讲不出再见：当苹果赖上富士康

为了近日有关美国脱口秀主持人Jon Stewart在节目中讽刺苹果代工厂的劳动环境及其引发舆论的种种争议，苹果公司(Apple Inc.)在因为这家业务合作伙伴的行为饱受批评后，如果始对于富士康公司(Foxconn Electronics Inc.)三令五申，要求必须改善其不当的劳动环境与工作情形。 而如果富士康公司反驳道“那又怎么样呢？” 你可能会认为最直接立即的结果就是苹果公司结束与富士康之间的关系，并另寻其它合作伙伴，那你就错了！就算是对于像苹果这样的巨擘而言，想要解开其与富士康──或任何其它电子制造服务(EMS)公司──之间的复杂关系也并不容易。 一般来说，EMS与OEM之间的合作关系相当复杂。像苹果这样的公司通常会将业务发包给几家EMS供货商。OEM不仅想要取得最佳的价格，它也必须分享其产品设计、经营策略、材料清单(BOM)与终端客户预测，甚至是技术开发蓝图等种种细节。因此，选择并采用EMS供货商的决定可不能轻率为之。 而在投标于某项制造业务时，EMS公司内部也必须先注意一些事情。首先，自家公司本身是否拥有可制造苹果产品的技术能力？是否拥有充份的产能？是否有符合一般准则的供货商关系？如果能够与供货商之间建立直接关系，当然能够取得更大的折扣空间。但是，如果苹果公司主导管理供货商关系，它可能从中取得更多折扣， 但可能不想透露成本价格给EMS伙伴，因而合作伙伴对于成本的预测大部份都是根据猜测的结果。 就算排除上述的种种障碍，苹果公司面对的下一个问题就是机密性。EMS公司通常并非专属于一家OEM──EMS通常为多家OEM进行制造，多方下注才能避免损失。那么，举例来说，苹果公司的产品产线如何与戴尔(Dell)或其它公司的产线进行区隔？为两家不同公司进行产品制造的工人可能是同样的一群人吗？产品的设计、BOM以及出货又 是如何进行交付与处理的？如果不同供货商(例如苹果与Dell)之间的产品设计真的有共同之处， EMS会因此而共同进行生产吗？如果真是这样的话，OEM又要如何分辨呢？ 本文下一页：富士康赢在规模之大，无人能及 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载

相关阅读：
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”
• 成功的金科玉律：解读苹果供应商名单
• 电子制造业外迁潮，深圳期待华丽转型eTHesmc

{pagination} 其次是有关规模的问题。如果苹果公司存在大量的量产需求，EMS会将原本在Dell的制造产能转至苹果以因应其需求吗？制程人员可会愿意且是否有足够的人员可配合？谁来核准超时工作？如果苹果的订单需求忽然减少，EMS得进行裁员吗？但这样做合乎聘雇合约的要求吗？裁员的决定能顺利或难以进行？EMS会将这些成本转嫁给OEM吗？ 一旦OEM和EMS建立起合作伙伴关系，包括客制化等等种种问题也随之浮现。例如市场上最近刚好出现了一种新制程技术，苹果公司希望EMS能利用这种制程进行制造，EMS就必须开出一条利用这种技术的制造产线。但这往往涉及一些风险。如果苹果公司改变主意了呢？EMS会将新增产线的成本加在苹果公司吗？或者，他们会将新制程用于其它客户的产品制造吗？如果这项制程是专为苹果而开发的，EMS能这么做吗？ 这些问题只是谈到了OEM-EMS关系的一点皮毛而已。苹果与富士康之间的关系无疑地还更复杂几百倍以上。其中一个很大的问题就是：如果富士康拒绝让步，苹果公司又能拿它怎么办呢？当然，市场上还有其它的EMS公司可选择，但要找到一家像苹果这样的客户并不容易。 EMS 咨询公司Charlie Barnhart & Associates负责人Charlie Barnhart在回复EBN记者的email中表示，对于典型的OEM与EMS建立合作关系来看，从第一次双方的内部会谈到首次产品出货大约需要5个季度的时间。“取决于合作计划的规模、方法与复杂度以及OEM的经验，OEM-EMS合作关系的建立显然存在很大的选择范围。” 此 外，富士康公司算是EMS产业的重量级厂商。这家公司规模之大，让像Charlie Barnhart & Associates这样的分析公司还另行创造了Goliath Fringe一词来形容它。同时，富士康公司也是世界上少数几家不看苹果脸色的公司之一。 如果富士康公司看清了事实真相，并开始寻求转变，那么可以确定的是产品的价格也将随之上涨──不只是苹果公司的产品而已。如果富士康认为苹果公司只是在虚张声势，那么不只是苹果公司的产品可能短缺，同时，原本就已高昂的产品价格也会上涨到极限。 外包制度带给OEM更大弹性度的这种理想只能在某种程度上落实而已。当合作双方陷入像苹果与富士康之间这样复杂的关系时，说分手不只伤害到两家公司，也影响到每一个人。 编译：Susan Hong 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文：Apple & Foxconn: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do，by Barbara Jorgensen

相关阅读：
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”
• 成功的金科玉律：解读苹果供应商名单
• 电子制造业外迁潮，深圳期待华丽转型eTHesmc

{pagination} Apple & Foxconn: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do Barbara Jorgensen For the sake of argument, let's say Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL), after suffering criticism for the actions of one of its business partners, threw down the gauntlet and told Foxconn Electronics Inc. it had to change its labor practices. Let's say Foxconn countered with "Or what?" If you think the immediate consequence would be Apple taking its business elsewhere, think again. Untangling itself from Foxconn -- or any other EMS company -- would be tough for even Apple. In general, EMS-OEM relationships are complicated. A company such as Apple bids out its business to any number of EMS providers. Not only does an OEM want the best possible price, but it's also sharing details of its product design, business strategy, bill of material, end-customer forecasts, and even technology roadmap. These decisions are not made lightly. The EMS company bidding on such business has to look at a number of things internally. First, does it have the technical capability to make Apple's products? Does it have ample capacity? Does it have relationships with the correct suppliers? If it has a direct relationship with a supplier, it might receive a volume discount. But if Apple manages the supplier relationships, it may have a better discount. If Apple does manage the relationships, it may not want to share the price it gets with its EMS partner, so the partner's cost estimate would be based largely on guesswork. Assuming those hurdles are cleared, Apple's next question is about confidentiality. EMS companies are not dedicated to one OEM -- to hedge their bets, they manufacture for many OEMs. How separate would Apple's lines be from, say, Dell's? Would workers overlap? How are designs, the BOM, and other deliveries transmitted and handled? What suppliers, if any, do Apple and Dell have in common, and is the EMS provider leveraging the combined volume? If so, are the savings being passed on to one or both OEMs? How would the OEM even tell? Next is the question of scale. If Apple had a massive ramp-up in demand, would the EMS be willing to move manufacturing capacity from, say, Dell to accommodate Apple? Would workers be willing and available? Who would approve the overtime? If Apple had a sudden drop-off in demand, would you lay people off? Would there be labor contracts to honor? How easy or difficult would it be to put people out of work? Would you pass those costs on to the OEM? Once the OEM and EMS have established a partnership, issues such as customization may come along. Maybe a new manufacturing process is unveiled, and Apple wants the EMS to use it. The EMS has to create a manufacturing line (or lines) to take advantage of this. But there is always a risk involved. What if Apple changed its mind? Would the EMS stick Apple with the cost of adding the lines? Or would it use the new process for other customers? Could the EMS do this, if the process were developed for Apple? These issues are just skimming the surface of OEM-EMS relationships. Apple's deals with Foxconn are no doubt hundreds of times more complex. And here is the big question: Where would Apple go if Foxconn refused to budge? Sure, there are other EMS companies, but picking up a customer like Apple takes time. Charlie Barnhart, principal of the EMS consulting firm Charlie Barnhart & Associates, told EBN in an e-mail that it takes just over five quarters -- from the first internal talks to the first delivery of product -- for the typical OEM to implement a new EMS relationship. "Obviously there is a big range around this average depending on the scale, approach, and complexity of the project and the experiential level of the OEM." In the EMS industry, Foxconn is the 800-pound gorilla. It's so big that analysts such as Charlie Barnhart & Associates have created a new category (Goliath Fringe) just to describe it. Foxconn is one of the few companies in the world that might be able to stare down Apple. If Foxconn saw the light and began to change, you can be sure that the prices of products -- not just Apple's -- would rise. If Foxconn called Apple's bluff and sent it elsewhere, not only would there be a shortage of Apple products, but its already-premium prices would hit the roof. The idea that outsourcing gives OEMs more flexibility is true only to a certain extent. When you are as enmeshed as Apple is with Foxconn, a breakup wouldn't just hurt the companies -- it would hurt everyone.