[ToucanLoucan]

> With this position, Apple uses its outsized buying power to squeeze the margins of its suppliers such as Foxconn, leading to poor pay and terrible working conditions in Chinese factories.

I'm sorry what? Poor pay and working conditions in the semiconductor hubs of China has been a problem as long as and before Apple made the iPhone. Apple certainly isn't HELPING that situation, but none of them are. All these fabs have made the news at different times for everything from suicide prevention nets to using slave labor to make Apple products, sure, along with every other major tech OEM in the business. I'd be shocked if you could find ANY large manufacturer of these things that hasn't been embroiled in one scandal or another over shitty conditions in their factories.

> Even for the American suppliers who have managed to stay in business, things are hard. With Apple accounting for most or all of the revenue of many of its suppliers—by buying most of their output and blocking its competitors from using similar components—suppliers “dare not put a foot wrong” by speaking against Apple, or even mentioning it by name.

Then how do you know if they refuse to talk about it? This feels like a piece banking on outrage clicks about Apple.

> In 2017, when Apple announced it was moving away from using UK-based Imagination Technologies for graphics processors, the company lost two thirds of its value overnight. Apple’s monopsony power means component suppliers have few buyers.

Yeah, Intel lost a bunch on the stock market too when Apple announced they were rolling their own silicon. Losing Apple as a client is absolutely going to suck for any supplier and a stock dip makes perfect sense in that situation.

Like, none of this is strictly wrong but it's just describing the highly centralized nature of this industry. None of this is unique to Apple. I'm sure Samsung would have no issues at all swinging suppliers by the tail if they were so inclined to do everything outlined here, and I'm sure they have too.

Edit: TIL about the word monopsony.

[Jtsummers]

Monopsony is correct in that case, meaning one buyer. The argument being that Imagination Technologies essentially had one buyer due to Apple's outsized demand for their component. When Apple left, their demand was substantially reduced with no one (or group) to pick up the slack. TSMC is in a better position, everyone is clamoring for their products (or really their services and production capabilities) so if Apple left they'd hurt a bit, but all the other buyers would be thrilled and TSMC would see a blip for maybe a quarter.

[lwkl]

Monopsony is the correct term here it means that there is only one buyer. A monopoly means that there is only one seller.

[ToucanLoucan]

Huh. Spell check doesn't know that word I guess, only reason I even caught it.

[WheatMillington]

>Poor pay and working conditions in the semiconductor hubs of China has been a problem as long as and before Apple made the iPhone. Apple certainly isn't HELPING that situation, but none of them are.

When the dominant player comes to town specifically BECAUSE of these terrible conditions and low prices, and use their market power to push prices even lower, they are absolutely part of the problem.

[bryanlarsen]

> None of this is unique to Apple.

It's not unique to Apple, but Apple is far better at it and far more focused on it than anybody. It's Tim Cook's particular strength, why he took over after Jobs died and has been a major focus of the company.