"Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative.
> Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?
Of...course not?
But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.
“Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is Apple’s power”
I agree with this. Presumably it’s what Apple is going to do in this case.
What would you suggest they do if they can’t find a more ethical alternative to Wistron?
“Apple wants to be a world-spanning power.”
Does it? Or does it just want to keep making computers and software? It’s not obvious what Apple’s size has to do with Wistron breaking their contract.
Ah - but that’s funny isn’t it? Some countries actually require local manufacturing as a condition for market access. So they don’t exactly have a free hand here. And Wistron is a fairly well known name and should have been a reliable partner in this enterprise with Apple.
They tried that, but the Indian government put tarrifs on their products and prohibited them from opening stores to induce them to use local contractors.
In support of your comment, why can't apple have a few DIRECT EMPLOYEES at each major supplier factory full time to monitor the working conditions and terms adherence on a day to day basis ?
I just fundamentally disagree with this conception of power. The fact that you could in principle force someone to do what you'd like doesn't mean that you should.
It wouldn't be "forcing" with threat of imprisonment and Apple given the power of police, judge, jury and imprisoner such as a government has; it could be written into the terms of the contract - "we will buy from you, if your product is up to our specifications, and its manufacture is up to our specifications, and that the manufacture is done on ethical terms described in clause B, and the contract depends upon us being able to send auditors to all premises involved in our component supply chain and talk to all employees so involved at any time".
If there is no company willing to agree to a contract like that, Apple would only be able to force them by offering more money until it was worth their while.
It's no more /force/ than employers have over employees - do what we say or lose your income. Which is not exactly a level of force I like all the time, but if you agree with contracts and employment in general then adding "and treat your workers well and let us see it" doesn't seem like a hill to take a stand of fundamental opposition on.
I'm replying to "forcing is wrong!" with "it wouldn't need to be forced, X wouldn't be force".
You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.
“well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical”
No - I’m saying that didn’t keep their supply chain ‘ethical’. Perhaps nothing could have done.
"ah but they tried and failed"
Weird that you put this in quote marks as if it’s something I said. It’s not. You might be saying that, but I am not.
Contracts aren’t magic. It’s not a ‘failure’ when someone breaks one. What a contract would do is give Apple the legal mechanism to switch to another supplier despite having agreed to pay Wistron to make iPhones.
The contract only means something if one of the parties doesn’t do what is expected.
"Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative.
> Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?
Of...course not?
But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.