Tim Cook 'Deeply Offended' by BBC Documentary on Apple Factory Conditions

[2499723]

I am pretty sure TV listening is not a private company, as in trades as a PLC/Ltd! do you have proof to substantiate this?

The TV Licensing website is a helpful place to start. They are contracted by the BBC to collect licensing fees:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15

TV Licensing is NOT state owned. While the license fee is a legal requirement (the Communications Act 2003) if you're going to watch the BBC, TV Licensing is just the name for the organisations contracted by the BBC to carry out the policing of its fee collection.

Here's another explanation straight from the TV Licensing website:

Why does the BBC use contractors to administer the television licensing system?

It is more cost effective than the BBC undertaking these functions in-house. Contracts are awarded following completion of competitive procurement processes undertaken in accordance with EU Public Procurement Regulations.

More information can about BBC partners and suppliers can be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/partnersandsuppliers/

 

[viizi]

I gotta admit i only watched about 10 minutes of it to realise how stupidly biased it was. The guy is like oh I love apple then hate hate hate. Was clear that he was only saying I love Apple to make people listen to his harsh words against it like when people say, as a _______ I do not support this. Yeh tin comes from mines, where else would it come from? The kid doesn't want to leave his dad, what else you gonna do? I helped my dad as a freakin 1 year old carrying rocks while doing gardening. I don't see Tim Cook standing over him with a whip or armed guards with AKs. The kid looked clean and not that distressed too

 

[johnnyturbouk]

The TV Licensing website is a helpful place to start. They are contracted by the BBC to collect licensing fees:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15

TV Licensing is NOT state owned. While the license fee is a legal requirement (the Communications Act 2003) if you're going to watch the BBC, TV Licensing is just the name for the organisations contracted by the BBC to carry out the policing of its fee collection.

Here's another explanation straight from the TV Licensing website:

Yes thank you for that, i was simply stating that 'TV Licensing' as a single entity is not a private limited company( as you mentioned in #498); they have delegated the responsibilities of collection to contracted companies:
-Capita Business Services Ltd
-PayPoint Plc
-Post Office
-Proximity London Ltd
-MEC

 

[Tech198]

Of course Tim would say this.... They would say anything to back themselves up and look good, even if it was false.

That's just how Apple is. Don't forget if the BBC is doing a documentary about this, they may as well say the same for MS, since most of their products are also made the same way too, yet I bet we never hear about that.

The media as it's best

 

[Max(IT)]

Of course Tim would say this.... They would say anything to back themselves up and look good, even if it was false.

That's just how Apple is. Don't forget if the BBC is doing a documentary about this, they may as well say the same for MS, since most of their products are also made the same way too, yet I bet we never hear about that.

The media as it's best

It doesn't work that way.
The CEO of a quoted company can't publicly lie without consequences.

 

[Zxxv]

The TV Licensing website is a helpful place to start. They are contracted by the BBC to collect licensing fees:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15

TV Licensing is NOT state owned. While the license fee is a legal requirement (the Communications Act 2003) if you're going to watch the BBC, TV Licensing is just the name for the organisations contracted by the BBC to carry out the policing of its fee collection.

Here's another explanation straight from the TV Licensing website:

This is incorrect. You are only required by law to purchase a tv license if you are going to watch tv programs as they are broadcast live.

That is the only single requirement to a TV license.

(If you record live tv to watch later its the same requirement, buy a license)

 

[SaxPlayer]

Since when has Apple provided any hardware at "sod all cost"?

My last comment was speaking generally and was a dig at all of us as consumers and not at any particular company. I'm referring to consumers expecting high quality for very low cost when logic would say that better quality should cost more. Apple generally provide high quality products and they usually appear to cost more than the competition, although anyone with half a brain can see that most of the time you're actually getting what you pay for and (in Apple's case in my experience) it's usually worth every penny.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

This is incorrect. You are only required by law to purchase a tv license if you are going to watch tv programs as they are broadcast live.

That is the only single requirement to a TV license.

(If you record live tv to watch later its the same requirement, buy a license)

If you own a TV though you'll be required to have a license. It's very difficult to prove otherwise and if it went to court they usually back tv licensing. I bought a tv a few weeks ago and they now ask for your address to check it has a license registered. If there isn't one present they will not sell you one. Not sure they do this if you purchase online however. It's a grey area but I think if you have an aerial receiver or satellite dish, it is assumed you intend to watch live content.

 

[Zxxv]

If you own a TV though you'll be required to have a license.

Not true. Owning a tv set does not mean you are required to buy a tv license.

It's very difficult to prove otherwise and if it went to court they usually back tv licensing.

Prove what?

You don't have to prove anything. The accuser has to prove you were watching live tv as it were broadcast.

I bought a tv a few weeks ago and they now ask for your address to check it has a license registered. If there isn't one present they will not sell you one. Not sure they do this if you purchase online however.

its been this way for a long time. Just give them a false one. There is no law that says they must ask. They are doing it as a favour to tv licensing. Theres no point explaining this to the cashier so just have an address with postcode ready.

Online well if you order online they have your name so TV licensing can write to you naming you. You don't have to reply. Why would you if your not using your tv to watch live broadcasts?

after so long of writing they stop dressing you by your name and just use the occupier. They may send someone to knock on your door. You don't have to answer. You don't have to talk to them. You don't have to let them in. You don't have to prove anything.

It's a grey area but I think if you have an aerial receiver or satellite dish, it is assumed you intend to watch live content.

Nope its not grey at all. If you do no watch live broadcast tv you don't need a tv license.

If you have an aerial connected to your tv and you also have a satellite dish then you presumed to be watching live broadcast tv. So yes you need a licence.

If you don't have an aerial connected and you don't have a satellite dish connected then you are incapable of receiving a live broadcast. So you do not need a license.

Look lets be clear , if you really don't watch live tv you would not have an aerial in your room, or even house, and defiantly not connected to your tv. Your tv would be detuned or not tuned. It would be factory set. i.e. ready to set up message would appear on the set when switching on.

If your just wanting to cheat out of paying and still watch live broadcast tv then your just playing cat and mouse.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Not true. Owning a tv set does not mean you are required to buy a tv license.




Prove what?

You don't have to prove anything. The accuser has to prove you were watching live tv as it were broadcast.



its been this way for a long time. Just give them a false one. There is no law that says they must ask. They are doing it as a favour to tv licensing. Theres no point explaining this to the cashier so just have an address with postcode ready.

Online well if you order online they have your name so TV licensing can write to you naming you. You don't have to reply. Why would you if your not using your tv to watch live broadcasts?

after so long of writing they stop dressing you by your name and just use the occupier. They may send someone to knock on your door. You don't have to answer. You don't have to talk to them. You don't have to let them in. You don't have to prove anything.




Nope its not grey at all. If you do no watch live broadcast tv you don't need a tv license.

If you have an aerial connected to your tv and you also have a satellite dish then you are watching live broadcast tv. So yes you need a licence.

If you don't have an aerial connected and you don't have a satellite dish connected then you are incapable of receiving a live broadcast. So you do not need a license.

Look lets be clear , if you really don't watch live tv you would not have an aerial in your room, or even house, and defiantly not connected to your tv. Your tv would be detuned or not tuned. It would be factory set. i.e. ready to set up message would appear on the set when switching on.

If your just wanting to cheat out of paying and still watch live broadcast tv then your just playing cat and mouse.

I didn't mean to hit a nerve as I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying the responsibility to prove either way falls on the home owner and the TV licensing people should it go to court. I've seen so many cases where people have gone to court and claimed not to watch live TV only for photographic evidence of a receiver on their house or portable aerial being used against them. There is also the live streaming Internet issue now and even a 10 second delay does not equate to it not being live these days. By all means challenge it but it can get expensive, especially as it's just easier to pay for a license in the first place.

There is quite a movement online where people are challenging the TV license with videos of themselves refusing to cooperate with investigators, but this has only made the process more thorough.

 

[Zxxv]

I didn't mean to hit a nerve as I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying the responsibility to prove either way falls on the home owner and the TV licensing people should it go to court. I've seen so many cases where people have gone to court and claimed not to watch live TV only for photographic evidence of a receiver on their house or portable aerial being used against them. There is also the live streaming Internet issue now and even a 10 second delay does not equate to it not being live these days. By all means challenge it but it can get expensive, especially as it's just easier to pay for a license in the first place.

There is quite a movement online where people are challenging the TV license with videos of themselves refusing to cooperate with investigators, but this has only made the process more thorough.

Its ok you didn't hit a nerve. I just wanted correct information to be up thats all

Its not on the home owner to prove anything. Its upto tv licensing aka capita to prove everything. Just like it is with any case that goes to court, the accuser has to prove, the defender only has to prove reasonable doubt. This can even be done by providing no evidence. This is the uk I'm talking about for those reading abroad.

I think your confusing people who legally don't watch live broadcasts with those who sort of skate the law.

Someone who doesn't watch live broadcast tv would not have an aerial anywhere near their tv. No cables. Would not have anyway possible to watch a live tv broadcast. There would be no evidence for capita to goto court with. They would be very aware of the games and tricks capita play and would ensure their property is legal just in the off chance capita somehow came in. Something the home owner would never allow as they have no legal requirement to do so.


I don't know why you mention the live streaming internet issue.

Live streaming of what?

a tv programme that also appears broadcast live on a tv set?

sure thats a live tv broadcast. requiring a license.

Anything delayed by more is a catch up service. Why would anyone who does not require a tv license because they don't watch live broadcast tv watch a live broadcast? They wouldn't, they'd watch it many hours later.

it makes no sense

 

[rmatthewware]

I don't have 100+ billion dollars backing me up when I'm out shopping. I can't send agents out to verify the claims made on the packaging, heck the manufacturers make things JUST for them. Apple can, and apparently doesn't do much of it - despite the 100+ Billion, and constant Holier than Thou preachings on political topics.

----------



Typical. In your version, I should go without basic necessities in life. Sorry, when given an option, I try taking that stance. When it's not an option, I have no choice.

I don't have 100+ billion to be as picky as I'd like. Apple can be, however. And that makes all the difference - especially when apple constantly preaches to me about how I should be aware of social/political issues.

Apple does do all the things you are asking them to do, and they admit that even so, there are still short-comings. You insult Tim Cook, but supply chain responsibility was his doing. He's the one that really got it going at Apple, even inviting outside monitors to audit them.

And don't tell me that microwaves, dishwashers, and even televisions are the necessities of life. You could go without them without too much damage to yourself. The fact is, you want them, and you'll hide behind excuses to get them, even if the people producing them aren't provided an American quality of life.

 

[Hitrate]

BBC? Don't even...just don't even.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

BBC had the vids taken down.

 

[Max(IT)]

BBC had the vids taken down.

Interesting. It'd like to know why

 

[numlock]

Apple does do all the things you are asking them to do, and they admit that even so, there are still short-comings. You insult Tim Cook, but supply chain responsibility was his doing. He's the one that really got it going at Apple, even inviting outside monitors to audit them.

And don't tell me that microwaves, dishwashers, and even televisions are the necessities of life. You could go without them without too much damage to yourself. The fact is, you want them, and you'll hide behind excuses to get them, even if the people producing them aren't provided an American quality of life.

sorry but regarding apples statement that its a work in progress which for some gives them and endless amount of time due to how vague and meaningless that statement is. which of the so called broken promises need more time and why is that?

so to be a necessity life without it has to cause oneself damage? interesting definition

and i dont believe i have seen anyone ask that the workers have an american quality of life.

BBC had the vids taken down.

im not in the uk so i cant play it (maybe one of the uk residents can confirm) but this website certainly seems to indicate its still up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04vs348

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Interesting. It'd like to know why

sorry but regarding apples statement that its a work in progress which for some gives them and endless amount of time due to how vague and meaningless that statement is. which of the so called broken promises need more time and why is that?

so to be a necessity life without it has to cause oneself damage? interesting definition

and i dont believe i have seen anyone ask that the workers have an american quality of life.



im not in the uk so i cant play it (maybe one of the uk residents can confirm) but this website certainly seems to indicate its still up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04vs348

The vids were taken down on Youtube.

 

[Max(IT)]

The vids were taken down on Youtube.

Maybe just for BBC copyright infringement

 

[Technarchy]

Less offended, more RAM.

This should be TC's 2015 resolution.

 

[PracticalMac]

have you watched the episode?

Cannot see BBC video outside UK.
Telegraph article paints a different picture, but not entirely clear how much the suppliers are shirking responsibility and how active Apple is enforcing its rules.

But I get the impression BBC was not doing a balanced investigation.

 

[rmatthewware]

sorry but regarding apples statement that its a work in progress which for some gives them and endless amount of time due to how vague and meaningless that statement is. which of the so called broken promises need more time and why is that?

so to be a necessity life without it has to cause oneself damage? interesting definition

and i dont believe i have seen anyone ask that the workers have an american quality of life.



im not in the uk so i cant play it (maybe one of the uk residents can confirm) but this website certainly seems to indicate its still up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04vs348

I wasn't trying to come up with a technical definition of "necessity". The point I was making is that people who wring their hands over worker conditions in these factories are still using the products that come from them.

When it comes to the "broken promises", I don't remember Apple giving a timeframe for improvement or what it would entail. You're dealing with factories the size of a large US suburb in a country on the other side of the world, which highly values secrecy. The fact that Apple is trying as hard as they are, that they've invited independent auditors to evaluate them, and that they are being as transparent as possible is amazing.

What you have to remember is that these aren't Apple employees and this isn't thr US. This is a problem that should be addressed by Foxconn and the Chinese (and other foreign) governments. Apple only has so much say in what goes on, but they are using their might to make the changes they can. Demanding a timeline from Apple on this is rediculous. A timeline simply isn't possible. All they can do is keep working at the problem and be honest in how things are working.

 

[numlock]

Cannot see BBC video outside UK.
Telegraph article paints a different picture, but not entirely clear how much the suppliers are shirking responsibility and how active Apple is enforcing its rules.

But I get the impression BBC was not doing a balanced investigation.

it was up on youtube for a few days at least. its available on torrent sites.

where do you get that impression? i just dont get why someone would comment on something they havent seen

I wasn't trying to come up with a technical definition of "necessity". The point I was making is that people who wring their hands over worker conditions in these factories are still using the products that come from them.

When it comes to the "broken promises", I don't remember Apple giving a timeframe for improvement or what it would entail. You're dealing with factories the size of a large US suburb in a country on the other side of the world, which highly values secrecy. The fact that Apple is trying as hard as they are, that they've invited independent auditors to evaluate them, and that they are being as transparent as possible is amazing.

What you have to remember is that these aren't Apple employees and this isn't thr US. This is a problem that should be addressed by Foxconn and the Chinese (and other foreign) governments. Apple only has so much say in what goes on, but they are using their might to make the changes they can. Demanding a timeline from Apple on this is rediculous. A timeline simply isn't possible. All they can do is keep working at the problem and be honest in how things are working.

you are trying trap people with hypocrisy accusations that a 5 year old would see through.

what indication is there that apple is trying hard? a lot of what was shown was so basic and easily spottable its almost laughable.

its hard not to remember something when every other poster here says it. apple has the purchasing power. apple issues contracts to these factories with their demands. if they can create the most high tech gadgets to apples very high standards they cannot treat their staff better (threats, taking ids, beds in a dorm room etc)?

why is a timeline impossible?

which of the incidents shown in the episode needs a lot of time to fix?

 

[Max(IT)]

On a side note, it's almost funny to see how the biggest moralizers on this thread are exactly the same bashing Apple on almost everything on this forum, being the ram amount, the user interface, the lack of SD cards support, the prices, the color, the thinness..... everything.

Are they just Apple haters, finding any excuse to downplay Apple, or am I being too suspicious?
Oh well, I'm surely being too suspicious