Why Apple is Good for U.S. Economy and Your Job

[Strk]

Apple is exporting the iPhone & iPad oversees. They sell them in Europe, Asia, South America.

Economy 101. Exporting more is better than importing.

Except their products aren't actually made here. Their SoC is, by Samsung, but Apple would probably have TSMC make it if they could.

It's kind of a joke that the innovation that people see is only the finished product and not what's going on behind the scenes. The screens? Samsung/LG (and soon to be Sharp). Components? Largely Samsung. The actual design? Licensed from ARM/Imagination Technologies. Assembly? Foxconn.

And you might want to hold your breath on all those amazing US jobs Apple creates. Half of them are in retail, which are all low-wage jobs.

Let's face it, Apple is great at bringing things to the public. They have their vendors make some great products, even using technologies that those vendors won't use (well, will eventually use). They are also will to take some big risks, which is funny to say about a company that has so few products, but look at what Apple supposedly did with an aluminum mine (also helps explain some of MS's logic for releasing the Surface. But great innovator and job creator? Hardly. Apple has one of the lowest R&D budgets out of any tech company -- and not just as a percentage of revenue.

 

[trmiv]

Apple is exporting the iPhone & iPad oversees. They sell them in Europe, Asia, South America.

Economy 101. Exporting more is better than importing.

Uh, except they aren't exporting iPhones and iPads from the US. They are made in China, so they count as Chinese exports when they leave China. When they come into the US they are imports.

 

[Phokus]

tens of thousands of high paying jobs in Cupertino

That's not a lot of jobs OP. That's a drop in a bucket. Who cares. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung had more US employees.

 

[Tom]

Uh, except they aren't exporting iPhones and iPads from the US. They are made in China, so they count as Chinese exports when they leave China. When they come into the US they are imports.

What matters is where the profits go. In this case I would speculate the lion's share is going to Apple, which is directly beneficial to the USA, and less is going to their largely Asian suppliers.

 

[lothar]

What matters is where the profits go. In this case I would speculate the lion's share is going to Apple, which is directly beneficial to the USA, and less is going to their largely Asian suppliers.

Which does nothing for the US.
How much of Apple's profits are stashed overseas in foreign bank accounts so they can delay paying US taxes?
How is keeping profits stashed in overseas bank accounts that taxes are owed on beneficial to USA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

 

[lothar]

What's p&n?:\

http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24

 

[kaerflog]

This thread doesn't belong here.

 

[MrX8503]

Less competition in the market means less innovation which means fewer developers hired.

Which means you know none of the answers to the questions I asked.

Why would there be less competition? That makes no sense at all. Samsung isn't going anywhere. Samsung is now forced to innovate, that's more competition, not less.

 

[soccerballtux]

Which means you know none of the answers to the questions I asked.

Why would there be less competition? That makes no sense at all. Samsung isn't going anywhere. Samsung is now forced to innovate, that's more competition, not less.

put on your thinking cap lol

 

[soccerballtux]

Which does nothing for the US.
How much of Apple's profits are stashed overseas in foreign bank accounts so they can delay paying US taxes?
How is keeping profits stashed in overseas bank accounts that taxes are owed on beneficial to USA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

to be fair the billions are probably invested in treasury bonds since those are quite liquid.
But yes, does little for the US besides encourage further government debt.
If Apple weren't publicly traded they could do some really exciting things like reforming manufacturing in China so the companies like FoxConn pay their employees better, give them 8 hour working days instead of 12, etc.

 

[MrX8503]

put on your thinking cap lol

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[mikegg]

Uh, except they aren't exporting iPhones and iPads from the US. They are made in China, so they count as Chinese exports when they leave China. When they come into the US they are imports.

And Samsung phones are also made in China. Their engineers are in South Korea. Apple phones are made in China. Apple's engineers/developers/marketing/manufacturing managers are all in the U.S.

If both the engineering and manufacturing are done oversees, like Samsung in this case, how is this better or equivalent for the U.S. economy?

Apple is at the very least exporting its engineering. When an iPhone is sold in China or Europe, some of the money come back to the U.S. and to Apple. When Samsung sells a phone in China that's made in China, the U.S. gets nothing back.

Not hard to understand.

 

[mikegg]

What matters is where the profits go. In this case I would speculate the lion's share is going to Apple, which is directly beneficial to the USA, and less is going to their largely Asian suppliers.

Yes, exactly.

If Samsung engineers the phone in Korea, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in China or Europe, what does the U.S. get back? Nothing.

If Apple engineers the phone, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in Europe, Apple gets some of the money back which will help it grow and hire more U.S. employees(and oversee employees if you want to get technical).

Bottom line is that Apple is a U.S. company and the biggest one at that. If it does well, it's better for jobs. I'm not sure where the argument is.

 

[mammador]

40 thousand of the highest paying jobs is nothing?

Yea, it's a drop in the bucket in terms of total GPD but a lot of other companies also depend on Apple.

How so? Most of Apple's revenue from consumer devices, as with the other smartphone makers.

Business solution or general business to business selling is very small.

 

[mammador]

What matters is where the profits go. In this case I would speculate the lion's share is going to Apple, which is directly beneficial to the USA, and less is going to their largely Asian suppliers.

Not necessarily. Not all of Apple's shareholders may live in the US.

as a multi-national, it may have shareholders in many countries.

The issue is that Apple outsources its manufacturing since it's too costly to do it in America. the solution is that an unlocked iPhone will cost $1500 or so, which most Americans wouldn't be prepared to pay.

 

[soccerballtux]

Thanks for proving my point.

try a little bit harder. You can't be so aloof as to not understand the development cycle or the basics of running a business.

 

[MrX8503]

try a little bit harder. You can't be so aloof as to not understand the development cycle or the basics of running a business.

I'm not the one making claims and then can't back them up with proof. When I get a ticket for a traffic violation, I play dumb too.

 

[lothar]

to be fair the billions are probably invested in treasury bonds since those are quite liquid.
But yes, does little for the US besides encourage further government debt.
If Apple weren't publicly traded they could do some really exciting things like reforming manufacturing in China so the companies like FoxConn pay their employees better, give them 8 hour working days instead of 12, etc.

Not sure how that has any relevance.

To be fair, the Chinese also have trillions invested in US treasury bonds.
I guess outsourcing US jobs to China must be a good thing. :hmm:

 

[lothar]

And Samsung phones are also made in China. Their engineers are in South Korea. Apple phones are made in China. Apple's engineers/developers/marketing/manufacturing managers are all in the U.S.

If both the engineering and manufacturing are done oversees, like Samsung in this case, how is this better or equivalent for the U.S. economy?

Apple is at the very least exporting its engineering. When an iPhone is sold in China or Europe, some of the money come back to the U.S. and to Apple. When Samsung sells a phone in China that's made in China, the U.S. gets nothing back.

Not hard to understand.

Yes, exactly.

If Samsung engineers the phone in Korea, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in China or Europe, what does the U.S. get back? Nothing.

If Apple engineers the phone, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in Europe, Apple gets some of the money back which will help it grow and hire more U.S. employees(and oversee employees if you want to get technical).

Bottom line is that Apple is a U.S. company and the biggest one at that. If it does well, it's better for jobs. I'm not sure where the argument is.

/clears throat
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33879425&postcount=30

 

[rchiu]

That's not a lot of jobs OP. That's a drop in a bucket. Who cares. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung had more US employees.

I doubt Samsung has more US employees than Apple. Even if they do, the big guys are all Korean anyway, each and every single one of their US exec team are Korean.

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/management/usexecutiveteam.html

Either way, battle between Samsung and Apple shouldn't become US vs. Korea, just let the legal system play it out and protect the IP property of the company with legit claim. In the long run, protecting IP property is good for America and all businesses since America tends to be the one with innovation and holds most IP property.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

40 thousand of the highest paying jobs is nothing?

Yea, it's a drop in the bucket in terms of total GPD but a lot of other companies also depend on Apple.

LOL Highest paying jobs? Doesn't that 40,000 include about 30,000 people that work at Apple stores? AKA punk@ss kids that don't know their @ss from a hole in the ground. Those 30,000 jobs are hardly high paying jobs.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Which means you know none of the answers to the questions I asked.

Why would there be less competition? That makes no sense at all. Samsung isn't going anywhere. Samsung is now forced to innovate, that's more competition, not less.

Because Apple is being granted patents on simple shapes, and common prior "art" and is able to deny other device makers of making ANYTHING.

Yes, exactly.

If Samsung engineers the phone in Korea, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in China or Europe, what does the U.S. get back? Nothing.

If Apple engineers the phone, makes the phone in China, sells the phone in Europe, Apple gets some of the money back which will help it grow and hire more U.S. employees(and oversee employees if you want to get technical).

Bottom line is that Apple is a U.S. company and the biggest one at that. If it does well, it's better for jobs. I'm not sure where the argument is.

Why would Apple hire more US employees if it can hire employees in a country that requires lower wages? The only real hiring Apple has done is retail employees and they are not high paying jobs.
Also of Note. Samsung isn't just an Electronics company. They are a highly diversified company that makes electronics, cars, ships, bio-tech, chemical, engineering, power generation, ect, ect. Samsung as a whole is a more important company than Apple.

I doubt Samsung has more US employees than Apple. Even if they do, the big guys are all Korean anyway, each and every single one of their US exec team are Korean.

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/management/usexecutiveteam.html

Either way, battle between Samsung and Apple shouldn't become US vs. Korea, just let the legal system play it out and protect the IP property of the company with legit claim. In the long run, protecting IP property is good for America and all businesses since America tends to be the one with innovation and holds most IP property.

Yes the legal system. The same system that solely depends on the political leaning of the judge or judges, and the compitency of 12 people selected from a pool.

I like my iPad, but it isn't perfect and the only reason I have it was it was free, and the 4:3 ratio is better than the wide screen ratio that all the good Android makers go with.

 

[MrX8503]

Because Apple is being granted patents on simple shapes, and common prior "art" and is able to deny other device makers of making ANYTHING.

All of Apple's patents aren't required to produce a smartphone.

 

[rchiu]

Because Apple is being granted patents on simple shapes, and common prior "art" and is able to deny other device makers of making ANYTHING.


Why would Apple hire more US employees if it can hire employees in a country that requires lower wages? The only real hiring Apple has done is retail employees and they are not high paying jobs.
Also of Note. Samsung isn't just an Electronics company. They are a highly diversified company that makes electronics, cars, ships, bio-tech, chemical, engineering, power generation, ect, ect. Samsung as a whole is a more important company than Apple.

Yes the legal system. The same system that solely depends on the political leaning of the judge or judges, and the compitency of 12 people selected from a pool.

I like my iPad, but it isn't perfect and the only reason I have it was it was free, and the 4:3 ratio is better than the wide screen ratio that all the good Android makers go with.

You don't think Apple need people to manage retail shops, plan strategy for product development, vendor, customer relationship and all the things that normal business do? Do you think those Apple shop will run by itself with their retail employees and good product will just magically appear in their stores?

Like the previous poster said, I don't know what's there to debate. Not only Apple provides high paying jobs, they are also the highest valued company in the world, and provides American investor a $hit load of return. Millions of 401k and other funds are likely linked to Apple one way or the other. You really want to see them tank? While Samsung is an important company, it is important to Korea, if it goes belly up tomorrow, not many people in the US will notice. Their Galaxy will be replace by some LG or HTC phone. No one is gonna cry over Samsung.

And while the legal system is not perfect, it is better than letting someone like you with obvious bias and who think he knows it all to make the call. Maybe the prior art thing is open to debate, but what about Samsung exec's email on copying Apple design, care to explain that? Like I said, the only thing matter is if Samsung copied Apple. It is clear from the email, it is clear from the design and form factor that Samsung copied Apple. Those emails from exec said they were going to incorporate Apple designs into their phones, why didn't they said they were going to incorporate some "prior art", or design from other existing phones? I don't know what background you have, but anyone with some design experience knows that usability, shape and all that takes time and money to develop. It is not just some random "shape", it is shape that works, that attracts attention. It is not legal for a company to be able to take someone else's design and make it their own.

 

[Tom]

Not sure how that has any relevance.

To be fair, the Chinese also have trillions invested in US treasury bonds.
I guess outsourcing US jobs to China must be a good thing. :hmm:

Well, it probably is a good thing, better than Walmart being full of French and German companies' products produced in China.

btw, if China holds a lot of our debt, and btw, most of our debt is owned by Americans, then China has a vested interest in us not failing.