[Moderator]

Asustek builds Apples iBooks and Powerbooks? (Engadget link)

I guess I realize there isn't some manufacturing plant with a big Apple logo on it where everything is built from scratch.

....but still its a little disappointing to hear that my notebook is an Asustek.

[MindFad]

14-inch widescreen iBook? SWEET!

[tooki]

Apple has outsourced its manufacturing for years -- many Apple parts were outsourced from day 1, and by the early 1990s (possibly earlier), some models were already being entirely built by outside vendors.

tooki

[turtle777]

For many years now, Apple has been basically an R&D and software company.
They are best at that. If Apple had never outsourced the manufacturing, I think they would be dead by now.

-t

[analogika]

Have Apple ever actually built a series of Powerbooks themselves?

[Don Pickett]

One of the secrets of the computer world is that most computers, regardless of brand, are built by the same manufacturers. There was an article about this about a year and a half ago which showed the assembly line of one of the major Asian manufacturers. There were Dells, PowerMacs and other machines all on the same assembly line.

[olePigeon]

My AirPort Express was built in Ireland.

[Link]

Your laptop is not an asus computer, it is indeed an Apple computer, just as much as a dell is a dell computer.

R&D that goes into a machine, NOT just design but FCC testing, airflow (cooling system) testing, power testing, and many man other factors affect the creation of a machine series. Every time they so much as change the processor they pretty much have to go over the whole process again.

Apple pays Asus to assemble their computers, the parts are supplied by apple from all sorts of various companies, and it's been in such a way for ages. Fear not, if you buy a CTO powermac it's STILL made in the US, likely LA or Sacramento.

[ReggieX]

IBM built the 2400, one of the best notebooks ever.

[ManOfSteal]

I remember when I used to think that Apple actually made the Cinema Displays...

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by analogika

Have Apple ever actually built a series of Powerbooks themselves?

Well, Sony made the PB100, so probably not.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika

Have Apple ever actually built a series of Powerbooks themselves?

They tried with the first G3 but it caught fire so gave it to Taiwan to build. It still caught fire.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Link

Fear not, if you buy a CTO powermac it's STILL made in the US, likely LA or Sacramento.

That's why its so damn expensive.

[andretan]

The first Bondi G3 iMacs were made in the Singapore Apple factory (... which is now defunct, and currently houses one of Apple Singapore's repair contractors, which are quite sometimes.)

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

One of the secrets of the computer world is that most computers, regardless of brand, are built by the same manufacturers.

It's the same in the TV world - there are only different three manufaturers of screens: Sony, Philips and Mitsubishi.
(at least that's what I was told in a store a few years ago)

[ShotgunEd]

Those are the 3 manufacturers of Cathode Ray Tubes. Different manufacturers can build screens using those tubes.

[badidea]

That's what I meant - screens, tubes, whatever...

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Link

Fear not, if you buy a CTO powermac it's STILL made in the US, likely LA or Sacramento.

...out of 99-100% Asian parts. It doesn't matter where it's assembled -- computer parts, save for Micron RAM and a smattering of specialty devices like video capture cards, are all made in Asia these days.

I mean, it's the same in pretty much all manufacturing these days. You think your Ford vehicle is made entirely from USA parts? Guess again, they may be assembled in the U.S., but half the parts are made in Mexico.

Think your Sony TV set for the U.S. market was made in Japan? Nope, Mexico.


The days of U.S. manufacturing are LONG gone. Most of it just slipped under the radar, since domestic final assembly, regardless of the source of parts, entitles the product to the "Made in USA" label.

tooki

[Sarc]

ASUSTek also makes -at least that I know of- the iPod shuffle.

[MindFad]

Am I the only one excited about a damn widescreen iBook?

[paul w]

No, I totally want one (provided they improve the display resolution).

[Apple Pro Underwear]

my tibook came from taiwan. sort of gave it away...

[Eriamjh]

My G4 was "assembled" in the USA. The mobo was likely assembled in China or Taiwan, along with just about everything else.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by tooki

I mean, it's the same in pretty much all manufacturing these days. You think your Ford vehicle is made entirely from USA parts? Guess again, they may be assembled in the U.S., but half the parts are made in Mexico.

This, btw, is also what makes all those anti-Airbus posts so utterly moronic.

Two thirds of the subcontractors supplying parts are located in the U.S.

The planes are assembled in Europe and sold from there. Whoopee.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

My G4 was "assembled" in the USA. The mobo was likely assembled in China or Taiwan, along with just about everything else.

Your G4 is as American as a new-born baby that was delivered by a Mexican woman who crossed the border days before delivery. It's all on paper, nothing else...

-t

[ghporter]

Tooki's right about just about everything being made from globally-sourced parts. My Honda Civic Coupe was built in Ohio of parts made in Ohio, Germany, Japan, Canada, and other places. (ALL Accords are built in Ohio-even the Japanese version, and all on the same assembly line!) In fact, my Ohio-built Civic replaced my then 9 year old Civic Hatchback that had been built in Ontario of parts from a similar variety of countries.

Our 18-month old iBook was built in Taiwan, though it seems that today's iBooks are built in China. Assembly is only one step; where was the logic board made? The display and drives? Odds are that they are only assembled in China of parts from Tiawan, Japan, Singapore, and other Asian countries.

And my Dell laptop was made in Taiwan too. Maybe in the same plant as the iBook...

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by analogika

This, btw, is also what makes all those anti-Airbus posts so utterly moronic.

Two thirds of the subcontractors supplying parts are located in the U.S.

The planes are assembled in Europe and sold from there. Whoopee.

Who cares where the subcontractors are located ? I could care less if 95% of the subcontractors were located in the USA.

That plane is still a bad idea. The Europeans are 3 decades too late in making a super jumbo jet.

In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing one can do is to make bigger planes that hold even more people.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Who cares where the subcontractors are located ? I could care less if 95% of the subcontractors were located in the USA.

That plane is still a bad idea. The Europeans are 3 decades too late in making a super jumbo jet.

In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing one can do is to make bigger planes that hold even more people.

You have a great point PacHead. We should just stop flying airplanes completely. In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing we can do is fly them.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by PacHead

In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing one can do is to make bigger planes that hold even more people.

Damn those European, jet-building TERRORISTS.

My take on it: this is a problem



-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika

This, btw, is also what makes all those anti-Airbus posts so utterly moronic.

Two thirds of the subcontractors supplying parts are located in the U.S.

The planes are assembled in Europe and sold from there. Whoopee.

It's not where the parts are made that is the point. It's where the money goes when the final product is purchased.

For example, when I bought my 2002 Civic Coupe, the money stayed in the U.S. Honda of America pays for its production in the States with what it makes from their sale. Some of the money goes back to Corporate HQ, but not much. Most of it pays for U.S. workers to assemble all those parts, U.S. truckers to move the parts and finished cars all over the place, etc.

Now, let's look at Airbus. From their corporate website:

In 2001 Airbus became a single fully integrated company incorporated under French law as a simplified joint stock company or S.A.S. (Société par Actions Simplifiée).

The four national entities which had previously formed the Airbus consortium transferred their Airbus-related assets to the new company and became shareholders in Airbus -- Airbus France, Airbus Deutschland and Airbus Espana merging as the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) with 80% shares and BAE SYSTEMS with 20%.

Manufacturing, production and sub-assembly of parts for Airbus aircraft are distributed around 16 sites in Europe, with final assembly in Toulouse and Hamburg.

Some-but not all-of those countries provide frank subsidies for their part of Airbus production. The others provide subsidies in non-overt forms, such as tax incentives and so on. The profit from the sale of an Airbus plane goes to companies that are effectively profiting twice-once from the customer, and once from the government.

In contrast, Boeing may have a few LOCAL tax incentives at its manufacturing locations, but is still liable for the full corporate income tax load it rates from its corporate income. They get NO special support from the U.S. government. Anything they sell to the government is paid for on the same cost basis that Continental Airlines would pay for a similar product.

That is a major difference. Boeing uses very little in the way of offshore parts and gets no subsidies, while Airbus uses parts from litterally around the world AND GETS SUBSIDIES from the governments in the countries in which it operates. That makes a difference.

There's "globalization" and then there's "globalization." In the case of Airbus, it's all local, not global.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by goMac

You have a great point PacHead. We should just stop flying airplanes completely. In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing we can do is fly them.

Exactly, its unnatural to fly "aerial steam carriages" in the face of god.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In contrast, Boeing may have a few LOCAL tax incentives at its manufacturing locations, but is still liable for the full corporate income tax load it rates from its corporate income. They get NO special support from the U.S. government. Anything they sell to the government is paid for on the same cost basis that Continental Airlines would pay for a similar product.

That is a major difference. Boeing uses very little in the way of offshore parts and gets no subsidies, while Airbus uses parts from litterally around the world AND GETS SUBSIDIES from the governments in the countries in which it operates. That makes a difference.

There's "globalization" and then there's "globalization." In the case of Airbus, it's all local, not global.

Your argument is quite misleading, and it's simply wrong.

Airbus gets direct subsidies, yes, and they are openly and transparently labeled subsidies. But a large part of these must be PAID BACK over time.

Boeing: Boeing gets $3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state over 20 years, as well as $4.2 billion in DIRECT SUBSIDIES for improving plants and infrastructure. Those numbers, however, pale in comparison to the indirect subsidies in form of NASA and military research and development grants - TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS in subsidies since 1992.

NONE of those $27 billion need ever be paid back. They're in Boeing's pocket.

(source: Forbes.com

[Athens]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Who cares where the subcontractors are located ? I could care less if 95% of the subcontractors were located in the USA.

That plane is still a bad idea. The Europeans are 3 decades too late in making a super jumbo jet.

In this age of suicidal death cult members crashing planes into the ground, the dumbest thing one can do is to make bigger planes that hold even more people.

So your answer is 20 smaller planes causing more pollution, and more chance of them smashing into each other in the air, or more planes in general smaller that have more pilots which creates the possibility of more human error accedents? 911 had 5 planes hijacked, I dont think size really matters, after all it wasent about crashing the planes and killing people on the planes it was about smashing the planes into buildings.

[analogika]

American planes, btw.

[buggsuperstar]

This thread has taken a curious twist....

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's not where the parts are made that is the point. It's where the money goes when the final product is purchased.

For example, when I bought my 2002 Civic Coupe, the money stayed in the U.S. Honda of America pays for its production in the States with what it makes from their sale. Some of the money goes back to Corporate HQ, but not much. Most of it pays for U.S. workers to assemble all those parts, U.S. truckers to move the parts and finished cars all over the place, etc.

gh, that's not entirly true though. The car mfg. (in your example Honda) does NOT get the parts from overseas for free. Since they have to pay for the materials, that money leaves he country. The BOM (bill of material) exceeds the labor content by far !

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika

Your argument is quite misleading, and it's simply wrong.

Airbus gets direct subsidies, yes, and they are openly and transparently labeled subsidies. But a large part of these must be PAID BACK over time.

Boeing: Boeing gets $3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state over 20 years, as well as $4.2 billion in DIRECT SUBSIDIES for improving plants and infrastructure. Those numbers, however, pale in comparison to the indirect subsidies in form of NASA and military research and development grants - TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS in subsidies since 1992.

NONE of those $27 billion need ever be paid back. They're in Boeing's pocket.

(source: Forbes.com

Compared to the economic benefit Boeing provides to Washington, that tax break is a drop in the bucket. The subsidies are not to produce aircraft, but to replace ancient infractructure that is not suitable for upgrading to ensure environmental compliance. Lots of other companies get environmental compliance help from their home states.

What you seem to misunderstand is that EVERY ONE OF THE "GRANTS" provided by NASA and the Pentagon REQUIRES PRODUCTION OF EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS, and the spending of a lot of money just to develop the technology to do that. It's not a free ride, it's a "hands off" research contract. And Boeing delivers every time, too.

Originally Posted by turtle777

gh, that's not entirly true though. The car mfg. (in your example Honda) does NOT get the parts from overseas for free. Since they have to pay for the materials, that money leaves he country. The BOM (bill of material) exceeds the labor content by far !

True, BOM exceeds labor costs, but where do those parts come from? In the case of Honda, the steel and glass come from the U.S. The engines are made right there in Marysville, Ohio of parts that are (mostly) fabricated onsite. The electronics come from a variety of sources, some from Japan, and some from other non-U.S. sources. But looking at the overall source of the parts, it's over 90% U.S. (and that's for my 2002 car, the content could be higher now). Nissan builds in Tennessee, and is similar in its U.S. content. What abour BMW in Alabama? Similar-though more German parts (by percentage) are used than Japanese parts in my Honda.

Finally, if the question is globalized production, we can see in my two corporate examples a wide variation. Boeing is just starting to source parts from overseas, and their overseas parts actually come from economically separate sources, while Airbus' "foreign content" parts come from other members of the EU-by definition an economically linked federation. On the other hand, Honda DOES use parts from a number of different, economically separate countries; the computer in my car is from Japan, but the fuel injector system comes from Siemens in Germany. My conclusion: Honda is truly a global company, Airbus wants to look like one but isn't, and Boeing is just starting to think globally.

[turtle777]

gh, maybe that's true in Honda's case. But the original (derailed) discussion was Airbus' 66% suppplied parts from the US, which is quite significant in terms of money value as well...

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777

gh, maybe that's true in Honda's case. But the original (derailed) discussion was Airbus' 66% suppplied parts from the US, which is quite significant in terms of money value as well...

-t

I thought it was about Apple making their own comptuers?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I thought it was about Apple making their own comptuers?

Well, you thought wrong. Apple is not making their own computers, and this thread is now about ANYONE BUT Apple making stuff themselves...

-t

[ghporter]

I made breakfast this morning. In my own kitchen and everything. Does that count?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

What you seem to misunderstand is that EVERY ONE OF THE "GRANTS" provided by NASA and the Pentagon REQUIRES PRODUCTION OF EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS, and the spending of a lot of money just to develop the technology to do that. It's not a free ride, it's a "hands off" research contract. And Boeing delivers every time, too.

Well, considering that Airbus is REQUIRED to PAY BACK their subsidies (albeit tied to actual sales of aircraft), not only do the subsidies require "production of expensive products", they're actually not really subsidies (although labeled as such for transparency), they're low- or zero-interest LOANS.

At the least, this evens out the field considerably, no?