為了近日有關(guān)美國脫口秀主持人Jon Stewart在節(jié)目中諷刺蘋果代工廠的勞動環(huán)境及其引發(fā)輿論的種種爭議，蘋果公司(Apple Inc.)在因為這家業(yè)務(wù)合作伙伴的行為飽受批評后，如果始對于富士康公司(Foxconn Electronics Inc.)三令五申，要求必須改善其不當(dāng)?shù)膭趧迎h(huán)境與工作情形。 而如果富士康公司反駁道“那又怎么樣呢？” 你可能會認為最直接立即的結(jié)果就是蘋果公司結(jié)束與富士康之間的關(guān)系，并另尋其它合作伙伴，那你就錯了！就算是對于像蘋果這樣的巨擘而言，想要解開其與富士康──或任何其它電子制造服務(wù)(EMS)公司──之間的復(fù)雜關(guān)系也并不容易。 一般來說，EMS與OEM之間的合作關(guān)系相當(dāng)復(fù)雜。像蘋果這樣的公司通常會將業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)包給幾家EMS供貨商。OEM不僅想要取得最佳的價格，它也必須分享其產(chǎn)品設(shè)計、經(jīng)營策略、材料清單(BOM)與終端客戶預(yù)測，甚至是技術(shù)開發(fā)藍圖等種種細節(jié)。因此，選擇并采用EMS供貨商的決定可不能輕率為之。 而在投標(biāo)于某項制造業(yè)務(wù)時，EMS公司內(nèi)部也必須先注意一些事情。首先，自家公司本身是否擁有可制造蘋果產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)能力？是否擁有充份的產(chǎn)能？是否有符合一般準(zhǔn)則的供貨商關(guān)系？如果能夠與供貨商之間建立直接關(guān)系，當(dāng)然能夠取得更大的折扣空間。但是，如果蘋果公司主導(dǎo)管理供貨商關(guān)系，它可能從中取得更多折扣， 但可能不想透露成本價格給EMS伙伴，因而合作伙伴對于成本的預(yù)測大部份都是根據(jù)猜測的結(jié)果。 就算排除上述的種種障礙，蘋果公司面對的下一個問題就是機密性。EMS公司通常并非專屬于一家OEM──EMS通常為多家OEM進行制造，多方下注才能避免損失。那么，舉例來說，蘋果公司的產(chǎn)品產(chǎn)線如何與戴爾(Dell)或其它公司的產(chǎn)線進行區(qū)隔？為兩家不同公司進行產(chǎn)品制造的工人可能是同樣的一群人嗎？產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計、BOM以及出貨又 是如何進行交付與處理的？如果不同供貨商(例如蘋果與Dell)之間的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計真的有共同之處， EMS會因此而共同進行生產(chǎn)嗎？如果真是這樣的話，OEM又要如何分辨呢？ 本文下一頁：富士康贏在規(guī)模之大，無人能及 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”
• 成功的金科玉律：解讀蘋果供應(yīng)商名單
• 電子制造業(yè)外遷潮，深圳期待華麗轉(zhuǎn)型iPMesmc

{pagination} 其次是有關(guān)規(guī)模的問題。如果蘋果公司存在大量的量產(chǎn)需求，EMS會將原本在Dell的制造產(chǎn)能轉(zhuǎn)至蘋果以因應(yīng)其需求嗎？制程人員可會愿意且是否有足夠的人員可配合？誰來核準(zhǔn)超時工作？如果蘋果的訂單需求忽然減少，EMS得進行裁員嗎？但這樣做合乎聘雇合約的要求嗎？裁員的決定能順利或難以進行？EMS會將這些成本轉(zhuǎn)嫁給OEM嗎？ 一旦OEM和EMS建立起合作伙伴關(guān)系，包括客制化等等種種問題也隨之浮現(xiàn)。例如市場上最近剛好出現(xiàn)了一種新制程技術(shù)，蘋果公司希望EMS能利用這種制程進行制造，EMS就必須開出一條利用這種技術(shù)的制造產(chǎn)線。但這往往涉及一些風(fēng)險。如果蘋果公司改變主意了呢？EMS會將新增產(chǎn)線的成本加在蘋果公司嗎？或者，他們會將新制程用于其它客戶的產(chǎn)品制造嗎？如果這項制程是專為蘋果而開發(fā)的，EMS能這么做嗎？ 這些問題只是談到了OEM-EMS關(guān)系的一點皮毛而已。蘋果與富士康之間的關(guān)系無疑地還更復(fù)雜幾百倍以上。其中一個很大的問題就是：如果富士康拒絕讓步，蘋果公司又能拿它怎么辦呢？當(dāng)然，市場上還有其它的EMS公司可選擇，但要找到一家像蘋果這樣的客戶并不容易。 EMS 咨詢公司Charlie Barnhart & Associates負責(zé)人Charlie Barnhart在回復(fù)EBN記者的email中表示，對于典型的OEM與EMS建立合作關(guān)系來看，從第一次雙方的內(nèi)部會談到首次產(chǎn)品出貨大約需要5個季度的時間?！叭Q于合作計劃的規(guī)模、方法與復(fù)雜度以及OEM的經(jīng)驗，OEM-EMS合作關(guān)系的建立顯然存在很大的選擇范圍?！?此 外，富士康公司算是EMS產(chǎn)業(yè)的重量級廠商。這家公司規(guī)模之大，讓像Charlie Barnhart & Associates這樣的分析公司還另行創(chuàng)造了Goliath Fringe一詞來形容它。同時，富士康公司也是世界上少數(shù)幾家不看蘋果臉色的公司之一。 如果富士康公司看清了事實真相，并開始尋求轉(zhuǎn)變，那么可以確定的是產(chǎn)品的價格也將隨之上漲──不只是蘋果公司的產(chǎn)品而已。如果富士康認為蘋果公司只是在虛張聲勢，那么不只是蘋果公司的產(chǎn)品可能短缺，同時，原本就已高昂的產(chǎn)品價格也會上漲到極限。 外包制度帶給OEM更大彈性度的這種理想只能在某種程度上落實而已。當(dāng)合作雙方陷入像蘋果與富士康之間這樣復(fù)雜的關(guān)系時，說分手不只傷害到兩家公司，也影響到每一個人。 編譯：Susan Hong 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文：Apple & Foxconn: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do，by Barbara Jorgensen

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”
• 成功的金科玉律：解讀蘋果供應(yīng)商名單
• 電子制造業(yè)外遷潮，深圳期待華麗轉(zhuǎn)型iPMesmc

{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.