Tim Cook confirms one line of Macs will be exclusively US-manufactured in 2013(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Tim Cook confirms one line of Macs will be exclusively US-manufactured in 2013
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/06/tim-cook-us-built-macs/
41 comments
There was an article posted here yesterday about General Electric moving home many manufacturing positions. Their plants which at their peak employed 20k people had dwindled to just 1,300 or so. In the process of moving the jobs back they've swelled up to 3k.
While moving these jobs home will never make the US a manufacturing giant again due to advances in productivity, robotics and other areas it certainly will create valuable jobs at home.
Though, that article argues that the real value of the move home is in the ability to get manufacturers, designers and others as close as possible.
While moving these jobs home will never make the US a manufacturing giant again due to advances in productivity, robotics and other areas it certainly will create valuable jobs at home.
Though, that article argues that the real value of the move home is in the ability to get manufacturers, designers and others as close as possible.
While moving these jobs home will never make the US a manufacturing giant again due to advances in productivity, …
Not to pick on you, but this kind of statement is made so often that it's become received wisdom that "nothing's made in America anymore." But the US remains the largest manufacturer in the world. And while I don't have the numbers on manufacturing employment by country (anybody know where to look?), I'm sure the US is by any measure—including employment—a "manufacturing giant", even if it is more heavily roboticized and thus needs less labor for equivalent productivity.
Not to pick on you, but this kind of statement is made so often that it's become received wisdom that "nothing's made in America anymore." But the US remains the largest manufacturer in the world. And while I don't have the numbers on manufacturing employment by country (anybody know where to look?), I'm sure the US is by any measure—including employment—a "manufacturing giant", even if it is more heavily roboticized and thus needs less labor for equivalent productivity.
Technically, China nosed ahead of the USA as the world's biggest exporter of manufactured goods a year or two ago. Which means we're not on the top anymore, but also goes way against the popular misconception that the US has had a weak manufacturing sector for decades.
Not that Americans should see China exporting more goods as a sign that the US economy has fallen apart. China has over four times the population, meaning it's exporting less than a quarter as much stuff per capita. China could grow to export four times as much stuff and that still wouldn't be a sign that the US's manufacturing sector is declining, only that it's holding its position.
And realistically, the US's manufacturing sector is incredibly strong - not just compared to other countries in the present, but also in comparison to itself in the past. I've got no idea why Americans get so worried that the country can manufacture so much stuff so profitably and with so little labor input that most their citizens get to work in the booming service and leisure economy made possible by that unprecedented level of efficiency, and feast on the luxury it produces, instead of grinding away on assembly lines. It seems nobody's quite capable of seeing the forest for this one particular infuriatingly backward-looking tree.
Not that Americans should see China exporting more goods as a sign that the US economy has fallen apart. China has over four times the population, meaning it's exporting less than a quarter as much stuff per capita. China could grow to export four times as much stuff and that still wouldn't be a sign that the US's manufacturing sector is declining, only that it's holding its position.
And realistically, the US's manufacturing sector is incredibly strong - not just compared to other countries in the present, but also in comparison to itself in the past. I've got no idea why Americans get so worried that the country can manufacture so much stuff so profitably and with so little labor input that most their citizens get to work in the booming service and leisure economy made possible by that unprecedented level of efficiency, and feast on the luxury it produces, instead of grinding away on assembly lines. It seems nobody's quite capable of seeing the forest for this one particular infuriatingly backward-looking tree.
The US doesn't need to export as much as it actually consumes unlike the Chinese.
American manufacturing is large and sclerotic. The US numbers are reliant on large capital goods: aircraft, weapons, industrial equipment, etc. These industries are heavily subsidized and uncompetitive. Compared to Germany's network of small manufacturing firms, manufacturing in the US is structurally weak.
I'm not sure on the accuracy levels as it doesn't mention sources but I found this: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-count...
You're right. I guess what I meant to say is that we won't see the same kind of manufacturing we did in the past. As in we won't return to the "glory days" of manufacturing as a primary employment sector.
The US is and will remain a manufacturing giant. What you're seeing here is a weakening dollar and need for faster iteration.
Robotic manufacturing doesn't mean zero labor. There are still many jobs involved that can't be automated. Ford, for example, uses a significant amount of robotic assembly, but still employs over 150,000 people.
So yes, it replaces some jobs. But if we brought all manufacturing of domestic products back to the US, even if they were 100% produced with robotic manufacturing, there wouldn't even be enough workers to fill the necessary non-automated jobs.
So yes, it replaces some jobs. But if we brought all manufacturing of domestic products back to the US, even if they were 100% produced with robotic manufacturing, there wouldn't even be enough workers to fill the necessary non-automated jobs.
Not to turn political (And I'm independent) but Obama said something during the debates that rang really true to me. He said that the low level jobs in this country are going away for good and we need to focus on creating mid-level jobs.
It makes sense that as society and technology evolve, the low skill jobs will be replaced by automation. I think this is a good thing. In the long term, we shouldn't shun technology just because it keeps a real human from doing a mundane task 40 hours a week.
It makes sense that as society and technology evolve, the low skill jobs will be replaced by automation. I think this is a good thing. In the long term, we shouldn't shun technology just because it keeps a real human from doing a mundane task 40 hours a week.
This is why you don't see any janitors on the Enterprise.
I think an increase in robotic automated manufacturing is a definite positive (than the alternative -- outsourced assembly), since it incentivizes companies that make the robots for those lines, and companies that make the robots that make the robots for those lines, etc.
Many of the industrial assembly robots are made by Asian and European firms, but there are definite advantages to being local to your customers -- a significant increase in robotic manufacturing in the US could fuel a surge in robotics companies here as a result, which is an exciting possibility in my book.
Many of the industrial assembly robots are made by Asian and European firms, but there are definite advantages to being local to your customers -- a significant increase in robotic manufacturing in the US could fuel a surge in robotics companies here as a result, which is an exciting possibility in my book.
Robots don't replace people -- they empower them.
That's a good attitude, and I think we should decide our public policy with that assumption, but I have a hard time believing it is actually true.
Just as an example, a lights out factory is still going to need some people for maintenance but there is hardly any sort of "law of robotics" that suggests every manufacturing job lost is a maintenance job gained. Automation does replace people, in an ideal world the economy is strengthened by that automation and those people can therefore easily find new better jobs, but is there any evidence that is actually the case? I think the Rust Belt is evidence that it is not.
Just as an example, a lights out factory is still going to need some people for maintenance but there is hardly any sort of "law of robotics" that suggests every manufacturing job lost is a maintenance job gained. Automation does replace people, in an ideal world the economy is strengthened by that automation and those people can therefore easily find new better jobs, but is there any evidence that is actually the case? I think the Rust Belt is evidence that it is not.
I suspect this will be the mac pro line. This is probably the reason for the 2013 mac pro quote from Tim Cook.
You gotta start with something in order to build up a manufacturing base. Also, given that Apple is building huge datacenters of its own, it's likely they could be looking to in-source their own servers going forward as well.
[deleted](1)
> In a TV interview with Brian Williams, Apple CEO Tim Cook has said "we will do one of our existing Mac lines in the United States," vaguely confirming that production of either iMacs, Mac Minis or Mac Laptops will make a wholesale move to the US in 2013.
Doesn't the Mac Pro line make the most sense considering their low volumes and (I imagine) relatively high margins?
Doesn't the Mac Pro line make the most sense considering their low volumes and (I imagine) relatively high margins?
Hope so. Moving the Mac Pro assembly line might also imply they're finally getting a substantial redesign/update.
This is also what I'm hoping for.
I think Apple said the Mac Pro is getting an upgrade in 2013, so it seems likely.
I think Apple said the Mac Pro is getting an upgrade in 2013, so it seems likely.
I really hope so too. At some point in the near future I need to get a beefy desktop with current generation / upgradeable hardware, and i'd really enjoy it being a Mac.
(caveat: its not for gaming or vm instances, it'd be my frontline local machine for benchmarking hpc codes, 'cause a mb air doesn't cut it for that :) )
(caveat: its not for gaming or vm instances, it'd be my frontline local machine for benchmarking hpc codes, 'cause a mb air doesn't cut it for that :) )
Reporters are sometimes lazy, those in the techpress perhaps more so than others. If there's an Apple manufacturing in the US, that's a feel good story. Easier to write than a muckraker about rural Chinese who stepped off a turnip truck and into dormitories, long days, and low wages. Cheaper to cover, too - like that won't speak to editors.
It's a sausage factory for Disney's main street. And good PR.
It's a sausage factory for Disney's main street. And good PR.
You know, those Chinese guys have gotten 30% raises every year for a decade. And they were higher than the countryside even then.
One of the reasons I bought Sony Z-class laptop is because it is custom manufactured in Japan (not plastic-stamped in China or alike places like other laptops, including Macs).
With USA-built Macs - i'll be happy to get one too.
Different article, same topic, over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4881567
The global wage arbitrage bubble depends on huge spreads between "first world" and "third world" wages. That's because there are all kinds of hidden costs to outsourcing: the difficulty of communication and coordination, travel, long-distance shipping, longer lag-times, political instability risk, etc. Even a seemingly small close in this wage spread could crash the outsourcing bubble when these hidden costs are considered.
>long-distance shipping, longer lag-times
I was told that according to a supply chain exec at a major US retailer, saving 1 day in supply chain lag time would save said company $100MM per year.
I was told that according to a supply chain exec at a major US retailer, saving 1 day in supply chain lag time would save said company $100MM per year.
I believe it.
A friend was a process engineer at a Ford plant.
Every time the line stopped moving (even if for only a few seconds), they calculated it cost a minimum of $10mil.
A friend was a process engineer at a Ford plant.
Every time the line stopped moving (even if for only a few seconds), they calculated it cost a minimum of $10mil.
Wasn't that turned upside down by the Toyota way of doing it? I remember hearing an episode of This American Life about it. The difference being that it saves more money to fix the problem right the first time then continue the line rather than continuing the line at all cost and fixing later.
I believe it was http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n... where they interviewed people involved with it.
I believe it was http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n... where they interviewed people involved with it.
This particular ford plant gets engines Just In Time from the foundry ~100km away, using a highway that has frequent traffic jams.
It was found that when a truck load of engines was late, the most cost effective thing to do was to crush the brand new engine-less cars, and crush the engines when they arrived rather than either stop the line, or try to shuffle the cars & engines in at a later time. It was mind-boggling, but the numbers were run many times in many different ways and it was true.
It was found that when a truck load of engines was late, the most cost effective thing to do was to crush the brand new engine-less cars, and crush the engines when they arrived rather than either stop the line, or try to shuffle the cars & engines in at a later time. It was mind-boggling, but the numbers were run many times in many different ways and it was true.
The key to the Toyota method is that over time, it results in fewer line stoppages overall, because real or potential problems are identified quickly.
If a bolt is hard to thread, but you never stop the line, you're going to get a lot of crossthreaded bolts. But if you stop the line for every crossthreaded bolt, the company will very quickly realize they need to spec or design a better bolt.
So, the "anyone can stop the line" mindset only works in the context of a management philosophy that values continuous improvement.
If a bolt is hard to thread, but you never stop the line, you're going to get a lot of crossthreaded bolts. But if you stop the line for every crossthreaded bolt, the company will very quickly realize they need to spec or design a better bolt.
So, the "anyone can stop the line" mindset only works in the context of a management philosophy that values continuous improvement.
Sp what was the huge tax break Obama offered Jobs, and Cook acted on it?
You think Apple prices are high now? Oh man, just wait and then the world will see just how absolutely spoiled we are by the dearth of humane labor laws in Asian countries.
Could it be the new imac?
that's going to be the extra extra premium pricing line?
I'd be curious to hear how many units those lines will produce & how many employees will be needed to man them.