Microsoft is abandoning its diversity efforts?

“Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts/Microsoft is toeing the line in Trump’s America” (The Verge, December 4, 2025):

Microsoft has been publishing data about the gender, race, and ethnic breakdown of its employees for more than a decade. Since 2019 it’s been publishing a full diversity and inclusion report annually, and at the same time made reporting on diversity a requirement for employee performance reviews. Now it’s scrapping its diversity report and dropping diversity and inclusion as a companywide core priority for performance reviews, just months after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to try and eradicate workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

… employees no longer have to submit exactly what they did to improve security and diversity and what they plan to do in the future. … replaced with a simplified form that asks employees to reflect on the results they delivered and how they achieved them, and any recent setbacks and goals for the future. … In HR documentation, the company doesn’t even use the word “diversity” anymore, opting for just “inclusion” instead.

Also on December 4, 2025, pictures of my Windows 11 login screen:

Microsoft knows that I have chosen to use the Windows operating system and it reminds me about “the extraordinary women who have made a positive impact on the modern world.”

Who are the extraordinary women who built Microsoft Windows? I asked ChatGPT, “Who were the most important programmers of Microsoft Windows operating system that are identifiable by name?” and received the following answer:

  • Tim Paterson, wrote original QDOS/MS-DOS
  • Mark Zbikowski, designed MZ executable format
  • Dave Cutler, lead architect Windows NT
  • Lou Perazzoli, NT memory manager author
  • Mark Lucovsky, NT kernel/I-O subsystem
  • Rob Short, core NT kernel engineer
  • Jim Horne, NT cache manager author
  • Tom Miller, original NT kernel team
  • Darryl Havens, original NT kernel team
  • Steve Wood, original NT kernel team
  • Ralph Lipe, Win32 input/driver stack
  • Ken Reneris, GDI graphics subsystem
  • Philip Fortier, early USER window manager
  • Bob Day, GDI and USER components
  • Raymond Chen, Win32 compatibility steward
  • David Thompson, Windows 95 lead architect
  • Brad Silverberg, Windows 95 project leader
  • Jim Allchin, merged 95/NT codebases
  • Mark Russinovich, modern kernel authority
  • Dave Plummer, wrote Task Manager/Pinball

What do the people behind Microsoft Windows know about “extraordinary women” that the typical user doesn’t know? How did Microsoft become an expert on this subject? Will an extraordinary woman figure out a way for Windows 11 to run smoothly in less than 128 GB of RAM? Will an extraordinary woman figure out a way for Windows 11 to delete a file from the C: drive (M.2 SSD) without waiting for spin-up of the D: drive (HDD)?

Full post, including comments

Why don’t people on the other sides of frauds get fired?

We’ve read about a variety of frauds lately, some in the business world and some at the government trough. We hear about the fraudsters being sanctioned, but never the people who were responsible for ladling out the cash. Our first example happened at JPMorgan (source: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners):

In late 2021, JPMorgan announced they were acquiring Frank, a fintech startup founded by [precious female entrepreneur] Charlie Javice that promised to simplify the college financial aid application process. The company reportedly had more than four million users who used the app to help them navigate the complex and difficult process of applying for financial aid. However, by December 2022, JPMorgan filed a civil lawsuit against Javice, alleging fraudulent claims over the amount of customers Frank had. Instead of the around four million customers Javice reported, Frank had fewer than 300,000 actual users. Federal prosecutors then brought criminal charges in early 2023, and in March 2025, Javice was found guilty on multiple counts, including securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy charges.

The discrepancy was significant, as Frank had only about 7% of the users it claimed to have during negotiations with JPMorgan Chase. Evidence showed that Javice had actually hired a data scientist for around $18,000 to create synthetic user data, which was then presented to JPMorgan during the acquisition process as a selling point.

Wims Morris, a JPMorgan executive, relied heavily on Javice’s claims about user data.

How’s Wims Morris doing now? Her LinkedIn profile says that she’s now in charge of $88 billion in auto loans:

Next we go to the geniuses at BlackRock, in charge of $12.5 trillion in assets (mostly index funds?). “BlackRock Stung by Loans to Business Accused of ‘Breathtaking’ Fraud” (WSJ):

The lenders have accused [enricher] Bankim Brahmbhatt, the owner of little-known telecom-services companies Broadband Telecom and Bridgevoice, of fabricating accounts receivable that were supposed to be used as loan collateral. The lenders filed suit in August. They said Brahmbhatt’s companies owe them more than $500 million.

The lenders allege in their complaint that their investigation determined that every customer email Brahmbhatt-owned companies had provided to verify invoices over the past two years was fake. They also said they discovered fraudulent contracts from customers dating back to 2018.

In other words, it seems that anyone able to type “Please generate some invoices and customer emails for my hypothetical telecom company” into an LLM could collect $500 million from the smartest folks on Wall Street. A Google search for “BlackRock firings after Brahmbhatt fraud” yields zero relevant results.

The same lack of accountability can be observed in government. Somalis living in Minnesota managed to defraud taxpayers of more than $1 billion via various welfare program schemes (on top of the taxpayer-funded housing, health care, food, and smartphone to which two-thirds of Somali households in Minnesota are entitled by virtue of having over-the-table income lower than 200 percent of the poverty line (MNCompass)). It got to the point that even the New York Times was willing to implicitly criticize war veteran Tim Walz: “How Fraud Swamped Minnesota’s Social Services System on Tim Walz’s Watch”:

The fraud scandal that rattled Minnesota was staggering in its scale and brazenness. … fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made small fortunes by setting up companies that billed state agencies for millions of dollars’ worth of social services that were never provided. Federal prosecutors say that 59 people have been convicted in those schemes so far, and that more than $1 billion in taxpayers’ money has been stolen in three plots they are investigating. That is more than Minnesota spends annually to run its Department of Corrections. … Ms. Hassan is of Somali ancestry, as are all but eight of the 86 people charged in the meals, housing and autism therapy fraud cases, according to prosecutors. A vast majority are American citizens, by birth or naturalization.

“The message here in Minnesota,” [Tampon Tim] Walz said, “is if you commit a crime, if you commit fraud against public dollars, you are going to go to prison.”

The worst part is not the $1 billion extracted from taxpayers who had to work extra hours to send money to Somalis and Somalia, but that people might mistakenly believe that Somalis, two-thirds of whom are entitled to every form of welfare (see above), aren’t “hardworking”:

“The actions of a small group have made it easier for people already inclined to reject us to double down,” said Abdi Mohamed, a filmmaker in Minneapolis. “The broader Somali community — hardworking, family-oriented, deeply committed to Minnesota — is left carrying that burden.”

Missing from the article: “Joe Bureaucrat was fired for not noticing this obvious fraud and ladling out more than one $billion in tax dollars.” Also missing… reader comments. The NYT disabled comments on the article from the beginning so that none of their readers could commit Wrongthink and erroneously suggest that Minnesota would be better off without enrichment by Somalis.

The Somalis who defrauded the white say-gooders of Minnesota weren’t Hollywood-style supervillains with IQs of 160. JPMorgan could have discovered precious female entrepreneur Charlie Javice’s fraud by making about 10 phone calls. Ditto for BlackRock and Bankim Brahmbhatt (believed to be back in India now after enriching the U.S. for enough years to obtain U.S. citizenship (FCC filings)). If nobody can be fired then what’s the incentive to perform basic due diligence?

Maybe I am out of step with the rest of humanity. For example, I would have imprisoned the Theranos Board, its attorneys, and anyone who invested other people’s money in Theranos rather than prosecuting and imprisoning Elizabeth Holmes. Believing that a Stanford dropout knew stuff that all of Europe’s PhD chemists didn’t know is criminal-level idiocy in my opinion! I would have sent Elizabeth Holmes out on a speaking tour (not a Hillary-style “listening tour”) where she could tell venture capitalists and money managers that sometimes credentials actually do matter.

Full post, including comments

Use normally dead/black televisions as virtual windows into interesting places via webcams?

Readers may recall my passion for doing something with the dead/black/huge televisions that are on many walls of our houses (the house that we bought in Florida actually came with six flat-screen TVs at no extra charge because the previous owners didn’t feel like demounting and moving them), e.g.,

I’m surprised that nobody has implemented a business idea that I proposed to entrepreneurial friends about 10 years ago: a streaming service that turns any television into a “virtual window”, but not a window onto the boring street where one actually lives. A subscriber could choose to be looking out at the Champs Elysée, at the crazy intersection in Shibuya (Tokyo), a lake/mountain view from a famous resort hotel, etc. Since all of my ideas are terrible, from a business point of view, the original concept was a cable TV channel. Cable companies offer roughly 50 music channels for ambient use. Why not 50 virtual windows as well?

High quality webcams have only gotten cheaper in the decade since I proposed this idea. Internet has become faster and more reliable. Why hasn’t this idea caught on?

There is a construction documentation company that branched out into this market a little and offers earthcamtv.com, which seems to be supported by low-rent ads rather than subscription. They have an Android TV app so I guess it would work on a Sony, TCL, or HiSense . I don’t think anyone would want this running continuously in his/her/zir/their house.

Here’s a newer twist on the idea: Immigration TV. This could have virtual windows into the countries that enrich us, e.g., Venezuela, Haiti, Colombia, India, Pakistan, etc. It could be sponsored by both the Democratic Party (channels that show how great life is in places that migrants claim are too dangerous to inhabit) and the Republicans (channels that show the crowded, dirty, and disorganized conditions that people in source countries have created for themselves).

As far as I know, all current TVs lack the interface required to be programmed to “wake up at 0900 and start up the Virtual Windows app” so it would be somewhat tedious to go around to every TV in the house every morning and configure this.

Samsung is still trying to sell people on its absurdly deficient The Frame system (requires an external box that nobody has a place to put except maybe if a house was built from scratch with The Frame in mind; they make a wireless version of the box, but of course everyone says that it doesn’t stay connected). Most humans are much more drawn to moving pictures than to still images, even still images of great art (art museums that are free still struggle to attract a wide audience). Why wouldn’t LG introduce The Window in which the television comes preloaded with the ability to show streams from curated webcams around the world?

Partial personal list of desired virtual windows:

  • One for each of the nicest Japanese gardens in Japan (that would be around 50 window choices?)
  • One for the bonsai collection with pond behind at Morikami Japanese garden in Palm Beach County, Florida (good for the Japanese winter months)
  • Ngorongoro Crater (Tanzania)
  • Churchill, Manitoba (polar bars)
  • Piazza San Marco, Venice (from a second-story window since nobody needs to see the pigeons up close)
  • Miradouro de São Pedro de Alcântara, Lisbon
  • Portofino South condo rooftop in West Palm Beach (looks out towards Mar-a-Lago so we can keep our envy levels appropriately high)
  • Miami waterfront skyscraper (any) looking out toward Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach (watch the cruise ships come and go)
  • Looking out on the main square of Santiago de Compostela to watch pilgrims who’ve completed their walks
Full post, including comments

Why isn’t there a simple 5-channel or 7-channel amplifier that connects to a television’s HDMI eARC output?

Our family room TV is almost impossible to use due to the fact that the hub of the system is a Yamaha RX-6A AV receiver with a complex user interface and many functions that overlap with the TV. What’s worse, the Yamaha has already had one HDMI switch board failure and seems to be on track for another one (the receiver is about 3.5 years old and sells for almost exactly what we paid for the vastly-more-useful and vastly-simpler-to-use 86-inch LG TV, i.e., $800 (we got the TV at Costco 3.5 years ago for $900, but they threw in a five-year warranty that should have been worth about $100).

What functions of the Yamaha do we actually want? We want it to switch among HDMI inputs and amplify sound for five passive speakers. If we had a subwoofer we’d want it to provide a line-level output for a powered subwoofer. A modern television already supports HDMI switching, typically among 4 inputs, which is plenty for 99% of consumers (cable TV box, some sort of dongle, maybe a slide show player). The modern television also puts out multi-channel audio and volume control commands via its eARC HDMI output. From ChatGPT:

Given how cheap Class D amplifiers are and how inventive Asian electronics companies are, I can’t figure out why there isn’t a display-free and remote-free 5- or 7-channel amplifier with a line-level subwoofer output that could take eARC with Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) input and drive one’s legacy passive speakers. This would enable consumers who’ve cut their cable cords to enjoy true surround sound with just one remote control. As a minor enhancement, when the TV is off and eARC has no signal the little amp could offer to play a Bluetooth source, e.g., from a phone app, through the two main speakers.

There must be something wrong with this product idea because nobody makes a “keep the TV at the center of the TV-watching system” amp. But what is the flaw?

Full post, including comments

How’s Intel doing now that the BLM and DEI cheerleader white guy is out?

It’s been about six months since a Chinese guy took over at Intel from the white male who said that his primary passions were mostly peaceful BLM protests, giving big jobs to women and people with dark skin, etc. (And nine months since the white savior BLM warrior was ousted.) Has Lip-Bu Tan managed to turn the company around? At least with a dead cat bounce?

I still would like to know why Intel’s Gaudi chips are such a failure compared to NVIDIA. They sure sound great in HTML (replacement phrase for “on paper”):

Did Pat Gelsinger follow his BLM and DEI passion into a full-time job at a social justice enterprise? Apparently not. Investors who suffered a 75 percent loss on Intel stock (adjusted for Bidenflation) during the white savior’s leadership of Intel now have the opportunity to lose some more money by giving it to Playground Global, a venture capital fund where Gelsinger is a partner.

Is it too soon to do an INTC v AMD stock price chart? Maybe not! Remarkably, now that the Social Justice Warrior is out, INTC has actually outperformed AMD over the past year:

Full post, including comments

Kilmar’s Pupusa and Margarita Café

A chain idea to appeal to roughly half of Americans: a Kilmar Armando Ábrego García-themed restaurant. The name: “Kilmar’s”. What should a restaurant named after this hero serve? CNN:

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, entered the US illegally sometime around 2011, but an immigration judge in 2019, after reviewing evidence, withheld his removal. That meant he could not be deported to El Salvador but could be deported to another country. A gang in his native country, the immigration judge found, had been “targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”

Obviously the menu must include the pupusas that Kilmar’s mom was making at home and that U.S. government employees had no trouble believing were a source of gang interest. The restaurant should offer margaritas just like the ones that Kilmar enjoyed with Maryland Senator Van Hollen and there should be a table with a fiberglass replica of Sen. Van Hollen so that customers can get pictures of themselves like the one below.

There should be a Chevy Suburban inside the restaurant that has been cut away to function as a table. The Suburban should be the same model year as the one that Kilmar was driving when pulled over in Tennessee.

Photos from a celebration of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García that we had in Sun Valley, Idaho last month:

Full post, including comments

T-Mobile ends race discrimination, but not because it was wrong

“T-Mobile disconnects from DEI under pressure from Trump administration” (USA Today):

T-Mobile is scrapping its diversity, equity and inclusion programs under pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration as it looks for regulators to green-light two major acquisitions.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission dated July 8, the wireless carrier said it would discontinue DEI policies “not just in name, but in substance.”

“We recognize that the legal and policy landscape surrounding DEI under federal law has changed,” T-Mobile wrote.

Here’s the correct analysis, I think:

“In yet another cynical bid to win FCC regulatory approval, T-Mobile is making a mockery of its professed commitment to eliminating discrimination, promoting fairness and amplifying underrepresented voices,” FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, wrote on X. “History will not be kind to this cowardly corporate capitulation.”

How is it possible for a company to abandon one of its sacred principles without at least pretending to have changed its mind, e.g., saying “What we did in the past was wrong”? It’s okay to say “We thought we could make more money by adopting a completely new moral system”?

In a similar vein… “Trump administration releases $175 million in federal funding to Penn after transgender athletes agreement” (CNN):

The funding release comes after the school reached an agreement with the federal government to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas.

The university previously said “Lia Thomas is a woman”. If the Feds had threatened to take away $1 the school presumably would have continued to say “Lia Thomas is a woman”. There was some amount of money, however, at which Lia Thomas’s gender ID changed. But what was that amount of money? Would Penn have been willing to say “Lia Thomas is not a woman” for $1 million? $5 million?

Full post, including comments

Apple in China book: what China can do with everything it has learned from Tesla and Apple

A third post about Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company by Patrick McGee… (see Apple in China book, Intro and Apple in China, the rise of iPod)

The book’s big theme is that Apple taught the Chinese everything that they now know about making high-end electronics. The author says that Tesla did something similar:

As The Economist later put it: “For all its manufacturing might, China never mastered internal-combustion engines, which have hundreds of moving parts and are tricky to assemble.” Electric vehicles changed the game. But more specifically, Tesla did. China’s ambition in electric vehicles goes back to around 2001, and with hefty government incentives, EVs became embedded in the public transportation system about a decade later. The sector had been so awash in incentives and subsidies that Shenzhen alone had 17,000 electric buses at a time when all of Europe and North America had practically none. Consumers who purchased EVs were often able to get a free license plate, which are otherwise tightly controlled and sold at auction. Despite all this support, EVs and plug-in hybrids together accounted for just 4.8 percent of the new car market in 2019. Tesla broke ground on the Shanghai Gigafactory in December 2018; by late 2019 China-made Model 3 vehicles were coming off the production line. Immediately they were a massive hit, and the Tesla Model 3 was China’s bestselling EV in 2020. Chinese consumers “didn’t want to buy anything being manufactured by Chinese brands; they all wanted Tesla,” says Parikh. “As soon as Tesla came, there was a paradigm shift from consumers, and that’s something the Chinese government saw. This was an opportunity to have the entire EV industry in China compete with, and learn from, Tesla.”

Tesla’s investment in China has worked out brilliantly for China’s EV sector, with quality improving across the board. The share of EVs and plug-ins soared from under 5 percent in 2019 to 38 percent in 2023. And the investment has certainly worked out well for Tesla: Shanghai now accounts for half of the company’s global production. But there are longer-term uncertainties and unanswered questions. “In this game, one American company—Tesla in cars and Apple in phones—gets to win,” says another former Tesla executive. “They don’t care if all their US competitors lose. It’s actually better for them. But on the other side, all the Chinese companies win. They all get to step up and create a massive market where none previously existed.”

What’s the potential downside?

Over the coming year, the onslaught from Huawei would be intense. China’s national champion increased its share of the local market from 20 percent in the first half of 2019 to 27 percent in the second half, and then to 29 percent in early 2020. It began outselling the iPhone three to one in China, particularly threatening because it was taking a bite out of Apple’s luxury dominance. In China’s “premium market”—phones priced between $600 and $800—Huawei share soared from 10 percent in early 2018 to 48 percent a year later, causing Apple’s share to fall from 82 percent to 37 percent. Apple’s hold in the “super premium” market—phones priced above $800—was still impressive, at 74 percent, but it had fallen from 90 percent a year earlier. If Huawei’s success had been confined to China, the damage would’ve been limited. But in 2019 the Chinese brand overtook Apple sales globally. It shipped 238.5 million phones—more phones than Apple had shipped even in its peak year of 2015. The student, as they say, had become the master.

Chinese brands had accounted for just 23 percent of global smartphone shipments in 2013, the year of Apple’s political awakening. But their share surpassed 50 percent in 2020. Brands led by Huawei, Xiaomi, and Vivo gave Chinese companies, in 2022, a cumulative market share in both China and Russia of 79 percent; in Indonesia, 73 percent; in India, 66 percent, per Counterpoint Research. In fact, Samsung and Apple were the only two sizable non-Chinese companies still making smartphones. Taiwan’s HTC, Korea’s LG, Canada’s BlackBerry, and Finland’s Nokia were all basically gone; Motorola was now owned by China’s Lenovo; and global sales of Google Pixel were so low as to be subsumed into the “other” category.

Who saved Apple and its 2SLGBTQQIA+ CEO? A purported threat to the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community:

How Apple got out of this mess was a surprising twist, the stuff of novels. Donald Trump had ascended to the US presidency threatening Apple; instead, he saved it. In May 2019 the Trump administration alleged Huawei was a security threat, citing alleged ties with the Chinese government and the potential for its communications equipment to be used for espionage or cyberattacks. It soon imposed unprecedented sanctions, depriving Huawei of Google services, including the Play Store, Gmail, YouTube, and other Android tools—a crippling blow for Huawei phones distributed outside of China. Washington also disallowed American companies from shipping fifth-generation cellular chips to the group.

Apple was suddenly the only game in town for premium 5G phones. Huawei’s share of the Chinese market plummeted from a peak of 29 percent to just 7 percent; Apple filled the void, its China share near doubling from 9 percent to 17 percent.

The book notes how helpful Apple has been to the Chinese government in maintaining the Great Firewall. It also describes how Tim Cook, a brave warrior in U.S. politics (see Guy with a “Whites Only” sign in his conference room tells others not to discriminate from 2015, for example) knows when to say nothing:

Tim Cook’s mind in early December 2022 when he was confronted by a reporter on Capitol Hill, en route to meeting privately with senior lawmakers. “Do you support the Chinese people’s right to protest? Do you have any reaction to the factory workers that were beaten and detained for protesting COVID lockdowns?” asked Hillary Vaughn of Fox News as Cook walked through the building. “Do you think it’s problematic to do business with the Communist Chinese Party when they suppress human rights?” Cook ignored Vaughn, eyes cast downward as he changed direction to avoid her. One supply chain executive characterized the confrontation as “the worst forty-five seconds of Cook’s career.” But his biggest, most astute critic might have been… himself. In 2017, explaining why corporate executives should be more up-front about their values and “lead accordingly,” Cook had told journalist Megan Murphy that “silence is the ultimate consent.” He went on: “If you see something going on that’s not right, the most powerful form of consent is to say nothing. And I think that’s not acceptable to your company, to the team that works so hard for your company, for your customers, or for your country. Or for each country that you happen to be operating in.” The forty-five-second clip of Cook ignoring questions about China played repeatedly on US cable news. Cook’s silence—his ultimate consent—was highly indicative of just how beholden America’s most valuable company had become to an authoritarian state.

When in 2019 the company rolled out Apple TV+, its Netflix-style streaming service, software and services head Eddy Cue issued just two directives to Apple’s content partners: no hard-core nudity and “avoid portraying China in a poor light.” … Apple TV+ isn’t even available in China, but Cupertino understands the country well enough to know when and how to self-censor.

With Tim Cook and Apple doing whatever China wants, what risks remain for the company? According to the author, Huawei’s innovations in hardware and in building its own operating system (HarmonyOS) may enable Huawei to wipe out Apple in what is currently a huge and lucrative Chinese market.

This will be my last post about Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company. I’ve left out a huge section regarding the rise of Apple’s business in China, e.g., the Apple Stores that it opened. It’s worth reading, but China is so different from the rest of the world that I can’t think of any practical value for knowing this history.

Full post, including comments

Apple in China, the rise of iPod

Second post regarding Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company by Patrick McGee. This one is about Apple’s shift from making computers to making handheld devices. (See Apple in China book, Intro if you missed Post #1 about this book.)

… just a month after the launch of iTunes [January 2001], hardware chief Jon Rubinstein—aka Ruby—and procurement head Jeff Williams were in Japan and stopped by Toshiba. The Japanese supplier showed them a new hard drive, just 1.8 inches in diameter, with a massive 5 gigabytes of capacity. Toshiba didn’t really know what to do with it, but to Ruby, the implications were “obvious” immediately: this thing could hold a thousand MP3s! It was the enabling technology they needed. “Jeff,” Ruby quietly said, “we need to get all of these.” Williams negotiated an exclusive supply agreement as Ruby made sure the $10 million check they drew up wouldn’t bounce.

Rubinstein and Fadell would later dispute who the key figure was behind the hit MP3 player, but the truth is that its brilliance had multiple authors, reflecting how each domain in the pyramid structure (ID, PD, MD, and Ops) worked on their specialty simultaneously. Ruby had found Toshiba’s disk drive and realized its potential. Phil Schiller, of marketing, introduced the idea of the scroll wheel—probably the feature most loved by consumers, as it reacted to the velocity of each turn and enabled them to race through hundreds of songs in a matter of seconds. Fadell was the overall architect. He presented to Jobs a prototype made from foam core and stuffed with old fishing weights to give it some heft. Jony Ive’s team made it unapologetically white, with a polished, chrome-like stainless steel back, a remarkably sharp turn from the childlike colors of the iMac. It was an unusually high-end material for a mass-market product, giving it a feel unlike any other handheld device. It was also durable and could dissipate heat more effectively than plastic.

The MP3 player would remain nameless for months, until four people in branding tossed ideas back and forth with Jobs. Vinnie Chieco, a creative director, recalls how the team would write down every permutation and then sort them into three piles: the worst, the ones that suck, and the not horrible. He’d come up with one: Troubadour, named after French poets who went from town to town playing music. This thing, too, was mobile, could travel and play music. The metaphor worked. The name didn’t. Jobs had his own preferred moniker, which Chieco remembers but won’t share. Like MacMan—what Steve wanted to call the iMac—his idea wasn’t very good, and Chieco is hesitant to share something now that Jobs can’t defend. The other three people in the room told Jobs they loved his name for the device, perhaps trying to avoid his infamous wrath. But when Jobs asked Chieco for his opinion, the creative director said, “Well, I understand your name is novel, but…” Feeling as if he were putting his head in a guillotine, Chieco told Jobs the reasons he didn’t like it. Meanwhile, he kept thinking in metaphors. He was struck by the all-white design, which looked space-like. Riffing on Jobs’s idea that a Mac computer was the “hub for your digital life,” he considered how in the future, the ultimate hub would be the mother ship. The only way to escape would be in a pod that flies away for temporary adventures, returning to replenish and recharge. He got the idea from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and hey—now it was 2001! It felt serendipitous, like when the Macintosh emerged in the Orwellian year, 1984. He proposed Pod. Jobs didn’t hate it, and over a few meetings it grew on him until it became the obvious name. It just needed one tweak, one letter, and then it was perfect: iPod.

Why did Apple make a phone? It was obvious to everyone that consumers wouldn’t want an iPod once reasonably capable smartphones were ubiquitous. Profits from Apple computers were insignificant compared to profits from the mass market iPod.

Around mid-2005, another project began to gain traction internally. The interfaces team had been toying with multi-touch technology for roughly two years, aided by a start-up Apple had purchased called FingerWorks. Senior engineers from Project Purple knew about it, but the original concept was about rethinking the Mac’s interface. When Steve Jobs first showed Fadell the technology, asking if it might work for a phone, it was far from obvious that the enormous contraption Jobs pointed to was the future of something that would sit on your desk, let alone be shoved in your pocket. “It filled the room,” Fadell recalled. “There was a projector mounted on the ceiling, and it would project the Mac screen onto this surface that was maybe three or four feet square. Then you could touch the Mac screen and move things around and draw on it.”

Meanwhile, the fear that the iPod business would be cannibalized by the phone giants continued to fuel anxiety and innovation. “It was an existential crisis,” a senior engineer says. “[We were saying], ‘You realize what’s gonna happen here is this business we built on iPods is going to go away. We need to build a phone.’ ” Jobs eventually canceled the other phone ideas and declared multi-touch the future. He was adamant there’d be no keyboard, so the phone would be as full screen as possible. Apple’s engineers suddenly had to find suppliers that could build multi-touch displays at scale—something that didn’t exist at the time. There was no way Apple could send the specs to some factory and wait for the parts to be built; instead, it sent teams of engineers to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China to find hungry vendors it could work with to co-create the processes. “There were a few truly groundbreaking mass production processes we were involved with, where we really had to go around to find the best people in the entire world—the peak of what humans have developed for some of these technologies,” says a product manager. By early 2006, they had a full-screen prototype enclosed in brushed aluminum. Jobs and Ive “were exceedingly proud of it,” journalist Fred Vogelstein would later recount. “But because neither of them was an expert in the physics of radio waves, they didn’t realize they’d created a beautiful brick. Radio waves don’t travel through metal well.”

(I don’t understand how “cannibalized by the phone giants” made it through the purported editing process of this book. In business, cannibalized refers to a reduction of sales of Product A after the company that makes Product A introduces Product B. In the context of Apple, the iPhone might cannibalize sales from the iPod or a notebook-format Macintosh might cut into sales of desktop Macs rather than take sales away from IBM PCs.)

The iPhone required a lot of new manufacturing techniques, mostly developed by vendors in China and Taiwan, often with significant help from Apple engineers who’d fly over from California.

Another important supplier was TPK, which placed a special coating on the Corning glass, enabling the user’s fingers to transmit electrical signals. The Taiwanese start-up had been founded just a few years earlier by Michael Chiang, an entrepreneur who in the PC era had reportedly made $30 million sourcing monitors and then lost it all on one strategic mistake. In 1997 he began working with resistive touch panels used by point-of-sale registers. When Palm was shipping PDAs that worked with a stylus, Chiang worked on improving the technology to enable finger-based touchscreens, even showing the technology to Nokia. But nobody was interested until 2004, when a glass supplier introduced TPK to Apple. An iPhone engineer calls Chiang “a classic Taiwanese cowboy [who] committed to moving heaven and earth” by turning fields into factories that could build touchscreens. The factory was in Xiamen, a coastal city directly across from Taiwan. “The first iPhones 100 percent would not have shipped without that vendor,” this person says. He recalls Chiang responding to Apple by saying, “ ‘We can totally do that!’—even though [what we were asking was something] nobody in the world had ever done before.” Among the techniques Apple codeveloped with suppliers was a way to pattern, or etch, two sides of a piece of glass to do the touch sensor, at a time when film lithography processes were being done on only one side. Another pioneering technique is called rigid-to-rigid lamination, a process for bonding two materials using heat and pressure, which Apple applied to tape a stack of LCD displays to touch sensors and cover elements to create one material. The process was performed in a clean-room environment with custom robotics.

Instead of selecting components off the shelf, Apple was designing custom parts, crafting the manufacturing behind them, and orchestrating their assembly into enormously complex systems at such scale and flexibility that it could respond to fluctuating customer demand with precision. Just half a decade earlier, these sorts of feats were not possible in China. The main thing that had changed, remarkably, was Apple’s presence itself. So many of its engineers were going into the factories to train workers that the suppliers were developing new forms of practical know-how. “All the tech competence China has now is not the product of Chinese tech leadership drawing in Apple,” O’Marah says. “It’s the product of Apple going in there and building the tech competence.”

We might owe most of our current toys to Apple’s 2010 agreement with TSMC, motivated by a desire to reduce its dependence on Samsung:

In 2010, Apple operations chief Jeff Williams reached out to Morris Chang through his wife, Sophie Chang, a relative of Terry Gou. Dinner between them launched months of “intense” negotiations, according to Chang, as Williams pressed TSMC on prices and convinced the Taiwanese group to make a major investment. “The risk was very substantial,” Williams recalled at a gathering for TSMC’s thirtieth anniversary in 2017. “If we were to bet heavily on TSMC, there would be no backup plan. You cannot double-plan the kind of volumes that we do. We want leading-edge technology, but we want it at established technology… volumes.” Williams’s narrative leaves out some of the most interesting facts about the early partnership. One is that Chang wouldn’t commit to Apple’s demands. In a 2025 interview with the podcast Acquired, Chang said that TSMC would’ve had to raise substantial amounts of money, either by selling bonds or issuing more stock. Williams had another idea: “You can eliminate your dividend.” Morris balked at the aggressive suggestion. “If we do what Jeff Williams says, our stock to going to drop like hell,” he recounted. Chang agreed to take only half of Apple’s order. Even this partial commitment forced TSMC to borrow $7 billion, so it could invest $9 billion and devote 6,000 full-time employees working round the clock to bring up a new chips fab in eleven months, according to Williams. “In the end, the execution was flawless,” he said. The partial commitment forced Apple to toggle between Samsung and TSMC, which some in Cupertino saw as a plus—it meant that Apple wasn’t beholden to just one supplier for what serves as the brain within the iPhone. But Srouji’s team found it nightmarish to manage both suppliers. So Apple turned to TSMC on an exclusive basis, establishing over-the-top contract terms to protect itself. A person familiar with the contract characterized it as saying: “We need to make sure that you’re gonna go out of business—if you’re gonna put us at risk of going out of business.” It was a “mutually assured destruction” type of situation, this person says, because if TSMC didn’t perform in any given year, there’d be no iPhone. So the Apple decision was made: “We are going to put all of our eggs in one basket, and then we’re gonna guard the basket.” TSMC’s bet would prove critical for making it the world leader in semiconductor fabrication, with Apple as its

Full post, including comments

Apple in China book, Intro

I recently finished Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company by Patrick McGee, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. What’s the scale of what Apple does in China?

The CHIPS and Science Act, which is designed to stimulate computer chip fabrication in America, will cost the US government $52 billion over four years—$3 billion shy of what Apple invested annually in China nearly a decade earlier. Let me underscore this point: Apple’s investments in China, every year for the past decade, are at least quadruple the amount the US commerce secretary considered a once-in-a-generation investment.

What’s the scale of Apple?

The number of Apple devices in active use surpassed 2.35 billion in 2025, led by 1.4 billion iPhone users who spend more than four hours a day immersed in their glowing screens. These users represent the richest quintile of people in the world, and Apple can advertise or promote features to them—wireless payment, television shows, music streaming, fitness offerings—for free. In fact, Google pays Apple close to $20 billion a year just to be the default search engine on the iPhone. The control Apple has over its ecosystem is extraordinary: When in 2021 Apple changed how third parties like Instagram and Facebook could “track users”—ostensibly a move to protect the privacy of iPhone owners—Meta estimated the new policy diminished its annual earnings by $10 billion. Meanwhile, revenue from Apple’s own privacy-first ad business was on a path to grow from $1 billion in 2020 to $30 billion by 2026. One advertising executive characterized the change as going “from playing in the minor leagues to winning the World Series in the span of half a year.” On average, Apple’s Services business earns margins north of 70 percent, double that of its hardware, and the business has been growing at nearly 20 percent a year for six years—all before potentially being supercharged by new artificial intelligence features. In short, the notion that Apple is at its peak is patent nonsense. But there is one Achilles’ heel: The fate of all the company’s hardware production relies on the good graces of America’s largest rival.

Don’t take the tech reporting here as gospel. The author has fallen in love with his subject:

The second force was the advanced nature of the Macintosh operating system (OS). It really was a decade ahead of its time when, in 1984, a boyish and handsome Steve Jobs, then just twenty-eight, unveiled the Mac with dramatic flair to a packed auditorium. When Jobs clicked the mouse—itself a novelty at the time—the computer took the air out of the room by speaking.

(The mouse, of course, was 16 years old in 1984. The graphical user interface, as embodied in the Xerox Alto, was 11 years old.)

The seeds of the App Store, in which Apple would take a cut of all sales, were sown circa 1980:

By the end of 1983, the Apple II “had the largest library of programs of any microcomputer on the market—just over two thousand—meaning that its users could interact with the fullest range of possibilities in the microcomputing world.” But Jobs resented third-party developers as freeloaders. In early 1980, he had a conversation with Mike Markkula, Apple’s chairman, where the two expressed their frustration at the rise of hardware and software groups building businesses around the Apple II. They asked each other: “Why should we allow people to make money off of us? Off of our innovations?” An attendee of the meeting would recount, years later, that Apple began to “fight” all third-party development.

The book is strong on recounting the rise of contract manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s and on the history of Foxconn:

Foxconn had the humblest of origins. In 1974, two years before Apple was started out of a garage, twenty-three-year-old Terry Gou founded Hon Hai Plastics out of a shed. Gou, who’d just completed his duty in the Taiwanese army, founded the company with $7,500.

As the PC revolution took off in the early 1980s, Gou got in on the ground floor and created a name for himself making reliable sockets and connectors—small components that facilitate communication between different parts of a computer. The conn in Foxconn—Hon Hai’s international name—refers to connectors. “Fox” is just an animal he likes.

Employees were given a Little Red Book featuring the sayings of Terry Gou, some of which were also plastered on the otherwise bare walls. The aphorisms ranged from inspirational to threatening. “Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow,” said one.

In 1999, it was a company with $1.8 billion of revenue, far smaller than Solectron, SCI, or Flextronics, its US rivals. By 2010, Foxconn revenues were $98 billion, more than those of its five biggest competitors combined. And Foxconn’s extraordinary growth in those eleven years is the consequence of one client more than any other: Apple.

How much did China grow along with Foxconn?

By the time Mao died in 1976, China was poorer than sub-Saharan Africa. … In just twenty-five years, Shenzhen’s population grew a hundredfold.

Europe is poor compared to the U.S. Why not assemble stuff in Europe?

Once the Shenzhen line for iMacs was up and running, Foxconn established sites on two other continents. In Europe, Foxconn executive Jim Chang found a Soviet-era electronics site in Pardubice, a city of 100,000 people sixty miles east of Prague. The site had previously been run by a state-owned company called Tesla, whose specialty was radar systems and whose biggest client had been the government of Iran. The site had an eerie feel to it, like it had been hit by a neutron bomb. Forklifts stood motionless on the floor and cups of tea, their contents long gone cold, had been left on the tables. In May 2000, Foxconn was able to buy the plant for just 102 million CSK (2.9 million), a fire-sale price because it was bringing in jobs. Foxconn also won from the government a ten-year tax holiday.

The experience in the Czech Republic was an important proving ground for Foxconn and its hub model, but what it really demonstrated was that producing hardware in China was cheaper, more efficient, and less subject to media scrutiny. In China, assembly got done at incredible speed and with few complaints. Workers did twelve-hour shifts and lived nearby in dorms. At the Czech site, workers put in fewer hours and were represented by a trade union; they protested conditions and spoke to the press. Plans to build dormitories met local criticism and were abandoned. Over the course of a decade, Foxconn expanded its work in the Czech Republic, continuing to build for Apple, adding another location, and taking on production for Hewlett-Packard, Sony, and Cisco.

At one point, according to an ex-worker named Andrea, workers making Apple products didn’t receive an annual bonus as they were promised, so they threatened a “strike emergency” just before the ramp-up ahead of Christmas. “Afraid,” the Foxconn managers deposited the bonuses within a week. The incident triggered an audit by Apple, which interviewed workers about their experience. Apple, Andrea said, advocated for better conditions, but “instead Foxconn closed the division within half a year and 330 people were dismissed.” Around the same time, in August 2009, Foxconn shut its Fullerton site, too. How Foxconn laid the Czech workers off is worth highlighting. Mass dismissals—defined as laying off more than thirty people—need to be reported to the Labor Office, but it was important for Foxconn to avoid scrutiny. “What Foxconn did is they dismissed twenty-nine workers every month,” Andrea said. “Each month, regularly, they fired twenty-nine people.” The threat of a single strike ended all large-scale Apple assembly in Europe.

China ended up being the only answer for Apple and pretty much everyone else in the electronics world.

… by 2005, Jobs grasped that there was no going back. That year, a subordinate suggested that a certain project be done in the United States, and Jobs responded curtly. “I tried it. It didn’t work.” The results—in volume, efficiency, and price—were unmatched.

I’ll write more about this book in subsequent posts (e.g., Apple in China, the rise of iPod).

Reminder of what was considered attractive at the time Apple moved manufacturing offshore (source):

Next: Apple in China, the rise of iPod

Full post, including comments