
Is Beijing beginning a campaign against Apple? - iProject
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/03/24/did-china-just-declare-war-on-apple-sure-looks-like-it/
======
phoboslab
War? Like with machine guns, drones and tanks? I didn't realize Apple has
those.

In all seriousness: why is every little disagreement labeled as "war" by the
US media? Does it just make "good" headlines?

~~~
mistercow
It's just a metaphor, and I think a reasonably apt one in this case. Were you
genuinely confused that China might be initiating military operations against
Apple when you read the headline?

In any case, calling it a "little disagreement" when a government launches a
propaganda campaign against a company seems pretty disingenuous.

~~~
roc
If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower warranty
coverage, etc. is it really a _propaganda_ campaign? [1] Even evidence of a TV
Show paying a celebrity to juice impact of their story is hardly evidence of
_government_ involvement.

The only evidence I see of government influence is in the outrage against
usury being directed at the makers of aspirational products, rather than the
predatory lenders. If the bank essentially _is_ the government... you can't
really bark up that tree directly. But, again, they dont' seem to have been
_fabricating_ charges against Apple.

[1] That said, I understand Apple's bind; they need lower costs and lower
prices for China. So they have to do _something_. But it certainly sounds like
they took a brand-damaging anti-user approach. (And Apple didn't seem to deny
any of it.)

~~~
mistercow
>If Apple actually was using the practices listed: refurb parts, lower
warranty coverage, etc. is it really a propaganda campaign

Yes. "Propaganda" simply means the dissemination of information (true or not)
with motivation other than simply helping people to be informed. If the
information is being put out in order to hurt Apple's reputation, it's
propaganda. And that's generally not much to worry about if it comes from
activist groups, corporations, and other sources with transparent biases, but
when it's coming from a government (or government controlled media, which
equates to the same thing), it's a different situation - especially in a
climate where dissenting opinions are quashed.

>Even evidence of a TV Show paying a celebrity to juice impact of their story
is hardly evidence of government involvement.

Except that the Chinese government has tremendous control over the media in
China. Add to that the censorship of thousands of whatever Weibo calls
"tweets", and it seems pretty obvious that government shenanigans are at work.

>The only evidence I see of government influence is in the outrage against
usury being directed at the makers of aspirational products, rather than the
predatory lenders.

That's the _only_ evidence you can see? I would point out all of the other
pieces of evidence in the article, but I feel like I'd be just copying and
pasting large chunks of it into my comment. Maybe you should just reread it?

~~~
roc
The big US media outlets were all caught-out covering up for the US
government, pushing propaganda and sitting on stories in the lead-up to an
_actual_ war. So if any government involvement opens the door to play every
story off as government controlled, were the Dateline/gas tank story, or the
Toyota/stuck accelerator story, etc all government propaganda then?

> _"That's the only evidence you can see?"_

That's the only _evidence_ I see, yes. I see lots of other things that _might_
be a result of government involvement, but those things have plausible mundane
motives as well. So I'm hesitant to identify them as definitive proof of a
government plot.

e.g. I would expect a Chinese consumer protection sort of program to single
out Apple's involvement in any widespread activity for the same reason every
western news outlet and blog singles out Apple's involvement in the same
situations.

Foxconn's labor conditions have always been overwhelmingly reported as an
_Apple_ problem, despite their near universal contracts across the industry.
And this despite Apple being the only major player who's ever acknowledged
problems or taken steps to improve things. This is done because Apple stories
get attention to a degree that brings non-trivial monetary incentives.

So I wouldn't see Chinese news organizations doing the same exact thing as
necessarily evidence of a coordinated government smear campaign.

~~~
mistercow
>if any government involvement

There's the lynchpin right there. It's not just _any_ government involvement.
CCTV is a state-run broadcaster which is notorious for having its content
directly controlled by the Chinese government. This isn't "sometimes the
Chinese government leans on CCTV"; it's "the Chinese government exerts
continuous editorial control over the content on CCTV."

> I see lots of other things that might be a result of government involvement,
> but those things have plausible mundane motives as well. So I'm hesitant to
> identify them as definitive proof of a government plot.

There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes "evidence". Evidence
does not have to be definitive proof. The mere utterance of a statement on
CCTV is evidence that that statement aligns with China's political goals. Add
that to a whole bunch of weird shenanigans, like the weibo censorship thing,
and you have a pretty suggestive picture.

------
drchiu
Just an opinion, but I don't think Beijing will be too successful in attacking
Apple.

Chinese people don't look at all foreign brands the same. Sure, Yum foods can
be attacked and that can hurt their sales. But don't forget Yum sells a cheap
product as well eg. KFC, Taco Bell.

Audi, Mercedes, Apple... these are all premium brands Chinese people love. If
you have money (or aspire to look like one who does), buying a Chinese brand
just makes you look ordinary in a place where every corner is selling some
Chinese-alternative lookalike.

Disclaimer - I'm Chinese, but raised in America.

~~~
polymatter
I was surprised that a lot of Chinese I met equated Chinese brands with poor
quality more strongly than Europeans, and given the choice would always buy
foreign even if they don't recognise the brand. Surprised, because they were
also strongly nationalistic in all other respects.

But China needs to move up the value chain and I suspect this is a general
campaign to get Chinese consumers buying from domestic brands.

Disclaimer - not Chinese and the Chinese I met were obviously the more well
off Beijingers.

~~~
neolefty
In China, Yum's KFC is a luxury brand, according to my Chinese friends. It is
more expensive and higher quality than its Chinese competitors.

I know that's hard to believe from the vantage point of the U.S., where KFC
and Taco Bell are pretty low on the food quality scale.

~~~
Evbn
In the US, sushi is a premium product, whereas in Japan it is a basic bar
staple. Imported culture adds cachet.

------
zht
As a bit of an aside, Gordon Chang is a frequent commentator on China-related
topics.

He famously speculated in a book that he wrote in 2001[1] that China would
collapse in 2006 due to hidden and non-performing loans of the state banks.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-
Chang/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-
Chang/dp/0812977564)

~~~
kyllo
I think he was only wrong about the "when" and not the "if" of that one. China
is in an out-of-control real estate bubble that when it pops, will likely lead
to open revolt.

------
niggler
Forbes.com = sensationalist drivel

Why are these posts continually upvoted?

------
seanmcdirmid
Attacking apple is just a way of dealing with their own inadequacies. Apple
products have just become way too popular here, making apple a nice juicy
target. The people will ignore the uncredible cctv and keep buying iPhones.

------
felxh
Similar story in the German news the last few days. Looks like Audi, BMW and
Daimler are being 'attacked' as well. They are being accused of using
materials that produce poisonous fumes in their interiors.

------
vorg
This article opens "On Friday, Chinese state media reported that, from January
of last year to the end of last month, more than 20,000 college students in
the central city of Wuhan applied for 160 million yuan of “high-interest rate
loans” from Home Credit China."

20,000 sounds high but is only 2% of Wuhan's tertiary student population, the
city with the most tertiary students in all of China. According to
[http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/29/content_12...](http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/29/content_12420906_3.htm)
"The total number of university students in Wuhan has surpassed Beijing and
Shanghai since 2008. Up to 1.06 million people in Wuhan's 10 million
population are in universities and various labs and research centers."

------
squozzer
China didn't invent company-bashing propaganda disguised as "news", that honor
probably belongs to the US. Exhibit A - Ida Tarbell v. John Rockefeller, The
History of the Standard Oil Company. Exhibit B - Anderson Cooper v.
Craigslist.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The article is not about the usa, wumao.

------
nrser
i live in Beijing. word is that CCTV uses the 3.15 expose to exert influence
on advertisers. Apple had been moving too much of it's ad dollars off CCTV and
onto provincial stations. it's a "we'd hate to see your company on 3.15 next
year" sort of thing. guess Apple didn't listen.

------
OGinparadise
Google barely exists in China.

Facebook doesn't exist at all.

Android in on notice <http://www.cnbc.com/id/100521504>

So is Apple.

Microsoft seems safe, so far, and until they (or if they) clone Windows.

Rules, international agreements and fairness aside: It all makes sense. Why
would China want their people spend a month's salary to buy a foreign product
(assembly doesn't count)? Or why would the most popular sites be non-Chinese?
Block the non-Chinese ones and local ones, totally controlled by China's gov,
would pop up. If they could get away with it, a lot of other countries would
do the same, they just don't have the 1.x billion people, trillions in Forex
and audacity to try it.

~~~
coldtea
> _Why would China want their people spend a month's salary to buy a foreign
> product (assembly doesn't count)? Or why would the most popular sites be
> non-Chinese? Block the non-Chinese ones and local ones, totally controlled
> by China's gov, would pop up. If they could get away with it, a lot of other
> countries would do the same, they just don't have the 1.x billion people,
> trillions in Forex and audacity to try it._

Indeed, it makes sense.

Americans often take offense to this logic, but then again, almost all the
"public internet" we use is American. From the domain registries, to Google,
Facebook, Apple, MS, Yahoo, Amazon, etc. So it's easy for them to play the
tolerant, and allow for the occasional foreign success story.

But they would be singing a totally different tune if the most popular sites
and services were to be, say, British. Much more if they were Chinese, German,
etc.

They would be all over for protectionism and enforcing their local
alternatives if that happened.

It's easy to ask for "openness" if it just means others opening to YOUR stuff
(and getting a trade deficit to use it, give your government information
control over their citizens, and get washed in a US point-of-view --political,
historical, cultural etc).

As far as being culturally closed, the US is at the top of the list. Just an
example: even in Mongolia, people watch American movies. How many foreign, non
anglophone, movies make it into the US theaters? Even in France people listen
to American music (as well as music from all over the world). How many non-
American (and non anglophone, e.g British) bands ever make into the top 10?

It pretty much only happens with two things: novelties and anime (which are
comics and animation, so not that far from the respective american forms
anyway, and of course cross-breed with them).

~~~
saturdaysaint
_But they would be singing a totally different tune if the most popular sites
and services were to be, say, British. Much more if they were Chinese, German,
etc._

This is pretty far off the mark. American subscription to free market
orthodoxy has many flaws but protectionist hypocrisy isn't high on the list.
There are many categories (including, I might add, smartphones!) where foreign
companies reign and there's almost no protectionist sentiment. I've never
heard anyone recommend a Vizio TV over a Samsung because Vizio is US based.
You'd be amazed at how many Honda, Toyota, BMW and Kia cars you'll find in
_Detroit_.

~~~
arjunnarayan
Sugar (from Brazil), steel (from everywhere), pretty much most agricultural
subsidies are directly contrary to free trade principles, open skies limits
(foreign airlines have a hard time flying to various US destinations and
cannot do US-US flights without major wrangling). And that's just off the top
of my head. The US is definitely high on the free trade hypocrisy list.

The US spent the 80s and 90s loudly excoriating the world for not signing up
to the endless free lunches of free trade (read: import US stuff). Once the
world signed up, the US started putting up domestic protectionist barriers.
The most high profile case I remember is the steel import restriction debacle,
but the rest matter too.

Don't forget that the Japanese car companies had to move production to the US
in 1981 to pacify the government, and for a long time they imposed "voluntary"
limits on themselves to stave off the eventual US trade restrictions.

~~~
berntb
Food protectionism is afaik mostly an EU thing (I've seen arguments that EU is
a French hostage on this point, which mostly is negative for the 3rd world).

The US has to live with us from the EU.

From the EU example, you might note that the democratic world (including the
US) is not a monolith with one face.

------
youngerdryas
>“Post around 8:20”? Ho had goofed. The movie star uploaded not only his
sharply critical posting at 8:26 P.M., but he also posted the instructions he
received from some other party. He is a Samsung Galaxy spokesman, but no one
is fingering the Korean brand as the culprit.

So who told Ho to post “around 8:20”? For China’s noisy netizens, there was
only one suspect: CCTV. Weibo users immediately pounced, noting that there
were other anti-Apple postings around that time. By 8:45 P.M. comments
criticizing the inattentive Mr. Ho were overwhelming the anti-Apple postings.

Ho, at 10:08 P.M., deleted his original posting and then denied he authored
the attack on Apple, claiming that someone had “hacked” his Weibo account.
Just about nobody believed the denial. Users began posting acerbic comments
with the #PostAround8:20 hashtag. Weibo censors later deleted tens of
thousands of postings with that hashtag.

Surreal.

~~~
anywhichway
Seems to me that it is more likely that Samsung, who he is an official
spokesman for, told him to post that as part of his duties as spokesman. Also
it seems more likely that Samsung is behind the CCTV campaign as they are the
ones that would gain from such a message, so I'm not sure why people are
putting it on CCTV as the orchestrator. In my opinion the worst violation of
this story is the weibo censorship following the incident.

