're mislabelling things. Everyone who provides a service for you is not an 'outsourcer', that's a ludicrous notion. I've not outsourced killing animals to the guy I buy meat from. Outsourcing is, again, the act of taking something you previously did yourself and paying someone else to do that thing for you. Nobody delivers their own post, except maybe christmas cards to your neighbours. Hardly anybody builds their own cars. I haven't 'outsourced' my transportation needs to Toyota. I've just bought a car.
It's a negotiation process. Apple is the customer, the chip or screen or whatever maker is the supplier (on in the case of assembly, it's the labour that is supplied). As part of the negotiation process in agreeing the contract to supply, Apple can stipulate various basic standards of treatment they would like for the workers in the sub contracting plant. Now the company that owns the plant can agree to those terms, or not and propose different ones, and so on. While Apple are a big buyer of components, there are only a couple of very specific markets where it's the major buyer and thus has a lot of sway. In general there are only a couple of places that make each type of cutting edge tech components, and many companies that want what they make. It's far from true that Apple can 'demand' things and the suppliers have to comply.
Well, seeing as Apple never manufactured iPods, iPhones or iPads itself then, by your definition, it's not outsourcing.
I think you're overestimating how long it takes to do business these days.
Thanks for letting me know what I do and don't post. And there was me thinking I chose to post something to my local council a week ago rather than drop it round to their offices a mile away because it was more time efficient for me.
You're really missing the point I was making, aren't you? I'll try to make it again as simply as possible: what Apple has agreed with a supplier/outsourcer/contractor/whatever you want to call them and in good faith believes is happening might not always be happening, but if that's because of deception on the part of that partner that's not Apple's fault.
Put another way, if you agree to buy something from me because I assure you that it'll be made a certain way and I lie about it, is it your fault that I've lied or mine?