Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Tankwatch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rnsmth who wrote (16399)	1/31/2012 1:21:15 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32692

Feb 22, 2011: Chinese workers urge Apple to act on n-hexane poisoning guardian.co.uk

To: rnsmth who wrote (16399)	1/31/2012 1:25:29 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 32692

Apple Accused of Ignoring 'Human Cost' of Manufacturing By Ben Camm-Jones, Macworld-U.K. Jan 27, 2012 10:34 am pcworld.com Apple has been accused of 'ignoring the human cost' of its product manufacturing chain in a new report published this week. A New York Times article, following up on the article published last weekend that explained why Apple chooses to manufacture its products outside the U.S., quotes former Apple staff and contractors who accuse the company of being complicit to worker abuse. "Apple never cared about anything other than increasing product quality and decreasing production cost. "Workers' welfare has nothing to do with their interests," said Li Mingqi, a former employee of Foxconn Technology, who is suing Foxconn over his dismissal. Li helped manage the Chengdu factory where an explosion occurred in May of last year. The explosion killed three workers and injured scores more. Another fire occured at a Foxconn plant in Yantai in September, then in September there was an explosion at a plant belonging to another of Apple's manufacturing partners, Pegatron, which injured 61 workers. A former Apple executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the New York Times: "We've known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they're still going on. Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn't have another choice." Though safety in plants owned by Apple suppliers (the article does point out that similar criticisms have been made about supply partners for Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, and Toshiba) is the main focus of the article, there are more general points raised about working conditions and the hours staff have to work. "Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Underage workers have helped build Apple's products, and the company's suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors," the article asserts. Earlier this month Apple released its annual Supplier Responsibility report, in which the company claimed that it had found 'significantly fewer cases of underage labour' among its suppliers, which it also broke with tradition and named. Apple said in the report that it broadened its age verification program, which aims to stop underage labour among its suppliers. As a result, the company reported improvements in supplier hiring practices, with cases of underage labour down significantly. The report also disclosed a total of six active and 13 historical instances of underage labour at five facilities; Apple required those suppliers to improve labor recruitment practices and support underage workers going back to school. The audits found no cases of underage labor at the suppliers responsible for final assembly of Apple's products. However, another Apple executive who was quoted anonymously said: "You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards. Right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China." The New York Times report points to the fact that this issue has caused an "unresolved tension" in the company, with other executives uneasy about the working conditions, but unwilling to put relationships with suppliers such as Foxconn - which manufactures 40 percent of the world's electronic devices, it is reckoned - in jeopardy by making such demands. However, the eyes of the world are firmly on the company after its record-breaking financial results for the fiscal 2012 first quarter, and there is likely to be plenty more flak heading in Apple's direction no matter what steps it takes.

To: rnsmth who wrote (16399)	1/31/2012 1:28:17 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 32692

Apple's dirty little EULA publishing secret By Jack Wallen January 23, 2012, 7:14 AM PST techrepublic.com Takeaway: Jack Wallen investigates the Apple iBook EULA and explains why authors better beware of what they are agreeing to if they use the iBook publishing platform. Imagine if Microsoft attempted to lay claim to anything you had written using MS Word. Or what if Adobe took you to court saying the images you created using Photoshop were their property? Companies have been hiding dirty little secrets in their End User License Agreements for years. They couch these nefarious deeds within the legalese, knowing full well that most users either (A) Don’t read EUlAs or (B) Wouldn’t understand the legalspeak to begin with. Well that’s exactly what Apple is doing with their new iBook Author publishing platform. If you read the EULA you will first come across this little ditty (in bold at the top): If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software … you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple. Following that, in Section I, you’ll see: B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows: (i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means; (ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution. This is new to me in that Apple is making the user know that they claim right to not only the software, but the output of the software, and of that output, Apple wants a cut. Now, for those that have actually tried this software out, you notice there is nowhere to accept or decline the license. Some authors are willing to take a chance with this and ignore the verbiage in the EULA. I’m not. Why? I am simply not willing to go up against a team of Apple lawyers. I’m told they eat their young. I am simply not willing to chance going to battle with one of the most powerful marketing machines on the planet. Backstory Okay, I’m going to digress just a bit, to explain why this is fairly broad-reaching. I am an author directly affected by this. I sell books on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Smashwords, the iPad bookstore, the Sony bookstore, Kobo, and more. For both Amazon and B&N, I use their author portals for publication. For all others, I use a service called Smashwords. Smashwords serves as a distributor for all other ereader platforms and, although not perfect, by no means are they pulling stunts like this. End of digression. Apple announced a while back they would be creating their own publishing platform. Of course everyone assumed this platform would: Serve the public in similar fashion to that of the other platforms (in other words — be web-based). Not restrict the user from publishing their work elsewhere. Now, here’s the thing — what it SEEMS is that Apple is restricting the output of the program such that the user cannot take the created file and publish it elsewhere. That’s fine for most — IF that’s the case. But no one seems to really quite understand this bit of legalese because there is no precedent. And because there is no precedent, it will take the first lawsuit to figure this all out (unless Apple gets smart and rethinks this issue all together). Knee jerk reaction to Amazon There’s one other issue at hand, one that most people not directly involved in the publishing industry wouldn’t know. From what I have seen, this is a direct response to the Kindle Select Program. If you’re unsure — the Kindle Select Program allows authors to enroll their works in a program that requires ninety days exclusivity, but then gives that author some benefits (such as being part of the Amazon Prime machine and being a part of a fairly sizable pool of money to be distributed to all authors — based on sales and other factors). It’s that exclusivity that Apple doesn’t like. Thing is — Apple book sales are a pittance compared to Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Why? Because authors cannot directly publish with them — or couldn’t before the iBook Author program (and because the Kindle is, by far, a more popular ereader than the iPad). Now, authors with a Mac or iPad can publish directly to the Apple Bookstore — if you are willing to agree to the EULA. I’m not. So Apple will be without my books. Or they would, had it not been for Smashwords. Why is this important to you? Does this misstep by Apple make you want to more carefully read ELUAs? Yes No Already do I'm a lawyer, I eat these for breakfast Vote View Results Simple — EULAs are changing. Companies are inserting disclaimers inside their agreements, assuming you won’t read them, that could cause the user serious issues. Because of this, you should be reading these agreements. You wouldn’t want to find out all that data on your server actually doesn’t belong to you because it’s being served up by a platform who’s EULA (that you agreed to) states “All content served by this software is the legal property of US”. Apple is going to lose on this one. Very few writers I know will agree to these rights simply because they want their work distributed by as many platforms as possible. And until Apple retracts both the language and intent, this new tool of theirs will die a slow, lonely death.