Showing posts with label ThirdParty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ThirdParty. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Will Third-Party Inspections Solve Apple’s Labor Problems?

Apple Inspectors

Under increased public scrutiny for its suppliers’ sometimes-harsh working conditions, Apple announced that it has invited third-party inspectors from the Fair Labor Association (FLA) to conduct a massive audit beginning this week. Yet despite this unprecedented step, labor advocates worry that the inspections will only improve Apple’s image, not alleviate harsh working conditions.

“This is, at best, a decent first step and, at worst, the beginning of a white washing operation,” said Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, executive director of the activist group SumOfUs, which delivered a 250,000-signature petition to Apple just last week.

In a press release, Apple said that the FLA will inspect work areas, dormitories, and other facilities at 90 percent of its Chinese suppliers’ factories, beginning with Foxconn’s plants in Shenzhen and Chengdu, the latter of which was the site of a fatal explosion last year. The association also plans to interview thousands of employees about their experiences, before it begins posting the results of its reports on the fairlabor.org website in early March. 

No stranger to inspections, Apple has conducted over 500 of its own supplier audits since 2006. Unlike Dell, HP and most other competitors the company issues a full report on its findings each year, including a detailed list of violations and the actions it took to correct them. 

Despite Apple’s transparency in its own reports, labor activists take issue with both the objectivity of the FLA  inspectors and the broader notion that third-party factory inspections alone can fix conditions that range from forced labor to unsafe conditions, underage labor, abusive supervisors and 12-hour shifts without bathroom breaks. According to both Stinebrickner-Kauffman and China Labor Watch Founder Li Qiang, the FLA is too close to its corporate members to truly protect the workers.

“The position FLA is taking now is at the company’s perspective, not the worker’s. Most of the time, FLA speaks on behalf of the companies, not the workers,” Li said.

Li advised Apple to talk  with groups that represent the workers, rather than just sending inspectors to visit the factories. In a previous interview, he voiced concerns about the integrity of the inspection agencies FLA employs to conduct its audits. He told us that the association sometimes uses Intertek, a company whose inspectors China Labor Watch claims to have caught taking bribes, to do inspections, though there’s no evidence Intertek is involved in the Apple audits. We reached out to the FLA to ask who is conducting its Apple inspections, but didn’t hear back in time for this article.

Though Apple touted the FLA’s intention to interview workers, Stinebrickner-Kauffman said that the association doesn’t always protect their anonymity, conducting the interviews right at the factory where supervisors can see who is saying what. “Inspections can help [resolve workers' problems], but the question is whether FLA inspections can help,” she said. “They have in the past done a better job of white-washing labor abuses than they have of ending them.”

Having the FLA visit factories and catalog abuses could be a step forward for transparency, but can inspections really help improve working conditions? Apple clearly thinks so, as the company proudly lists the ways it resolved each conduct  violation it found in its annual report. For example, in 2011, the company says it found 58 facilities where workers were not using appropriate personal protective equipment  and required them to train their workers to use protective gear and hold managers responsible for its use. Apple doesn’t go so far as to say which 58 facilities they were and whether they have been reinspected since, but the FLA audits are designed to double-check all of the supplier’s progress. 

The activists we spoke to don’t agree that more audits are the answer. Li even posited that such inspections are designed to shift responsibility onto suppliers like Foxconn and away from a world-renowned brand. 

“What Apple should do now is to take action to solve the problems and improve the labor conditions in their supplier factories, not to conduct inspections and put the factories into the media and public’s attention,” Li said. “It is Apple, not the factories who should take the main responsibility.”

While suppliers run the factories and employ the workers, critics feel that Apple’s continued efforts to lower costs and increase production encourage the suppliers to cut corners when it comes to worker safety and human rights. They also believe Apple can set an example for other vendors, because it is the most successful beneficiary of low-cost Chinese labor. However, to do so, they say the Cupertino company will have to pony up a bit more cash. 

“It’s hard to imagine FLA will come back and say that ‘what you really need to do is pay this company lot more money.’” Stinebrickner-Kauffman said. “That is really at the crux of a lot of these issues and Apple has to address that. It’s just gonna have to pay a little bit more to its suppliers to make sure that they have the margins to be able to create safe working conditions.” 


From Laptopmagazine. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center Here

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Chrome for Android Tested: Great Tabs, Slower Than Third-Party Browsers

SunSpider JavaScript Test

SunSpider measures the amount of time it takes a browser to run through a series of complex JavaScript functions. The test ultimately gives us a good an idea of how quickly each browser can load webpages that use a large amount of JavaScript and perform certain dynamic actions. The less time it takes to complete the test, the better.

Firefox ran away with this round, finishing the SunSpider test in just 1.7 seconds. Chrome for Android came in second place with a time of 2.1 seconds. The stock Android browser wasn’t far behind, completing the test in 2.2 seconds. Opera Mobile and Dolphin HD took the longest, finishing in 2.4 and 2.5 seconds, respectively.

 Peacekeeper Benchmark

Peacekeeper is a synthetic benchmark that measures a browser’s overall performance. Results are measured in scores rather than times. The higher a browser’s score, the better it performed during the test.

Surprisingly, it was the Stock Android browser that took the top spot in this test with an average score of 467. Chrome for Android was close behind, notching a 444. Dolphine HD came in a distant third-place with a score of 416, while Firefox and Opera Mobile trailed with scores of 320 and 219, respectively.

Loadtimer Test

Loadtimer.org is an excellent tool used to measure how long it takes to open a specific webpage. We ran the test using a series of different sites and, and averaged the results to get a standard page load time.

In the end, it was Dolphin HD that offered the fastest average load times at 6.7 seconds, followed by Opera Mobile at 7 seconds. Firefox pulled into third place with an average 8.2-second load time, while Chrome and the stock Android browser came in fourth and fifth place with 8.4 and 14 seconds respectively.

Screen Real Estate

One thing you’ll notice when you load Chrome on your phone is the amount of screen real estate you gain versus the stock Android browser. In fact, of the five browsers we tested, Chrome provided the largest area of viewable space on Laptopmag.com taking away just 95 pixels with its toolbar. We measured the toolbars’ pixel size because it is a constant across all devices despite any difference in physical screen size. The stock Android browser offered the second largest amount of screen real estate, with its toolbar taking up 104 pixels. Firefox offered a little less than that with its 114 pixel toolbar. Trailing Firefox were Dolphin HD and Opera Mobile, which featured 184-pixel and 191-pixel toolbars, respectively.

Tabbed Browsing

With Chrome for Android, Google decided to switch up the way it displays browser tabs. Instead of stacking new tabs on top of each other like in the stock Android browser, tabs in Chrome look like a deck of cards that’s been fanned out. Pull the first tab down and it will reveal the tab immediately behind it. Pull the tabs down all the way and they will turn towards you ever so slightly. Open a new tab, and it slides neatly over the previous tab. It’s a cool little touch, that goes a long way in adding style to the browser. Like the stock Android browser, you can also swipe away tabs that you want to close.

Of course, you don’t have to go into the tab view to navigate through your tabs. Chrome also allows you to swipe between them from the main browser screen, an action none of the other browsers support. Overall, we preferred Chrome’s tabbed browsing to the other browsers in our roundup. The animations were fun and made the tabs feel like an extension of the browsing experience rather than a separate part of the program.

 Conclusion

Chrome Beta for Android adds some fun changes to the browsing formula and looks to be a good start for Google. But in the end the browser wasn’t as fast as its third-party competition. That said, Chrome is already able to outclass the stock Android browser in two of our three performance tests , making it a solid step forward in the evolution of Google’s mobile browser development. Hopefully, the company can add the needed zip to Chrome as it makes its way from beta to its final release. For now, the compelling tab management feature alone may put it over the top with some users.


From Laptopmagazine. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center Here