Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Portables Apple Idle

Idle: Four Injured In iPad Fight At Beijing Apple Store 194

Posted by timothy
from the iiiiiiiiiiipad-fiiiiiight! dept.
fysdt writes "Four people were taken to hospital and a glass door smashed as a near-riot broke out at Beijing's top Apple store among crowds rushing to snap up the popular iPad 2 tablet computer, state press said Sunday. Angry consumers began rushing the store on Saturday afternoon after a 'foreign' Apple employee allegedly stepped into the crowd to push and beat people suspected of queue jumping, the Beijing News said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Idle: Four Injured In iPad Fight At Beijing Apple Store

Comments Filter:
  • Coming to an Apple store near you!

    You can't buy that kind of publicity... Jobs is appeased.. for now.
    • by mmj638 (905944)

      I'm kinda disappointed. From the headline, it sounded like they were fighting each other *with* iPads.

  • And before you whine that iPad factories give better labour opportunities than the rice paddies, the same argument was used 200 years ago in England. Land use changes by country landlords, the increasing cost of living space and the goldrush mentality brought on by the success of initial migrants persuaded people into city slums: by the time they'd realised their fate a few years later, there was no way of moving back.

    If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living s

    • by Draek (916851) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @09:00AM (#36062144)

      If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer.

      Proof? I could just as well claim "if socialism were a success we'd be building homes on Mars by now", but that wouldn't prove anything other than my own ignorance of socialism and martian home-building.

    • by ctid (449118)

      If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours ...

      Why do you think that this should have happened already? Maybe in 100 years or 200 years, we will all be working fewer hours. Adults are already living significantly longer than they were even 30 years ago in developed economies. as these UK figures show [statistics.gov.uk]. I think if we are to make bald statements ("capitalism doesn't work", "socialism doesn't work") we need to look at things over a very long period of time. A single incident isn't going to g

      • So you're saying that the purpose of capitalism is to make things better 200 years from now? Was that its purpose 200 years ago? You sound exactly like the preacher: suffer today and you will find glory in the afterlife. Except you're not even offering glory for me, but for... the children I don't have?

        Also, your table gives at birth life expectancy.

        • So you're saying that the purpose of capitalism is to make things better 200 years from now? Was that its purpose 200 years ago? You sound exactly like the preacher: suffer today and you will find glory in the afterlife. Except you're not even offering glory for me, but for... the children I don't have?

          One can look at any country where Communism sprung up and how within a few short years they became gigantic slums, and then look at countries where capitalism has been in place (AFAIK, most of the world in the last several hundred years), and see how they have progressively improved; take your pick which you prefer. In the last hundred years in capitalist countries, we have had incredible advances in standards of living; in the last hundred years in socialist countries, you see downturns, in the most notab

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            The USSR had a downturn? I am not sure what they teach in American state schools, but can you begin to imagine what life would have been like as a peasant under the Tsar? 20 years later, its industrial might challenged Hitler. A decade later it was ahead of the US in the space race. When the US was still keeping niggers on the fields and women in the kitchen, the Soviets were providing excellent technical education and opportunity according to merit.

            As for Cuba, I know Americans aren't allowed there (perhap

            • The USSR had a downturn?

              Well, since it doesn't exist anymore...I would say that they kinda hit a rough patch.

              China? Well, they're certainly the most successful nation on earth right now, if success is measured in actually producing rather than trading in invisibles.

              China and the US both need each other. China would be in deep trouble if there weren't American's to buy what they make.

              • The rest of the world also buys what China makes. They'd obviously be making less money if the US wasn't buying, but they wouldn't be "in trouble".

                • True, but we are their best customer. You don't chase your best customer off. This is way way way better than what we used to have. Which was blowing all of us up.
              • Well, since it doesn't exist anymore...I would say that they kinda hit a rough patch.

                Since the individuals making up the various countries in the Soviet Union voted with a clear majority to keep the Union, the end of the USSR being the result of a minority revolution following Glasnost's breaking the Soviet command structure, I would say that the Union was a sabotaged success.

                The aim is not to beat everyone. The aim is to improve life, and the population of the USSR wanted the USSR to remain. (Satellite states wanted independence, just as many states are fed up with their American puppet go

              • Well, since it doesn't exist anymore...I would say that they kinda hit a rough patch.

                If you look at how it fell, I think it rather supports GP's point.

                Consider: the hasty fall of the Soviet Union was largely guided by an attempt at accelerated transition to semi-market economy. Furthermore, once finally dissolved, and pure market kicked in, it turned out that corruption did not go anywhere (as some promised), but that the old checks that were in place against it disappeared, and the market did not come up with any replacement. The result was rampant corruption and blinding-fast deceleration

            • by ErikZ (55491) *

              "I am not sure what they teach in American state schools, but can you begin to imagine what life would have been like as a peasant under the Tsar?"

              I'm sure it must have been terrible, after all, if it were great, Stalin would have let everyone know. Right?

              I'm also highly amused that you equate blacks working in the fields as slaves, but people who are sent to work for free in forced labor camps and are trapped within their county are not.

              • If you don't understand the difference between being put to work for a crime and being put to work for the colour of your skin, I'm not sure what to say.

                Now Stalin was obviously single-minded to the point of paranoid cruelty in certain years, just as Churchill was when, say, he let a million starve in Bengal. But Churchill gave his Empire away to the US, while Stalin brought more progress in shorter time to his nation than any leader throughout the twentieth century... so it's worth your being precise about

                • Stalin brought more progress in shorter time to his nation than any leader throughout the twentieth century

                  Wow. Just... wow.

                  You've raised trolling to a whole new level of play. Even the East German judge seems impressed.

                  • by Macgrrl (762836)

                    Next on Channel Troll; Dancing with the Stasi...

                  • But he is right, in a narrow sense. What Stalin did was ruthlessly sacrifice several million of people to rapidly advance USSR from the backwards, agrarian economy it was before his policies, to heavy industry world leader that could sustain sufficient output to defeat Germany in WW2. It's definite progress.

                    The ethical issues - whether the ends justify the means - is a separate question, and not easily judged in retrospect, especially as now we know that WW2 happened just in time for the fruits of that rapi

                    • I guess it comes down to whether you believe that sustainability should be part of the definition of progress. I'm not a leftist or hardcore environmentalist in most respects but I would argue that it should be. In other words,if you're doing something that won't cultivate a healthy nation, society, and economy over the next 100 years, you're not being 'progressive.'

                      Dictators like Stalin and Mao no doubt thought of themselves as progressives, but IMHO only posterity can apply that label, and posterity say

                    • USSR from the backwards, agrarian economy it was before his policies, to heavy industry world leader that could sustain sufficient output to defeat Germany in WW2. It's definite progress.

                      ...if your definition of progress means going from a government that WONT murder you in the name of modernizing, to one that will, then yes, I suppose so.

                    • In other words,if you're doing something that won't cultivate a healthy nation, society, and economy over the next 100 years, you're not being 'progressive.'

                      Even so. Stalin's reforms took a heavy toll short-term, but long term they laid down the groundwork for rapid increase in the quality of life in the Soviet Union in 50s-60s (after post-war restoration was complete - which itself took remarkably short time, considering the amount of devastation), which on some metrics rivaled the West - very impressive, considering how much the country was lagging behind at the beginning of the century, and considering that it had to go through two world wars and a bloody ci

                • Of course, a glance at US prison statistics and US prison ownership confirms that the US still engaged in race-based enslavement.

                  You have just committed that age-old favorite, assuming causation.

                  • Go on, you know you want to say it: black people are predisposed to criminal behaviour.

                    Either that or the system's biased against blacks.

                    Which is it?

        • by ctid (449118)

          "Like the preacher"? Bit of a straw man there.

          However, to address your argument, what would you say is the point of human progress? Surely the whole point of civilisation is that things get better over time? Over centuries in enlightened economies, people have worked for less hours, become wealthier and lived longer. It would be a very solipsistic view of all of recorded history to claim that we should have arrived at the point where most of our time can be spent in leisure just in time for you and I to en

          • Any regime which does not provide relief for people currently on earth, instead promising something better for future generations / afterlife reincarnations, is a dangerous con. People claiming to be capitalist, communist, fascist, anarchist and everywhere in between have been guilty of it.

            This doesn't mean instant gratification, but it must mean that the society you are living in must exist to make your life better providing you do not act at the expense of others in that society.

            It's expected that things

            • by ctid (449118)

              Any regime which does not provide relief for people currently on earth, instead promising something better for future generations / afterlife reincarnations, is a dangerous con.

              This is not what you were saying originally. You said: "If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not."
              I believe that people do work fewer hours than they did 200 years ago (at least in the UK) and I know that they do live longer (again in th

              • 200 years ago in the UK was well into the industrial revolution and the enclosure acts. They long hours that people were working was under capitalism. The reduction of working hours has been as a result of liberal reforms and trade unionism. With capitalisms second wind beginning with Thatcher, and the decline of liberalism and trade unionism, people's working hours have again been getting longer.

                Longer life spans have been largely down to improvements in medical science and in the structures of healthcare.

                • by ctid (449118)

                  I agree to a certain extent, but what preceded the industrial revolution was certainly not shorter working hours (or indeed better working conditions).

                  • Well... In the winter months they'd be shorter hours. The modern worker gets up in darkness and gets home in darkness. They'd have only worked when the sun was shining. But they'd work Saturdays and not get annual leave...

                    But really my point is that capitalism isn't responsible for shortening working hours or increasing lifespans. They have other causes.

                    Capitalism is only designed to do one thing - to generate money for people who already have money from the labour of those who don't already have money. Eve

                    • Capitalism isn't really "designed" to do anything, inasmuch as it's not an engineered social system. It gradually evolved out of feudalism as means of production and transportation improved (especially during the industrial revolution), making trade more and more relevant. The effect that you describe is just as much unintended as everything else about it.

                      Not that it matters. Why would anyone care if the effect is intended or not, if it's present?

    • "Living longer" has diminishing returns, you know. And many times "working fewer hours" is an option that many people have; they choose to work longer to improve their standard of living (which, I might point out, is so ridiculously high in capitalist countries compared to the rest of the world that your statement is borderline comedy).

      • How many countries have you lived in?

        • "Rest of the world" population-wise. Ie, middle-east (you know, where people are protesting because of their quality of life), east asia (N Korea, China), southeast Asia (india), Africa.

    • Today I can work 38 hours a week for a decent living wage, and expect to live well into my 80s, probably into my 90s and with a decent chance of seeing 100. My great grandfather had to work 80 hours a week for a poor mans wage, the entire household had to contribute to earnings and he was lucky to see his 70s.

      I think we have come on leaps and bounds since my grandfathers day - I'm not sure how you could say otherwise.

      • My great grandfather had to work 80 hours a week for a poor mans wage, the entire household had to contribute to earnings and he was lucky to see his 70s.

        Yup. But you know the difference between the society of your great-grandfather and yours? He lived in a much more capitalist society, the one where you had to pay for any healthcare 100% out of your own pocket, and government-imposed regulations on work hours, vacations and such were unheard of.

        • Funny you should mention that. Back in his great-grandfather's day, when everyone had to pay for healthcare 100% out of their own pocket, healthcare was affordable. It was reasonably priced. Doctors used to make HOUSECALLS for crying out loud. When your children got sick, you'd call the village doctor and he'd come down to your house with his doctor's bag and treat your kid. You did not have to be rich, ordinary families (and even some of the poorer ones) could do this. Try reading a book written in the 19t
          • Back in his great-grandfather's day, when everyone had to pay for healthcare 100% out of their own pocket, healthcare was affordable. It was reasonably priced. Doctors used to make HOUSECALLS for crying out loud. When your children got sick, you'd call the village doctor and he'd come down to your house with his doctor's bag and treat your kid. You did not have to be rich, ordinary families (and even some of the poorer ones) could do this.

            Depends on the treatment. Basic stuff, yeah, people could generally afford (but no, it wasn't really cheap). More serious treatments, not so much.

            Try reading a book written in the 19th century sometime.

            Yes, because people who couldn't afford healthcare back then would certainly be capable of writing a book about it!

            People living longer today is entirely due to advancement in technology (both medical and agricultural) -- not because they're in a communist/socialist utopia that magically grants long life.

            I didn't say anything about "socialist utopia". I merely noted that our modern society, while capitalist at its core, has integrated certain elements of socialism which led directly to improved quality of life. And I don't just mean socialized healthc

    • by gilesjuk (604902)

      Foxconn make stuff for Apple, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Intel Sony, Nintendo and others.

      So why focus solely on Apple?

    • by poity (465672)

      If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not.

      Downward path of working hours in US history (2 pages down) [eh.net]
      [PDF warning]Upward path of life expectancy in US history (page 11) [senate.gov]

      inb4 more excuses

      • Working hours - Which table are you pointing at to argue your point, please? The data shows a plateau since the 1930s, recalling the evil left wing New Deal, although the Adamson Act affected railroad workers earlier. In general, we can clearly see the collective bargaining power in the decades around the beginning of the 20th century and the response from government. More recent data reflect an increase in more recent decades, though it's a shame you've given little since 1980, when the trend really began

        • by Cederic (9623)

          Life expectancy - about the fifth misreading? Which part of adult sounds like at birth to you?

          Yeah. Fifth misreading by you.

          Which part of 'life expectancy at birth: 82 years' sounds like infant death to you?

          Sure, people could track average life expectancy of 50 year olds, but if you're going to pick an arbitrary age, why not start with the common one?

          Life expectancy at birth is the most straightforward measure of whether a population is like to live longer or not. It's the standard measure. It's used to understand adult populations. Can you please stop going at birth as though it's somehow beyond co

          • My assertion was, "If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not."

            Data showing "life expectancy at birth" is thus not relevant.

            Life expectancy at birth has gone up significantly thanks to universal sanitation and healthcare programmes: sewers, vaccinations, etc. No-one (sane) has denied the value of such government contributions to health, so I specifically excluded the death of the vulnerable young from my remark.

            • by Cederic (9623)

              I do apologise, I clearly made a very bad initial assumption.

              I had thought that by posting on Slashdot you were capable of rational logical thought and had a certain minimum level of intelligence.

              I am so terribly sorry for this misunderstanding, and hope this doesn't detract from the rest of your life.

              • When I was young, my family had a gardener. The gardener had a relation, called Cedric, who had learning difficulties. Cedric ended up turning up a lot of the time to help out, so my family paid him too. We would sometimes sweep up leaves together.

                Since then I have turned my back on thoughts of privilege and wealth, and the idea of employing a gardener, or even owning a garden, makes me shudder. The only one gardening with me is going to be sharing a garden with me. So the National Trust [nationaltrust.org.uk] and its affiliated

    • by PinchDuck (199974)

      I disagree with you, but won't bother with a back and forth. I'm guessing that your opinion is well considered over several years, as is mine, and won't be swayed by the same tired old arguments. Instead, I encourage you to demonstrate me a more efficient and effective economic system. For example, I know that many communes have been started over the years, and while they have a high failure rate, some are very successful and self sustaining. The problem is that the model can't seem to grow beyond a hundred

    • If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not.

      Adults have been living longer indeed comparing to pre-(capitalistic)-industrial revolution. People's average life span used to be in the 30s. And for large part, capitalism is the one to thank.

    • by Z34107 (925136)

      If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not.

      Go take a look at this graph [visualizingeconomics.com] and come back. Per-capita GDP isn't a perfect measure of wealth, but it's close enough for our purposes. You'll see that a time-travelling 1880s-man could choose, in this modern era, to:

      1. Keep the same income he had before, but only work one-hour days, or
      2. Kee the same hours he had before, but have more income

      Having a choice between "free t

      • Keep the same income he had before, but only work one-hour days

        And would he be able to purchase as much food now as he could back then, for the same income?

        • by Z34107 (925136)

          Yes; that graph is in constant dollars, and food is a lot cheaper now than it was an 1880.

          • that graph is in constant dollars

            It would help if the sources used to adjust for that were provided.

            • by Z34107 (925136)

              Likely the Bureau of Labor Statistics, although I don't know how much they really tracked pre-great depression.

  • by Kabloink (834009) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @08:49AM (#36062066)

    Product in short supply. Crowds rushing to get shiny product and trampling others in the process. Poorly trained employees.

    It's just like Black Friday at Walmart.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2011 @08:54AM (#36062102)

      Product in short supply. Crowds rushing to get shiny product and trampling others in the process. Poorly trained employees.

      It's just like Black Friday at Walmart.

      Um no. I didn't see any morbidly obese people.

      The trampling in China is much gentler because of the small normal weight people. If this happened in the US, many many people would have been crushed and there would have been an Earthquake with the resulting tsunami.

  • by jacksonyee (590218) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @08:55AM (#36062106) Homepage

    I just read this article [chinadaily.com.cn] on China Daily this morning about the mad rush for iPad 2s' today, saw a clip of this story on CCTV News half an hour ago, then come to read Slashdot only to find out that this story is the top of the front page. I've been reading Slashdot since 1997, and I'm used to stories being submitted days, weeks, months, and sometimes years after the fact. Apple fans going crazy for new products is too trite for news nowadays, but Slashdot being current is a rather creepy occurrence... I'm not sure whether to be pleased or to expect Duke Nukem Forever to be released next...

    A more interesting article from the site is the wearable cat ears that move to your expressions [physorg.com]. How long before all of the Cosplay girls start adopting these?

  • MIsleading Title (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DWMorse (1816016) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @08:59AM (#36062136) Homepage
    Damnit, misleading title. When you say "Pillow Fight" it means something specific, and when you say "iPad Fight" my imagination cheerfully brings me a fantastic mental image.
  • by theodp (442580) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @09:21AM (#36062298)

    That'll be $46,000, Mr. Jobs. [9to5mac.com] Now Apple knows how iPhone owners feel [apple.com]. :-)

  • I wasn't aware that China was granting work visas for people to work in retail. Sounds like bullshit to me.

    • by diakka (2281)

      Yes, they apparently needed a foreign expert to teach the locals how to stand in line. Those of you who have been to China will know that standing in line is a skill that is in short supply among local Chinese.

      • by dwater (72834)

        so true...but things change quickly in that country....well, in Beijing anyway.

    • by ErikZ (55491) *

      Well, he's foreign now.

  • This type of violence occurs at Filenes Basement at Downtown Crossing in Boston during the spring wedding dress sale, and for years the Boston Globe and Herald covered it as kind of a nod to the Filenes mystique. Then came Gang members shooting people over Nikes in LA. This is about crowd behavior, not the product, and publicity spin for the product is kind of 1990s. Move along, nothing to see here.
  • Proof that you don't have to be white to be an uncultured, racist asshole.

  • This is what happens when you try to keep addicts from their fix.

  • by BurningTyger (626316) on Sunday May 08, 2011 @11:12AM (#36063302)

    People just don't line up in China, period! This Apple store incident does not come as a surprise to me.

    I visited Shanghai two years ago and was waiting at the subway stop. I was the first waiting in line to get into the subway car. When the subway arrived, people behind me just rushed in, instead of waiting for the passengers in the car to exit. Needless to say, I was the first in line, and ended up not getting into the subway car. And Shanghai is suppose to be the most civilized city in China!

    By contrast, when I was in Taiwan the same month, I also took the subway in Taipei. Everyone lined up according to the direction. They waited politely for passengers to get off, and entered the car one by one. People also yield their seats to elders or pregnant moms.

    Having people camp out at Apple Store may be a good idea in other countries, but not in China. In China, people just would not patiently wait in line. They would try to cut the line whenever they could. They would elbow you or shove you out just to advance their queue.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      People just don't line up in China, period! This Apple store incident does not come as a surprise to me.

      It's not unusual, either. It's actually a one-dimensional mob [msdn.com] that quickly degenerates. It's all about the push and shove, really.

      And people in Japan also actually do tne orderly lineup thing. It's really just a Chinese trait.

      I'm surprised there's an iPad fight at the Apple Store - Apple's been requiring people to sign up and reserve iPad2's (and iPhone4's) in its Chinese stores for a while now, to avoid

    • by bronney (638318)

      Dude how else you think we invented kung fu!! Hai-ya!

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...