Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Desktops (Apple) Iphone Apple Hardware

Apple In Talks With India To Manufacture Locally (reuters.com) 118

Apple is in talks with India's government to explore making products locally, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, as the U.S. firm aims to make deeper inroads in the world's second-largest mobile phone market by users. From a report: India Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to boost technology manufacturing in the country through his 'Make in India' initiative. His government in June exempted foreign retailers for three years from a requirement to locally source 30 percent of goods sold in their stores. The Journal said Apple, in a letter to the federal government in November, outlined manufacturing plans and asked for financial incentives.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple In Talks With India To Manufacture Locally

Comments Filter:
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @12:52PM (#53523727)
    >> His government in June exempted foreign retailers for three years from a requirement to locally source 30 percent of goods sold in their stores

    Imagine if Trump announced a requirement that foreign retailers locally source 30 percent of their goods. The Republicans would fight it because "free trade" and the Democrats would fight it because "Trump == Hilter". But the bulk of Americans would probably support it...and that's why our political parties have lost their moorings.
    • The American people should support it l up until the check out line when the price of their goods shot up 50% to cover the inflated costs of manufacturing in the USA.

      Not even Trump can afford to make clothes in the USA the cost is too high. In the end these costs will be meaningless as robotic factories will be designed to build package and ship what you want when you neeed it. As that happens manufacturing will go where the buyers are to lower transportation costs

      • price of their goods shot up 50%

        Non-hyperbolic [citation needed] for that.

      • The American people should support it l up until the check out line when the price of their goods shot up 50% to cover the inflated costs of manufacturing in the USA.

        Not even Trump can afford to make clothes in the USA the cost is too high. In the end these costs will be meaningless as robotic factories will be designed to build package and ship what you want when you neeed it. As that happens manufacturing will go where the buyers are to lower transportation costs

        That's the point. If automation is gonna do the bulk of the manufacturing, which it has to to enable that sort of precision manufacturing of things like phones, then it makes most sense to manufacture locally. Apple seems to realize this as they make plans to manufacture in India for that market, and here for the US market.

        Philosophically, Trump seems to be on the same page as Modi, even though by temperament, Modi is more akin to a Ted Cruz than to a Trump

      • by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @03:57PM (#53525609)
        This is why the system is so screwed up. Even if prices shot up 50%, every cent would go to boost the American economy, and everyone would win over the medium and long term. And so replace your iPhone every 3 years instead of every 2. Same money spent, plus 1 million Chinese jobs can move back to America. Using your phone a bit longer is a small price to pay.

        And how much of this dirt cheap Chinese manufacturing ends up costing so much more (sulphur drywall in florida homes, formaldehyde in wood flooring, poison pet food and baby formula, etc, etc, etc). And how much of it ends up in American landfills before the box it was shipped in does? Just buy less garbage, and manufacturer more expensive tech that you'll keep longer. Better for America, better for the average person even paying the higher price, and better for the planet.

        The problem is all the idiot voters who can't see past their next pay check until that pay check never comes again.
        • Even if prices shot up 50%, every cent would go to boost the American economy

          Purchases would decline sharply in many market segments, because the perception of value (such as it is) would evaporate in very short order.

          Which would not boost the American economy.

          And so replace your iPhone every 3 years instead of every 2. Same money spent,

          How about the attitudes that change to "I don't think I need another iPhone"? Do you think that's a factor that should be ignored?

          You want to boil the froggies, you better

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The American people should support it l up until the check out line when the price of their goods shot up 50% to cover the inflated costs of manufacturing in the USA.

        Not even Trump can afford to make clothes in the USA the cost is too high. In the end these costs will be meaningless as robotic factories will be designed to build package and ship what you want when you neeed it. As that happens manufacturing will go where the buyers are to lower transportation costs

        You don't seem to understand economics. Or maybe you do but you, like too many, keep talking about the cost too high in the USA.

        Tell me this: how in blazes did people in the USA afford clothing before all this globalization? Were they mostly naked, or wore animal skins? Or maybe rags?

        The problem with global trade is that it is not a fair or level playing field. It is manipulated by very wealthy people who "invest" in money markets and other buying and selling of foreign currencies, all of which affect t

      • You mean like American Apparel? The ones who make their clothes domestically?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Trade is beneficial. Trade lowers prices and increases wealth. Moving the manufacture of goods which have been offshored back to America would mean that those very factory workers would work longer hours to buy the same goods they're making. Above a certain factory worker wage, there would be fewer factory workers than lost American jobs; below a certain factory worker wage, we'd come up short, and so create American jobs to fill.

      So, we're talking about destroying American jobs and making all American

      • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @02:05PM (#53524479)

        The only thing that matters to the macro-economy as a whole is employment. Unless you plan on replacing the entire "money as a store of value" system, you need a supply of all kinds of jobs across the employment spectrum to ensure money can flow. Otherwise, we see what's happening now -- the rich just hoard all the money and pull up the ladder behind them. The only measures of economic health that matter are employment and velocity of money. Trade is only beneficial when both countries are on the same economic footing.

        India's regulations may seem harsh, but they do ensure that manufacturing remains a viable career path. The fantasy of turning everyone in the US into intellectuals and forcing everyone to go to college has to stop at some point. You need a 2-track system -- one way to a comfortable living is education and professional work, and the other is high-paying factory and trade work with a similar career path guaranteed by unions or similar devices.

        • the rich just hoard all the money and pull up the ladder behind them.

          What a perfect analogy.

          Reminds me of the Kennedy's. Get stinking rich by defrauding the stock market at the top of the 20th century. Then go work for the govt to regulate the stock market and prevent anyone else from doing the same. Seems like the status quo for capitalism in North America with corporate consolidation

          • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            One could argue they did citizens a favor by using their personal knowledge of slimebaggery to prevent future slimebaggery.

            Like the old saying: sometimes it takes an experienced criminal to catch an experienced criminal.

          • The Kennedys got stinking rich by bootlegging. Anything after that was them 'going legit'.

        • The only thing that matters to the macro-economy as a whole is employment.

          Not necessarily. Some value "stuff" more than employment. It depends on the person. Being unemployed carries a nasty stigma, especially for males. But some may be okay with robots and commie slaves doing all the work as long as they still get stuff.

          The fantasy of turning everyone in the US into intellectuals and forcing everyone to go to college has to stop at some point.

          Another approach for our economy is to have fewer jobs-protectio

        • the rich just hoard all the money and pull up the ladder behind them.

          I mean, I can buy roughly twice as much stuff with the median income today than I could with the median income in 1995. How many quad-core processors, gigabytes of RAM, satellite navigation systems, and high-end smart phones could you buy in 2002? What did 10GB of 4G data plan and streaming music and video cost you? How much did Comcast charge for 200Mb/s internet?

          It's true food has only gotten marginally cheaper, clothing has only dropped by some small fraction, and the housing market has been a mess

          • IT workers are glorified burger flippers.

            Exactly this. I had the same conclusion before IT was a thing and was called 'computers'. But thought auto mechanic because that was the looked down upon noskill job at the time that every guy did on the weekend for fun in their driveway hobby. How was my plugging in wires and flipping switches any different than someone plugging wires and hoses into their car?

          • I can buy roughly twice as much stuff with the median income today than I could with the median income in 1995.

            When robots have replaced [nearly] all the workers the median wage will be zero. What will you be able to buy with that?

            People think I'm a genius

            How nice. Are there any geniuses among them?

            • When robots have replaced [nearly] all the workers the median wage will be zero. What will you be able to buy with that?

              You say that as if they haven't. 90% of the American labor force in 1870 were farm workers. Did you know nowhere near 90% of Americans aren't working on the farm or on anything which is consumed by the farm today? It's actually closer to 12%.

              Not a lot of rail workers today, either. The wooden shipping pallet eliminated a good 90% of dock worker jobs, too, along with anyone else whose job it was to load anything.

              When robots have replaced nearly all the workers, we'll pay 1/1000th as much wages to buy

        • by ghoul ( 157158 )

          If I could have a middle class life with high school education and a stress free manufacturing job why would I go into professions and deal with all the mental stress of college and professional career? One cannot expect to have the same standard of life by being less smart and less hardworking. No amount of Unions will ever change that.

      • Trade is beneficial.

        Trade lowers prices and increases wealth.

        Only when it's not destroying entire regions.

        It's easy to write off entire regions and wait for the displaced to die, which is your solution.

        It's harder, but more proper and prosperous to continuously re-integrate the displaced, even if it means forsaking certain trade policies.

        • You mean like

          Obviously our economy tanks if we go 30% unemployed overnight

          Because I covered that.

          It's harder, but more proper and prosperous to continuously re-integrate the displaced, even if it means forsaking certain trade policies.

          So, as we've outsourced more jobs, as we've progressed in technology, and as we've continued to lay off Americans in these processes, we've added more population; and we've added more jobs than labor force. Even if you account for our "labor force" by counting the peak labor force participation rate out of the current population over age 16, we end up with more total employed, fewer total unemployed, and fewer underemployed over the past half-decade, decade, and two d

      • Trade makes products available and that's beneficial.
        But this comes at a price increase. Americans pay a multiple for the cotton from India compared to when it were produced locally, because of middlemen, traders and transportation. So here trade isn't beneficial because America can produce the cotton itself.
        The same goes for Apple products. Almost. The difference being that it would cost a bit more due to higher American taxes, but those taxes will be returned to the workers' wages through the purchase o
        • But this comes at a price increase. Americans pay a multiple for the cotton from India compared to when it were produced locally, because of middlemen, traders and transportation. So here trade isn't beneficial because America can produce the cotton itself

          But Americans can produce cotton for $500, whereas it's $125 from India.

          By the way, it costs under $1,300 to import a 40-foot shipping container from China to the United States. That container carries 20,000 pairs of trousers or 20,000 jackets. That's 6.5 cents per.

          Tell me again about how much it costs to bring cheap cotton from India instead of using expensive cotton from America.

          • Ok, you convinced me about the transportation costs.
            You left out the middlemen and traders though.
            • Middlemen and traders are subject to market pressure. If I want to sell you a $20 shirt but the next guy can sell you the exact same shirt for $15, I've got a problem. I can find another supplier who will sell me the cotton for $4 instead of $9, and I'm all set.

              If my suppliers are all losing business, they might just cut back the cost of cotton to match. Likewise, if my suppliers can't supply with the same risk--if they're bringing from halfway around the world and the next guy is coming from my back

              • Currently, I've heard, for the amount of cotton needed for one shirt, the Indian farmer gets $0.5, the middleman $5 and the seller of the shirt $15-$20.
                Here the middleman clearly increases the price with a factor 10, not 1.1.
                • The thing is international shipping (and shipping in general) is cheap; but there's a large chain between the farmer and the store.

                  In America, farmers hardly ever get more than a 10% margin (they want 20% by convention, and consider it a decades-long crisis they can't get it). The average profit margin across the entire chain from farm to retail is 10%--and the supermarket has a 2% margin. That means nearly 90% of the cost of oranges is actually the cost of oranges, not some major profiteering.

                  Oranges

                  • The main difference between cotton (which I was talking about) and oranges (which seems to be your favourite subject, is that oranges are >90% water, cotton barely 15%.
                    Hats off for your detailed cost break-down though.
                    I think we should agree that the transportation costs/value-ratio is highly product-dependent.
                    I learned by chance that on the Philippines, rice farming has a margin of more than 100%, so maybe some farmers should consider to relocate? :)
                    • Rice farming has a margin of over 100%? What, is it just that damned cheap? Maybe we should import rice from the Philippines; then our rice farmers can go out of business, and that portion of the labor market can instead produce streaming media or high-end cars or whatever (or else--or in part--just the labor force growth slows as those jobs trickle away--many of which are import labor, anyway, so fewer H1B Visas--and our population adapts to the size of the job market; either way, we'll be buying more th
                    • Calm down man. I wrote on the Philippines the margin is >100%.
                      That is because the market is protected, so it's the other way around than where you were galloping: If the importation were free, Philippine farmers would go out of business. That would lead to uproar and revolution and therefore government doesn't allow it.
                      Or maybe it's because the 10 or so families that are in control of the Philippines are too heavily invested in rice farms.
                    • Ah okay, so rice is expensive in the Philippines, not ridiculously-cheap. I guess that's good for the farmers and bad for the poor and middle-class.

                    • The salary of 'the poor' can afford to buy up to 4 kg rice per day... if they manage to find something to do for that day.
                      Don't worry about the middle class, they're doing just fine and ever better.
                    • I'd expect India isn't entirely without homeless and hungry, although I guess that's what you meant by finding something to do for that day. On the other hand, can they afford 4kg of rice, plus rent, and all the other stuff they need?

                      When the middle class can buy more, it means they can create more jobs. In the long-run, job creation doesn't affect unemployment, due to population (and labor force) growth to fit availability; although the ability of the consumer base to buy many things means they can ada

                    • On the other hand, can they afford 4kg of rice, plus rent, and all the other stuff they need?

                      No. No rental, squatters live in their own little bamboo houses in the middle of rice fields or dirty sewer-less overpopulated areas in the cities.
                      They can afford to pay their monthly water and electricity bills at the equivalent of 1 kg rice each and that's it for the periodical expenses.
                      Health care is 'free', as long as you're admitted in the public hospital and don't need anything else than their limited pharmacy can supply.
                      Schooling is 'free' as long as you can pay the extra fees the school governing

                    • Nod. Protectionism is bad for the economy at large for reasons I've mentioned; but this is ... well, India has problems not caused by their economic gaffes. That's a long list of pure corruption and poor technical progress, right down to waving around a political talking point of public healthcare while providing nothing of the sort once you get in the door.

                      Seriously, though, education that's free after you pay for it? That's called "buying something".

                    • The government decides education should be free, teachers and principals however want a little higher salary.
                      Or the government simply doesn't provide a budget for school materials because they know the money will not be used for that and so skip it altogether.
                      You have no idea what levels of abuse are common practise over there...
      • Trade is good overall, however areas with too low wages and piss poor enforced environmental regulations should have tarifs to encourage change and allow countries that have good conditions to compete.
        • Is that the Chinese slave labor argument?

          Chinese laborers's wages have gone up quite a bit in recent years. China also has lower poverty indicators than the United States--notably, less per-capita hunger (50,000,000 Americans go without enough food each day) but apparently higher homelessness (it's hard to find statistics on this; it's rumored to be 1.6 million in America and 12 million in China, or .49% in America and .88% in China).

          China's economy relies on a favorable export market for their manufac

    • But the bulk of Americans would probably support it...

      Until the price of their latest 4K TV doubled, then they'd scream blue murder.

      What people conveniently forget is how expensive US-made consumer goods used to be.

      Here's a 19" color TV from the 1977 Sears Catalog.

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]

      $1700 in 2016 dollars.

      • Has the price fallen due to globalization, or general technical progress?

        • For most consumer goods the largest 'sunk cost' is the labour to put it together. Prices on consumer goods have fallen due to -

          - Automation (= fewer labourers)

          - Outsourcing labour to put the thing together to lower-cost jurisdictions

          That applies to both the thing itself, and the components that make up the thing.
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @01:22PM (#53524047)

    A lot of people might not know that India has a very protectionist policy regarding manufactured goods. It's very difficult to get items into the country from outside if there's any chance they will be used to conduct business. The company I work for is currently engaged in a love affair with India and Brazil for offshore development. Some of the stuff they're writing requires local access to hardware they can't just buy off the shelf from a distributor...there are only a few manufacturers out there and they're not making it in India. Getting anything into both of these countries that wasn't made there doesn't just involve paying a duty -- there's a byzantine maze of regulations, forms, local officials to pay, special assessments, personal visits to Government Agency X for stamps and signatures, etc. Last time this happened it took 4 months to ship the offshore company hardware -- and that's with our company having connections in the form of logistics specialists who know what actually needs to happen.

    Apple just doesn't want to lose a potential market of over a billion people. They'd rather take the short term "loss" manufacturing at slightly above slave labor rates to ensure their products can be sold domestically. This is also happening to a lesser extent in Brazil, for the same reasons.

    It's very ironic that a country whose major export seems to be IT "services" to the US and Europe has such a protectionist policy regarding manufacturing. Maybe they see what's happening in their customers' countries and don't want to have a rebellion on their hands when wages start going up inside their country. Personally, I'm for protectionism. It's a balance against the power of companies. Growing up in the Rust Belt and watching whole cities get hollowed out as companies chased cheap Southern, then foreign labor, was not fun. I seriously doubt Trump is going to follow through on his tariffs and protectionist platform...his buddies are going to demand that he put a stop to it, and they have more power than the working class types who helped vote him in.

    • A lot of people might not know that India has a very protectionist policy regarding manufactured goods.

      India has a very protectionist policy regarding everything. Why everybody doesn't just tell them to do the needful and fuck off is a mystery.

    • Apple is pretty late to the Indian market. There, it is perceived as a company whose products cater only to the elite: it's only the richest of Indians who prefer going w/ iPhones. That country is a pretty safe market for the Galaxy, and in India, companies don't lose marketshare overnight unless they really screw up. Note that Blackberry was still popular in India long after RIM had lost marketshare in the West. Apple would also have to have a shitload of local apps: currently, one has to access th
    • Why is it ironic? They're trying to protect domestic industries. That used to be called 'strategic self interest' in the USA until we decided to commit national suicide.
    • by ghoul ( 157158 )

      First of all India's major expot is not IT services. It is people. India exports people and the people send back remittances for their families which is the largest fraction of incoming foreign exchange into India.
      India has a large and young population and needs mass manufacturing to move from a developing to a newly developed country like China has. The total size of the software industry is 1 million people in India. That cannot be the solution when you need to find jobs for a 100 million. Manufacturing i

  • Trump has already lost Apple for manufacturing jobs in flyover country. So much for that campaign promise.

    • How?
      • How?

        According to various Trump supporters on Slashdot, the election of Trump has caused the stock market to boom, turned back job-killing regulations and jobs are flooding back into the country. If Apple goes to India for manufacturing, Trump had obviously failed to keep his campaign promise. Never mind that Trump haven't been sworn into office and many of his policies won't go into effect until the 2018 fiscal year.

        • But this is a separate deal that Apple signed w/ India regarding phones that get sold in India. In short, instead of shipping phones from Chinese warehouses to Apple stores in India, they will manufacture them in India and sell them there. That doesn't affect anything in the US: if Apple does decide to make phones in the US, it'll still happen, and if they don't, then they'll continue to ship Chinese made phones to the US. Unless Trump totally blows up all trade links w/ China, forcing Apple to move thei
          • But this is a separate deal that Apple signed w/ India regarding phones that get sold in India.

            No, no, no. All manufacturing must be done in the U.S. to bring jobs back and make America great again. If Apple isn't doing that, it will get penalized or put out of business. Trump! Trump! Trump!

  • Makes me glad that I am absolutely Apple-free! Open source all of the way. Make your shit in the US!
  • I'll ask just one more time, this is local?

  • [Apple] outlined manufacturing plans and asked for financial incentives.

    Apple: We'd like to make more money selling iCrap to India.
    India: That sounds great!
    Apple: Give us money first.

    ... 3 years later ...
    India: It appears you owe 3% taxes on the locally sourced 30% hardware. If you would kindly remit payment...
    Apple: According to our Irish subsidiary, we don't have any sales in India.

    • by ghoul ( 157158 )

      India: It appears that your entire IT workforce has not paid their Indian taxes on their Apple salaries. We are attaching their Indian properties. (Cue: Entire Apple IT workforce flies to India to file legal injuction cases. Apple grinds to a halt)
      Apple: To whom do I make out the cheque?

  • Perhaps Apple might want to consider doing that for the US and turning on Jobs' word.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Apple asks Indian government if they can set up a sweat-shop where they pay small change to Indian workers, while paying jack shit in taxes for the crazy revenue they will be making. What a fucking shit company.

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...