
Apple will invest $100 million to bring Mac production back to the US next year - alinzainescu
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/12/06/apple-will-invest-100-million-to-bring-mac-production-back-to-the-us-next-year-says-tim-cook/
======
rohansingh
This really reminds me of The Alantic article this month entitled "The
Insourcing Boom": [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-
inso...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-
boom/309166/)

The idea being that manufacturing was pushed abroad due to the appeal of
cheaper labor, without a deep consideration of hidden costs or the overall
context of such a transition.

GE, which is featured extensively in the article, actually managed to reduce
manufacturing costs by bringing the fabrication of a water heater and other
appliances back to American shores — largely due to the faster loop and better
communication between designers, engineers, and laborers who all speak the
same language and are in the same factory.

~~~
thedaveoflife
Also due perhaps to real wages in the US declining to the point where
cost/benefit calculations of US based production facilities are finally
starting to add up for some manufacturers.

~~~
matwood
Manufacturing leaving the US in mass was always a myth. The jobs went away
because of automation. In some cases the cheap labor offshore was still
cheaper than automation, but like most technology automation continues to get
cheaper every year while cost of labor goes up.

As automation gets cheaper I expect more and more manufacturing that really
did move to not just come back to the US, but also new manufacturing to set up
shop. Shipping costs are expensive and it only makes sense to be as close to
your customers as possible. The one exception to this trend will be
manufacturing that is inherently 'dirty.' Those will continue to be overseas
until countries like China decide that destroying their environment for a
short term gain isn't a very good long term strategy.

~~~
joe_the_user
_Manufacturing leaving the US in mass was always a myth._

Uh, figures?

It is one thing to say the US remained a manufacturer but to say the US didn't
offshore a significant portion of its manufacturing capacity would seem to be
an extraordinary claim which requires evidence, right?

The proportion of consumer goods I see which are marked "made in China" today
approaches something like a hundred percent. Sure, there are other significant
USA industries that produce a lot (and naturally have increased their output
via automation) but it seems badly-spoken to say claim manufacturing leaving
the US is myth. Some industries have left, "in mass", even.

~~~
ars
It is a myth. America is still the top manufacturer in the world.

The difference is that China makes tons of duplicate copies of cheap goods,
while America makes high value, lower run, complicated goods.

Which is why if you look only at consumer good you get the mistaken assumption
that manufacturing is leaving the US. Try sourcing $100,000 machines and all
of them are made in the US.

~~~
flyinRyan
What on earth are you talking about? China makes more actual things, Germany
makes more money making things. In what way is the US "top"?

~~~
DeadJim
GDP from the manufacturing sector has increased fourfold since 1950. All the
while, jobs have decreased eightfold.

-Not exact figures.

~~~
flyinRyan
So what are you saying then? That the US is "top" in growth of GDP from the
manufacturing sector? Because I suspect that's not true either.

~~~
matwood
I'm not sure if top in growth, but the US manufacturing sector is at the
forefront of GDP growth.

[http://seekingalpha.com/article/602691-u-s-manufacturing-
lea...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/602691-u-s-manufacturing-leads-
current-economic-growth-as-it-has-for-15-years)

------
brudgers
In terms of investment in manufacturing, $100 million is chump change. Fabs
are an order of magnitude or more greater. The amount is approximately that
required for a middling "power center" shopping development. Or constructing a
handful of Apple stores.

Not to be cynical, but I suspect that local, state and federal tax subsidies
will yield a positive ROI on the $100 million. This looks like pure PR.

~~~
eitally
You're only partially correct. Apple doesn't need a fab. Apple needs a systems
integrator like Foxconn and it's MUCH cheaper (order of magnitude max) to
setup an assembly plant than a fab. But yes, I suspect subsidies would make
even a $100m investment profitable.

~~~
brudgers
I was using chip fabs as a point of comparison in regards to the scale of
Apple's investment. It was chosen because HN readers are more likely to be
familiar with the cost of such manufacturing plants than, for example, those
associated with automotive manufacturing.

I agree that Apple doesn't need a fab. It doesn't need a manufacturing
facility in the U.S. either.

~~~
hkmurakami
They might eventually need one (or a non-Samsung partner) considering their
increasingly contentious relationship. Intel would definitely fit into the
overall progression of events[1].

[1][http://www.phonearena.com/news/Intel-wants-to-take-Apples-
ch...](http://www.phonearena.com/news/Intel-wants-to-take-Apples-chips-off-of-
Samsungs-hands-make-one-for-the-iPad_id37245)

------
felipe
I suspect Apple will replicate what they are already doing in Brazil, where
Foxconn locally built a factory to manufacture specific Apple products to the
local market.

Note two things: 1. I suspect this would be a Foxconn factory, not Apple (note
how Tim Cook says "we'll be working with people"); 2. The total investment of
the Foxconn factory in Brazil was 5 times bigger, so I suspect that Apple's
$100m would cover only a fraction of the total investment required to build a
factory in the US.

Regardless, that's good news for the American worker.

~~~
janesvilleseo
I guess then this story from April 1st turns out to be true after all.

[http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/01/foxconn-plans-new-iowa-
plan...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/01/foxconn-plans-new-iowa-plant-will-
hire-10-of-states-population/)

------
tpatke
I assume this is because Tim Cook is bowing to political pressure where Steve
Jobs refused. Remember when Steve Jobs said, "Those jobs aren’t coming back"
[1]? The question is - why now?

Hacker News discussion [2].

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-
and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-
squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3494389>

~~~
alaskamiller
Steve thought on 10 year timeframes.

Tim thinks in 1 year timeframes.

~~~
hnriot
Can we stop this hero worship please. We're all adults here and while Steve
Jobs was clearly a great leader of Apple, we don't need the constant Steve-
was-god rhetoric.

~~~
alaskamiller
I was pointing out perspective might be why decisions are made.

Perhaps you're internalizing and projecting too much.

~~~
Karunamon
I agree; there was nothing "hero worship"ey about your post, and you're being
downvoted by knee-jerk reacton.

------
robomartin
The only way I can see this making sense is if it is an assembly plant rather
than a real chips-to-finished-product factory.

Why?

The advantage you have in these cities (almost literally) in China dedicated
to manufacturing is that almost the entire supply chain is local and very
finely tuned. This is particularly true for operations that might do work for
companies like Apple.

The PCB manufacturers, assemblers, chip makers, connector manufacturers, LED
manufacturers, display manufactures, plastics and sheet-metal manufacturers
and more, are all centrally located. If not, they are within the proximal
geographic regions.

The same is true of qualified workers. Need 100,000 assemblers in a hurry? No
problem. Technicians, engineers, managers, etc. Lots of them and easy to hire
within days of your requirement.

In sharp contrast to this, the supply chain anywhere in the US is most-
definitely not localized and highly fragmented. Virtually nothing you are
going to use in electronics manufacturing is made in the US. That means that
rather than your LEDs being a few hours away by truck they are three weeks
away by boat --from China.

In terms of mechanical components, such as screws, well, yes, they are
available in the US, of course. The problem is that they will cost more. No
question about it. Because our industry, due to the need to survive, has had
to focus on market segments that can pay a premium (military, medical, etc.)
you can pay through your teeth to get anything made here. That's just the
truth.

In terms of machining and bending metal or injecting plastics, well, it
depends. If you are dealing with a unionized operation, forget it. Costs will
be ridiculous. Plastics, in very large quantities, can be reasonable here.
Punching and bending metal or machining metal could be plausible at a very
large scale and with a very finely tuned factory.

Let's not add regulatory and tax issues to the pile.

Because of all of this and a few more data points from first-hand experience
manufacturing in the US, my guess is that Apple is going to simply import pre-
fabricated modules assemblies and parts. They'll have US workers bolt them
together and test the finished product. You can slap a "Assembled in the US"
(and maybe even "Made in the US" sticker on it and feel good about it.

Remember what Steve Jobs told Obama about manufacturing jobs coming back to
the US. I don't think anything significant enough has changed since then to
invalidate his statement.

~~~
Shivetya
I am in the camp that it is a product like the Mac Pro. A product which has a
large number of user customizations combined with low sales volumes that
effectively removes it from common mass production methods.

Oh I am quite sure you can bound up the chassis, power supply, and perhaps the
main board, and ship it off for final assembly here and still be labeled as
made here.

~~~
rdl
Yeah, Mac Pro is ideal for this. It has low enough sales volumes that Apple
could even make it in Cupertino.

I wonder if having a high end American made machine would win them specific
contracts (vs other vendors, or vs a Chinese made iMac) -- either Buy American
or security considerations.

I'd be happy paying 5-10% premium on the Mac Pro for US production from the
motherboard up. I trust Intel. Knowing the provenance of the other chips would
be nice too.

------
CrLf
Mac desktops or also laptops? If it's only about the desktops, I suspect that
they are preparing to lower the volumes below what's economical to build in
China.

~~~
mikereedell
Or the the rising wages in China means that building a fully automated line
isn't as cost-prohibitive as it was in the past. And with states/cities
throwing tax incentives at companies it doesn't matter where the automated
line is so long as it can be integrated into the supply chain easily.

It's likely a combination of lower volume, like you state, cheaper automation,
rising wages and some political incentives like tax breaks, etc.

~~~
axx
I bet it'll be the next Mac Pro. Low quantity, highly priced.

~~~
goatforce5
...and, i'd guess, a higher than average percentage of built-to-order
machines.

------
forgotAgain
Probably caused by a number of factors:

\- upcoming changes in tax laws that remove the incentive to move jobs
overseas

\- IP protection. Its finally sunk in that their Chinese suppliers feed any
engineering info straight to the local government.

\- increasing jingoism in the United States

\- realization that their current line of creating "good American jobs"
through their retail chain is falling apart.

\- the shine from all of the "good jobs" they created with their NC data
center is wearing off.

$100 million is really chump change for this kind of investment for a company
like Apple. It's about what Cook made from his first year as Apple CEO.

------
RyanMcGreal
Direct link to the Bloomberg interview:

[http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/85170-tim-
cooks...](http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/85170-tim-cooks-
freshman-year-the-apple-ceo-speaks)

------
chrisdevereux
> We decided being more transparent about some things is great—not that we
> were not transparent at all before, but we’ve stepped it up in places where
> we think we can make a bigger difference, where we want people to copy us

I'm willing to bet that the reason they're doing this is exactly the opposite.
Integrating their last-stage manufacturing would be a great way of squashing
those pesky product leaks from contractors.

Wonder if this is the first step towards a move across all products. It'd make
sense to start with a relatively low-volume, high-margin product like the Mac.

~~~
blinkingled
>great way of squashing those pesky product leaks from contractors

They will still not be doing the manufacturing themselves - so there will
still be contractors just that they will be a new set of US based contractors
that can be better controlled because they are based in US vs China.

------
rdl
I wonder if Apple could build a factory somewhere touristy in the US
(California, or maybe near Disney World, or something), designed specifically
for tours (like the BMW factory and European Delivery center), and make enough
from tourism (either cash or "brand value") to overcome the costs of
production in the US.

I'd pay $20 to see the modern equivalent of the NeXT factory for 30 minutes,
from an overhead viewing gallery.

Obviously Apple wouldn't want to reveal trade secrets, but I don't think
there's much secret about how Apple produces the desktop and laptop products.

~~~
djisjke
A factory/museum would be awesome

------
Maascamp
> _“We decided being more transparent about some things is great..."_

Ironically the rest of his statements and the article as a whole are extremely
vague. $100MM at Apple scale doesn't seem like very much and since (from the
article) they won't be doing it themselves I'd love to hear more about where
that money is going.

~~~
TheCondor
And yet that is a pile of money..

There are a handful of companies that do this work, they will partner with
them, my bet is Foxconn as they already work with them. Build a facility and
Foxconn will do what it does, with Americans in America. As an American, I
think this is good, I wonder how successful it will be but I hope it works out
well.

There are a lot of negative comments. From what Tim said it sounds like it is
motivated by a desire to do some good, not just more profit. Maybe that is BS,
if you can successfully do this, it knocks a few days off the time from order
to delivery and that's also a huge edge. I can also see wanting to not give
China so much control. I don't see it being devious though.

~~~
eitally
[http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/as-apple-grew-
american...](http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/as-apple-grew-american-
workers-left-behind/)

[http://news.cnet.com/Apple-may-outsource-
iMacs/2100-1001_3-2...](http://news.cnet.com/Apple-may-outsource-
iMacs/2100-1001_3-215529.html)

Sanmina (recently dropped the SCI from its name) still owns that plant in
Fountain, CO. I could imagine it might be a big PR win for Apple if they
revived what used to be their flagship factory in the US.

------
sodomizer
The thing that no one's mentioning in these press releases that should be
discussed: robotics.

Moving a plant here doesn't equate to moving manufacturing jobs here. The
traditional fear of manufacturing in the USA has been high cost of labor
including possible strikes.

If plants are able to replace bulk labor with robots, and have the rest of
their labor be engineering-type roles, they'll have no problem moving here.

But it won't bring thousands of jobs, maybe hundreds, although they will be
better paid.

------
joe-mccann
Also to be read as, "Apple to invest 0.38% of 2011's total profit to bring Mac
production to the US next year"

~~~
tribeofone
OR, you could read it as "Apple to invest 0.1% of its total cash in reserve to
bring Mac production to the US next year"

~~~
DannyBee
As a slight sidetrack, Apple doesn't have that much _cash_ in reserve. They
have short term investments and long term investments.

Articles you read that claim they have 100 billion (or whatever) in cash are
seriously confused about how cash and cash equivalents work.

From their latest 10k:

Cash and cash equivalents $ 10,746

Short-term marketable securities $ 18,383

Long-term marketable securities $ 92,122

(this is in millions)

Long term marketable securities are basically those things that they would
likely take a significant hit on if they had to actually convert to cash in a
reasonable period of time.

So how does this really compare to other companies?

Let's look at google.

As of September 30, 2012, Google had:

Cash and cash equivalents: $ 16,260

Short term marketable securities:$ 29,464

Whoops. It turns out google has more actual cash than apple, and more combined
short term securities + cash. Just not as much in long term investment
securities.

In short: Apple doesn't really have some amazing amount of cash.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _Articles you read that claim they have 100 billion (or whatever) in cash
> are seriously confused about how cash and cash equivalents work._

It's semantics. It's cash. Not in the literal sense that they are wallpapering
the headquarters with it. But it's cash from profits they've earned, that are
invested in bonds and securities, just like you are I would.

> _Long term marketable securities are basically those things that they would
> likely take a significant hit on if they had to actually convert to cash in
> a reasonable period of time._

Not necessarily true. Apple holds something like $15BB in Treasuries under
their LTMS holdings. These are liquid (hence the label marketable). They also
own a bunch on municipal bonds and corporate debt, most of which are also
extremely liquid.

~~~
DannyBee
It's not semantics to call it "not cash". If i own a million shares of apple
stock, I don't own cash or a cash equivalent, i own a marketable security.
They are valued quite differently.

The long term/short term is the maturity, and as you point out, some billions
are probably treasuries, which are easy to trade (They don't break it down
that I saw, Google does break it down into treasury bonds, etc).

However, some of it could be (and certainly is) instruments that they could
transform into cash (hence marketable), but would take a significant loss on
if they needed to do so quickly (< 90 days).

Calling that cash is simply false. Let's stick with the simple fact: If they
needed to transform that 92 billion in long term marketable securities into
cash tomorrow, the percent chance they will get 92 billion for it is quite
low.

If they need to transform it into 92 billion in cash in the next 6 months, the
percent chance they will get 92 billion for it is quite high.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"It's not semantics to call it "not cash""_

Yes, it is.

I take offense to stating that people who use the term "cash" don't know what
they're talking about. They, in fact, _do_ know that "cash" doesn't imply
Apple has a Scrooge-McDuck-type vault loaded with hundred dollar bills.

> _"If i own a million shares of apple stock, I don't own cash or a cash
> equivalent"_

Commercial paper, short-term debt, preferred stock, T-bills, option contracts
are all cash equivalents. This is where Apple is putting its money (they
aren't buying tens of billions worth of common stock). It's "cash".

~~~
DannyBee
I completely and totally understand what cash and cash equivalents mean.
Nobody believes Apple has a scrooge-mcduck like vault, and I have never
claimed otherwise.

I have very simply claimed that Apple's cash and cash equivalents are not 100
billion, and that long term marketable securities are not cash.

You vehemently disagree, seemingly because they are liquid enough you may be
able to get some money for them.

Let's start simple: Can you explain why if you think they are 'cash' or 'cash
equivalents', they're explicitly _not_ listed in the 10-k as "cash
equivalents"?

I mean, you keep claiming up and down they are the same as cash, or "cash
equivalent", and yet apple doesn't believe so. Nor does Google on their 10-q.

Given the _companies_ don't believe they are cash or cash equivalents, or at
least their auditors don't, can you explain why you do?

I'll also point out while it's theoretically at the discretion of the auditor
whether the marketable securities can be included in "net cash", a lot don't,
simply because the risk is not 0, where the risk on cash is ~0.

The risk on long term marketable securities is not 0 either, and in fact, can
be _quite_ high.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"You vehemently disagree, seemingly because they are liquid enough you may
> be able to get some money for them."_

No, I disagree because I know what a substantial portion of Apple's
investments are (this information is public), and they are, by definition,
cash or cash equivalents.

> _"Let's start simple: Can you explain why if you think they are 'cash' or
> 'cash equivalents', they're explicitly not listed in the 10-k as "cash
> equivalents"?"_

Because they don't have to list them as such? There's a lot of deception in
SEC filings; that's half the game. It's only me speculating, but I believe
Apple is utilizing many tricks to help them retain all those earnings, rather
than paying taxes on all those profits. Would that surprise you?

> _"Given the companies don't believe they are cash or cash equivalents, or at
> least their auditors don't, can you explain why you do?"_

Taxes.

I mean, this side-discussion started because you made the claim:

 _"In short: Apple doesn't really have some amazing amount of cash."_

Which is only true in the strictest definition of "cash". When "cash" is used
how most investors understand it --those people you accused of being
"seriously confused"-- Apple has a bunch. You don't have to take my word for
it, it's out there.

------
cllns
Interesting considering that less than 2 years ago Mr. Jobs said: "those jobs
aren't coming back" to Mr. Obama.

[1]
[http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120123/ARTICLE/301239...](http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120123/ARTICLE/301239999)

~~~
sterna
Maybe less than two years ago, otherwise he would need to have superhuman
powers :)

~~~
cllns
Good catch :)

------
htf
I wonder how much this move was precipitated by Google's purchase of Motorola.
Google produced each generation of nexus phone with a different manufacturer.
This allows Google to learn the best practices of each of them. But eventually
Google will produce the nexus devices themselves through their Motorola
facilities, allowing them to iterate fast and produce cheaply. Apple sees this
coming and figures out they also need to produce their devices in-house.

~~~
RobAtticus
There's been 4 generations of Nexus phones with 3 manufacturers (HTC, 2x
Samsung, LG). It seems like a bit of a leap to say that Google is learning the
best practices of each and then will eventually use Motorola.

Not saying it can't or won't happen, just that you seem to be passing off your
conjecture as something that's inevitable.

------
Steko
I'm sure there are multiple reasons for this move and labor costs are almost
certainly the biggest factor. But one aspect that I haven't seen discussed but
which may be relevant is that companies increasingly turn to the ITC as a
patent enforcement lever. The ITC is a US agency which can effect import bans
of products found to infringe. Obviously a great workaround to an otherwise
crippling import ban decision would be having a US based assembly network.

Now the big arena is mobile and this announcement is about Mac lines but it's
not hard to believe that this is a tip of the iceberg investment and that
Apple might increasingly move to a system of using Foxconn's non-China
factories around the world. Apple is partly financing the Brazil plant for
Foxconn IIRC.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed is the opening around the world of
rare earth mines (reopening in the case of the California mine). Part of the
reason "those jobs [weren't] coming back" was because China's rare earth's
monopoly increasingly was reserved for Chinese made products.

------
programminggeek
Well, once robotics takes over a large portion of Foxconn, it won't make as
much sense to hire low wage employees overseas, thus why not have the robots
building/assembling the products as close to the consumer as possible?

Apple spends a lot of shipping too, so I'm sure it's a balancing act between
cost of labor/automation/shipping.

~~~
astrodust
Apple's original Macintosh line was extremely automated. This wouldn't be a
first for Apple, much as everyone would presume.
([http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/02/steve-jobs-
designed-a...](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/02/steve-jobs-designed-
apple-factory-the-birthplace-of-the-macintosh-considered-for-historic-
status/))

~~~
protomyth
NeXT was know for robotic plants also
[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/02/26/73121/index.htm)
[http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/business/all-next-inc-s-
pl...](http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/business/all-next-inc-s-plant-lacks-
is-orders.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

------
esalazar
What American Macintosh Factories Looked Like Last Time Apple Built Them Here
[http://gizmodo.com/5966278/what-american-macintosh-
factories...](http://gizmodo.com/5966278/what-american-macintosh-factories-
used-to-look-like-last-time-they-were-built-here)

------
anilali
Apple _might_ be doing this to get contracts from US
gov't(local/national/military). One of the requirements for doing business
with US gov't is to manufacture these device in US.

------
dbul
The "working with people" comment makes me wonder if they are working with
Rethink Robotics.[1] That would be an even more interesting take on this
shift.

[1] [http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/industrial-
robots/rethink-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/industrial-
robots/rethink-robotics-baxter-robot-factory-worker)

------
tobylane
Possible side effect: Change in business privacy? Say Foxconn are the
contractor, a product leak in the factory's first year might be a lot more
chase-able than one in China, but also a lot more inevitable. Will there be
robot-only zones for the private parts, or more lawsuits?

------
specialp
I think they will be making product chasis and frames in the USA. Think about
it.. If suddenly there was another uprising at some contractor in China they
would not be making _Apple_ products, they would be making commodity parts
like motherboards and memory that are simply components. People would identify
their Mac mini or iMac as being made in the USA and some parts from China in
it.

Also there probably is not much savings going on by making these parts in
China. The expensive part would be if you were making your own motherboards
and chips in the USA. Apple does not need to do it, and gets good PR in the
process.

~~~
pinwale
> The expensive part would be if you were making your own motherboards and
> chips in the USA

Apple already sources the A5, A5X, & A6 chips from a Samsung factory in
Austin, Texas.

------
padseeker
This is good news - Now if we could just get Apple to pay taxes. I hope the
comment from brudgers saying it is a PR move is wrong, but my cynical side
things he is right.

------
jrockway
This success of this move will come down to how good the US is at
manufacturing proprietary screws with weird heads and battery adhesive that's
really sticky.

------
jjcm
What extent of the production will be here though? Are they just assembling
motherboards, chassis, and displays all together that have came from overseas?
I don't think Apple would be so willing to give up the advantage of having all
of the tightly knit infrastructure available in China just for political
reasons.

------
mathattack
Sounds like a break from Steve Jobs.
[http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-spars-
with-...](http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-spars-with-steve-
jobs-over-apple-outsourcing-111751.html)

I suspect this is to combat negative PR from their overseas subcontractors.

------
hayksaakian
Just an attempt to distract from the daily horrors at Apple's Chinese
production line.

------
mjpa
"where we want people to copy us" - presumably so they have more people to
sue?

~~~
ianshward
Yes, very interesting. This was my first thought, unfortunately.

~~~
ianshward
Well, sue, but more generally, have better legal control over supply
relationships.

------
robbfitzsimmons
The most interesting part to me here is the MSN butterfly on the video.
Microsoft has a YouTube competitor - who knew?

------
Raz0rblade
this is a very small amount of money for a company like apple so is it
seriously, or just some strange tax jump ?

------
DonnyV
Does this mean that the US is going to be the dumping ground for
manufacturing? Waste? Low slave wages?

------
mhd
Any plans for Ireland? They used to assemble Macs there, too. I'm sure Cork
could use the work.

------
ck2
I am going to guess those shifts will be 29 hours or less per person.

------
ssapkota
Certainly the mainstream - design focus of apple is switching.

------
Raz0rblade
this is a small amount of money for a company as Apple. might likely be a tax
evasion maneuver

------
Mordor
Just one word: inward-looking

------
conradholmes
my mac pro was assembled in the usa

------
notdrunkatall
It's happening. Wages are rising elsewhere, while US wages remain stagnant,
thus making domestic manufacturing for high-end goods more profitable than
manufacturing elsewhere again. I've been predicting an eventual return of
manufacturing to the USA for years now. It'll be a slow process, but it will
inevitably happen - the only questions are when and how long.

------
rymith
This is what I want to see. I really think the reliance on Asia as a centre
for manufacturing is a mistake in the long run.

~~~
camus
better than nothing, but most of the components will still be produced in
China, Mac will be merely assembled in US factories.

~~~
icebraining
That's not what Cook said; he said they want to do something "more
substantial" than assembly.

------
pebb
So this is the reason Apple stock plunged 7% yesterday...

------
ivanb
Theory: they want to do it to be bailed out when bad times come, Just like
Ford or GE,

~~~
freehunter
Fun fact: Ford didn't receive money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program
bailout. They restructured rather than take te money.

~~~
patmcguire
Yeah, and they took out a loan on their logo. Unfortunately, Ford is in worse
shape now than GM and Chrysler because they didn't get a reset button to fix
every problem - the lost by winning.

------
joering2
Its TL;DR for me. Could anyone enlighten me if this means their profit margin
will drop and price will remain, or that their profit margin will remain
intact and price will raise?

It has to be one OR another...

