inthesomeday
Immortan
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,798
Labor made my iPhone. Capitalism stole it.
"Capitalism made your iPhone"
- Thread starter inthesomeday
- Start date
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Pervasive theft disincentives labor, which is why there were more iPhone hours per person pre-capitalism.
No, a highly coordinated and international manufacturing chain made your iPhone, with varying degrees of robotisation. And the coordination was done by capitalists in California. Labor is but a tiny part of the equation (manufacturing costs are only $5 per iPhone 7. The rest are components, and the biggest chunk of the price is Apple's profit).
And yes, a commie with an iPhone is highly ironic and a ready-made joke. An iPhone is the LV bag of phones. It might be good quality and all, but mostly you just pay for the brand, to flaunt your wealth and signal your belongings to some (wealthy) subgroup. A commie with an iPhone is no commie, just a clown.
And yes, a commie with an iPhone is highly ironic and a ready-made joke. An iPhone is the LV bag of phones. It might be good quality and all, but mostly you just pay for the brand, to flaunt your wealth and signal your belongings to some (wealthy) subgroup. A commie with an iPhone is no commie, just a clown.
Last edited:
Perfection
The Great Head.
I've designed a smartphone. I know what you need.
It couldn't be done without the incredible access to parts I have with capitalism. I get to choose among hundreds of backlight controllers to find the one that works for my needs. Communism would not have supplied the incredible breadth and quality of parts for me to pick from.
It couldn't be done without the incredible access to parts I have with capitalism. I get to choose among hundreds of backlight controllers to find the one that works for my needs. Communism would not have supplied the incredible breadth and quality of parts for me to pick from.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Okay, how's the picture like when instead of measuring by market price we measure it by fte's?
The production of iPhones may just as well be part of a certain tradition, as opposed to a marketing gimmick. Products crafted in the Apple tradition aren't generally focussed on shiny hardware or good price-performance ratio, these are made as complete devices to satisfy its users.
Which Communism?
Perfection
The Great Head.
The kind without Chinese characteristics
Kozmos
Jew Detective
I'd imagine you would have to design your own then.
Not sure how that's relevant? Again, direct labor is but a tiny part of the cost of an iPhone, and an insignificant part of the price (which is mostly an enormous profit margin).
And the type of user who wouldn't be satisfied with an equally (or more) performant smart phone that costs a fraction of an iPhone has a name: wealthy hipster (or some other wealthy subgroup with expensive tastes).
There's no way around it. The iPhone is conspicuous consumption, nobody needs it, and there are excellent and highly performing phones that cost way less. I don't blame at all people who have iPhones - I have one myself, though I don't use it that much - just like I don't blame people who have LV bags or Rolex watches. But then again I'm no commie hypocrite.
For many applications, there doesn't exist any equally performant smartphone, the Apple SoC team is years ahead of the rest of the industry.
Anything JavaScript based (i.e. any websites, any apps based on web UI frameworks), is nearly entirely single-threaded, and everything else is still subject to Amdahl's law. The fastest non-Apple (Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, Samsung Exynos 8895, Hisilicon Kirin 960) all have comparable performance to the three year-old Apple A8X from 2014. The current (due to be superseded next month) A10 is nearly twice as fast as any of them.
The comparison with Rolex is ironic, since the Apple watch is actually more performant at keeping time than any Rolex.
If you actually calculate price : performance, garbage tier (i.e. Amazon ad-supported cheap Android phones) are #1 because of how cheap they are, iPhone is a close #2 because of how performant they are, and everything inbetween is woeful on that ratio.
Anything JavaScript based (i.e. any websites, any apps based on web UI frameworks), is nearly entirely single-threaded, and everything else is still subject to Amdahl's law. The fastest non-Apple (Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, Samsung Exynos 8895, Hisilicon Kirin 960) all have comparable performance to the three year-old Apple A8X from 2014. The current (due to be superseded next month) A10 is nearly twice as fast as any of them.
The comparison with Rolex is ironic, since the Apple watch is actually more performant at keeping time than any Rolex.
If you actually calculate price : performance, garbage tier (i.e. Amazon ad-supported cheap Android phones) are #1 because of how cheap they are, iPhone is a close #2 because of how performant they are, and everything inbetween is woeful on that ratio.
Hey dude, if you hate capitalism so much then why not make your own iPhones? Screw Apple, who needs those filthy capitalists anyway
But on a more serious note, paid voluntary labor can hardly be called theft. When you work for an employer, you're voluntarily selling your labor in exchange for money. If you don't want those filthy capitalists to steal your iPhones then feel free to build your own iPhones in your garage
Whatever floats your boat. Keep on telling yourself that a $700 phone is all about performance. I don't care, I have one myself and I like it (though I'm not in love with it). I'm all for capitalism and for people buying whatever they want for whatever reason, so no need to convince me that your overpriced hipster toy is an entirely rational choice. I bought several myself over the years.
As for a Rolex and an (equally useless) Apple watch, I would point out that there are far cheaper options than both which also keep time at an extraordinary precision.
Hey, I don't own an iPhone, I've got no self-interest in reporting its unmatched performance.
I don't particularly like iOS, and don't think it's the right phone OS choice for me, even at double the performance.
It's actually fairly difficult for a non-smart watch to keep time as accurately as an Apple Watch, since they can't sync to NTP servers.
I don't particularly like iOS, and don't think it's the right phone OS choice for me, even at double the performance.
It's actually fairly difficult for a non-smart watch to keep time as accurately as an Apple Watch, since they can't sync to NTP servers.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Gee, I never though it would be so easy. Where are all the garage-assembled smartphones? Are there contests where people who recreationally build smartphones show them and compare them, perhaps?
Or are you just making up smart-ass replies, rather than anything serious? As you should know, even with supply chains for components you need scale to get anywhere near reasonable costs for mass produced industrial goods. "ou are free to make your own" does not scale with industrial goods unless you make your own industry.
And you need all that performance so you can... watch more script-infested adds in your iphone? Congratulations, you're a good masochist.
So, hey, the iPhone is probably one of the greatest success stories for people like me. Societies lay the groundwork, entrepreneurs take the ball and run it down-field.
Technology trends are something that I watch, because I have an endgoal in mind. So, we break down when something works.
Nearly every technology that the iPhone uses was first discovered due to government grant or due to a government contract.
Heck, how much of the computer groundwork was just laid by trying to fulfill NASA and defense grants?
And let's top it off with the maps feature, which is utterly reliant on GPS. And SIRI started as a defense grant .
This is something I dealt with in the lab all the time. We trawl through the databases created by government funding. We then flit through publications, looking for the information we need. I regularly look at the funding agencies of the stuff I find useful, it's charities and governments, nearly all the time.
And then I get a new idea. I then phone a handful of trained scientists who work for private laboratory supply companies. And I asked them to chat about which new products they've developed, any new trouble-shooting or new applications discovered, etc.
And, I personally experienced this jump in technology in our labs. Until you've spent days at a time asking one or two or three questions of a biological sample, and then half a year later find you can ask 16 questions in one day, you've not realized the ability to integrate forward-thinking seed funding from charities and governments coupled with entrepreneurs sifting through looking for marketable applications.
Technology trends are something that I watch, because I have an endgoal in mind. So, we break down when something works.
Nearly every technology that the iPhone uses was first discovered due to government grant or due to a government contract.
Heck, how much of the computer groundwork was just laid by trying to fulfill NASA and defense grants?
And let's top it off with the maps feature, which is utterly reliant on GPS. And SIRI started as a defense grant .
This is something I dealt with in the lab all the time. We trawl through the databases created by government funding. We then flit through publications, looking for the information we need. I regularly look at the funding agencies of the stuff I find useful, it's charities and governments, nearly all the time.
And then I get a new idea. I then phone a handful of trained scientists who work for private laboratory supply companies. And I asked them to chat about which new products they've developed, any new trouble-shooting or new applications discovered, etc.
And, I personally experienced this jump in technology in our labs. Until you've spent days at a time asking one or two or three questions of a biological sample, and then half a year later find you can ask 16 questions in one day, you've not realized the ability to integrate forward-thinking seed funding from charities and governments coupled with entrepreneurs sifting through looking for marketable applications.
Yes, obviously I realize that making iPhones requires a great deal of design and huge supply chains. That was the whole point. If labor were all it took then surely it would be no problem for OP to make his own iPhones. But it is much more complicated than that and that is why you need the capitalist system. To assign resources and to build supply chains.
Well, we cross-posted, but one of the big differences I don't own an iPhone is because I prefer Firefox with uBlock to avoid scripts on the web. There are plenty of reasons to prefer performant devices though. There are various js-based web frameworks like Ember.js to create rich web-based applications. Not to mention algorithms for better photography: How the Pixel's software helped make Google's best camera yet
But in any case, Apple is way ahead of any other phone manufacturer in avoiding script-infested ads. Most recently:
Intelligent Tracking Prevention
Apple adds auto-play video blocking to desktop Safari
Absolution
King
Well, at least Labour gave you electricity infrastructure to charge you phone.
In some countries...
In some countries...
I also want to point out that Apple emblemifies our current social concern: that the rich are getting richer faster than economic growth.
As well, the price that Apple pays for the iPhone is unfairly subsidized, since the people and communities hosting their manufacturing facilities don't have proper levels of negotiating power. There's a debate to be had about whether the race to the bottom is a good thing, in many ways it is. But there also has to be a floor. People working long, brutal hours for low wages is one thing. But toxins being released into their lungs (unknowingly) or into the local ecosystems is entirely another.
There's no doubt that Apple generates mad profits. Everyone who buys an iPhone perceives higher value for the purchase than what they paid - this the win/win good thing.
And then Apple generates huge amounts of money. But what do they do with it? Where's the supply-side benefit of a huge corporation pocketing lots of profits? Basically nothing.
It cannot think of useful things to do with that cash. Oh, the huge profits corporations have are then used to do share-buybacks in record amounts. This certainly helps the shareprice (temporarily, anyway). But all it does is concentrate the wealth upwards.
It holds the dollars out of the States, because they're playing chicken with the tax-man. But think what that means ... they cannot figure out what to do with that taxed money that will generate growth in the States. What are they funding outside the States? Basically nothing, or they'd not have the war-chest.
They don't have a supply-side thing to offer. They're lending money to governments at interest rates less than inflation. That's about it.
Handing billionaires dollars doesn't cause supply-side growth. What causes supply-side growth is investing in production. That's it. Apple cannot figure out a way to use dollars in any type of useful fashion. They can only woddle between share buybacks and dividends
As well, the price that Apple pays for the iPhone is unfairly subsidized, since the people and communities hosting their manufacturing facilities don't have proper levels of negotiating power. There's a debate to be had about whether the race to the bottom is a good thing, in many ways it is. But there also has to be a floor. People working long, brutal hours for low wages is one thing. But toxins being released into their lungs (unknowingly) or into the local ecosystems is entirely another.
There's no doubt that Apple generates mad profits. Everyone who buys an iPhone perceives higher value for the purchase than what they paid - this the win/win good thing.
And then Apple generates huge amounts of money. But what do they do with it? Where's the supply-side benefit of a huge corporation pocketing lots of profits? Basically nothing.
It cannot think of useful things to do with that cash. Oh, the huge profits corporations have are then used to do share-buybacks in record amounts. This certainly helps the shareprice (temporarily, anyway). But all it does is concentrate the wealth upwards.
It holds the dollars out of the States, because they're playing chicken with the tax-man. But think what that means ... they cannot figure out what to do with that taxed money that will generate growth in the States. What are they funding outside the States? Basically nothing, or they'd not have the war-chest.
They don't have a supply-side thing to offer. They're lending money to governments at interest rates less than inflation. That's about it.
Handing billionaires dollars doesn't cause supply-side growth. What causes supply-side growth is investing in production. That's it. Apple cannot figure out a way to use dollars in any type of useful fashion. They can only woddle between share buybacks and dividends
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
It's not that they can't think of anything useful to do with the money, it's that they aren't trying to. Apple's corporate culture maybe relatively liberal, but they are a corporation operating under a neo-liberal framework and worldview. In their conception of their role in the economy and world, supply-side growth is not what they are are here for. So yes, maybe investing in production would increase supply-side growth, but it would add additional production chains to be managed, additional costs and sure maybe there's profit - but is there as much as in whatever they're doing now?
Well, they'd invest in profitable things if they could think of them.
But that's not really my point. You're right, it's not their job or their mandate to provide supply-side growth. It's the failure of trickle down economics. It's the failure of the money version of supply-side economics.
People think that Apple isn't producing factories in America because of taxes. Not really. It's that they can't think of anything useful to do with their money.
But that's not really my point. You're right, it's not their job or their mandate to provide supply-side growth. It's the failure of trickle down economics. It's the failure of the money version of supply-side economics.
People think that Apple isn't producing factories in America because of taxes. Not really. It's that they can't think of anything useful to do with their money.
Similar threads
