Download The Magic Fruit: Apple`s Globalization from 1976 to the Present

Byeol Kim
Introduction to Globalization
Magic Fruit: Apple’s Globalization from 1976 to the Present
1. Introduction
The white bitten apple, the symbol of Apple Inc., is everywhere. Apple Inc. is a
transnational electronics manufacturer headquartered in Cupertino, California. It produces
computer software, commercial servers, and electronic devices—which are its main products
line—such as the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod, and the MacBook. The corporation’s history begins
in 1976 when the co-founder, Stephen Wozniak, designed what would become the Apple I and
when his high school friend, Steve Jobs, convinced him to sell the machine. Then the same year
on April Fools’ Day, Apple Computer Company was founded, opening a new era of
technological innovation (Linzmayer, 2006). Since then, every product designed becomes a huge
hit around the world, and Apple has become the world’s largest corporation with the world’s
highest company value of $624 billion (Svensson, 2012). Apple used globalization to seek bigger
markets, cheaper inputs, and efficiencies. Apple’s globalization accelerated after 1995
subcontracting with a Taiwanese company in China. Since then, the company has developed and
applied various kinds of marketing strategies and has adapted two main methods of
globalization—outsourcing and offshoring—to achieve what it has accomplished today
(“History,” 2012).
Most of the information in this paper is found in journal articles, accredited websites, and
research tools such as Mergent Online and Hoovers on the Internet. In addition, special thanks to
a representative in Apple’s public relations who helped and enabled me to have access to annual
reports.
This paper will focus on Apple’s globalization in 3 different dimensions: when and
where, why, and how Apple has globalized. In the when and where section, the paper will briefly
describe the company’s history. In the why section, the essay will explain what led Apple to go
global: to achieve sourcing efficiency and market access. In the how section, the production
process of the iPhone—one of Apple’s core products—will be closely examined with the case
study of “Foxconn scandal.” Then the paper will explore the debate over patents law by
analyzing “Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit” and how it is related to neoliberalism and globalization.
As scrutinizing two recent controversies, this paper will make evident that although
Apple’s globalization is not beneficial for everyone due to labor exploitation in poor countries
where products are manufactured and less consumer choice caused by patent laws, globalization
is still the right direction to go.
2. When and Where Apple Has Globalized
In this section, the paper will describe the company’s history on globalization, changes in
costs and revenue, and the current state of the company in the world. As briefly mentioned in
introduction, Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak founded Apple Computer Company in 1976 with
first orders of 50 units of the Apple I. Since then, new products have been introduced each year
with high levels of success. Apple made huge profits and went public in 1980. In the largest
Initial Public Offering—IPO—in history when Apple was listed on the stock market, its
valuation was $1.8 billion with more than 1,000 employees (Linzmayer, 2006). After a decade of
continuing success of the Apple series and the Mac within a nation, Apple established its first
foreign branch company, Apple Computer Mexico, S.A. de C.V. in 1993. However, due to rises
of IBM and Microsoft, Apple had lost much of its market share in America. As a result, Apple
had a strong incentive to search for a new market—one of four capitalistic principles—in order
to maximize its profits by reaching a bigger market and to minimize costs of production by
manufacturing in a country where labor was cheaper. China satisfied most of the conditions that
Apple had been looking for. Having declared economic reforms in 1980s, China was in a
transition from socialist economy to free-market economy, and so it accepted many foreign
companies. In addition, labor is much cheaper in China than in America. In 2002, the cost of
Chinese factory labor was estimated to be 64 cents an hour, while that of the US was $21.11
(Coy, 2004). Hence, Apple jumped into an ever-larger market that had a myriad of potential
consumers, and formed its first equity joint venture, Apple-SSP Development Co. Ltd. in
Guangdong province with South Software Park Development Co. Ltd. in 1995 (“History,” 2012).
Apple had taken a risk, a huge risk that the company could have been lost millions of dollars due
to lack of information about new regions and markets as most of companies did when they
moved into other unknown markets and tried to expand their businesses.
Figure 1: The Graphical Representation of Cost of Goods Sold from 1980 to the Present. Source:
(“Cost of Goods Sold Annual,” 2012)
However, this establishment became the cornerstone of Apple’s globalization. Since then,
Apple’s costs of goods sold had been drastically decreased from $11.04 billion in 1996 before
the factories were operated in China, to $5.75 billion in 1999 before the iPod was mass-produced.
Therefore, its net income had been increased by huge amounts from the loss of $816 million in
1996 to $691 million in 1999 (“Apple Income Statement,” 2012). Besides its decrease in costs
of production, Apple, formerly not as popular as Nokia, Samsung, and Sony in Asian
markets, could widely spread its brand name and gain market access.
Having enjoyed huge success in globalizing its production processes overseas, Apple’s
commodity production experienced changes from vertically integrated production—companies
in this supply chain are usually owned by a lead corporation—to a horizontally integrated
production chain—companies in this supply chain are contracted to each other—by adopting and
applying two main methods of horizontal integration, offshoring, and outsourcing. Offshoring is
to move production overseas in order to take advantages of cheaper labor and lower regulatory
control, while outsourcing is to contract with a third party outside the company to provide
services and components (Sparke, 2012a, b). Within those 10 years after the great success of
1995 subcontracting, Apple had outsourced and offshored most of its production processes that
were originally maintained in the company. This paper will specifically focus on the iPhone
amongst other Apple products. Currently, Apple has more than 27 subcontractors related to the
iPhone production in 8 different countries including USA, UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan,
Taiwan, Switzerland, and Bermuda (“Supply of Components,” 2012). The production process
will be closely discussed in the later section.
Figure 2: The Graphical Representation of Revenue from 1980 to the Present. Source: (“Revenue
Annual,” 2012)
Figure 3: The Graphical Representation of Net Income from 1980 to the Present. Source: (“Net
Income Annual,” 2012)
In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone, a cell phone that was a gigantic achievement all
around the world. In 2009, two years later after the iPhone was introduced to the world, Apple’s
revenue was $42.9 billion, with a net income of $8.2 billion. Net income had tripled compared to
3 years before the iPhone was developed (“Company Financials,” 2012). Having spread its name
worldwide, Apple had become not just a company, but also a unique trend. Continuing the
iPhone, the MacBook, the iPod, and the iPad are all enormous successes, and since then, Apple’s
profits have drastically increased each year.
Currently, Apple is obviously one of the largest transnational corporations that supports
and stimulates not only the US economy, but also the global economy. In 2011, Apple had
approximately 60,400 full-time employees and an additional 2,900 full-time temporary
employees within a border, and more than 514,000 jobs are created or supported by the company
in America (“Apple—Job Creation,” 2012). In addition, it is approximated that more than
700,000 people in the world have jobs related to Apple and its commodity chains; jobs include
engineers, assemblers, middlemen, transporters, accountants, manufacturers, and service-sector
workers (Bello, 2012). Furthermore, Apple has retail stores—or the Apple Store—in 14
countries. The Apple Store will be later discussed in the how section. Additionally, Apple has
stores owned and operated by other companies in 42 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Finland, Estonia, South Korea, Ivory Coast, Panama, Singapore, Uruguay, Taiwan, South Africa,
Reunion Island, and so on. Apple has sold its products to more than 109 countries, more than
one-half of all nations in the world (“Markets and Distribution,” 2012).
Figure 4: The green markers in graphic form showing the market regions while the red markers
representing the sourcing commodity chains.
3. Why Apple Has Globalized
Apple has globalized to maximize profits, and in order to do so, the company has to
achieve two main things: sourcing efficiency and market access. Sourcing efficiency is the
incentive for companies to seek a way they can produce commodities most efficiently, while
market access is the need for companies to sell their products in larger markets (Sparke, 2012a,
b). This section will focus on those two main reasons for why Apple has gone global.
Looking at the perspective of sourcing efficiency, Apple has globalized for 2 subreasons: cheaper input and faster production. Since the American economy had been drastically
growing after World War II, inflation, although not severe, was gradually raising America’s
price level (“Historical Inflation Rates,” 2012). Consequently, wages of labor force and prices of
raw materials had gone up. Adjusted to current price level in the country, Apple could have set
product prices higher, so that when the price level rose, products’ prices also increased.
Nonetheless, Apple could not, because then according to the law of demand—which states when
the price of a good goes up, demand goes down and vice versa—due to higher price of products,
fewer people would purchase its products, and its revenue could decrease. Apple was paying
higher wages to workers and higher costs for raw materials, while the prices of its products were
not as much as its costs, adjusted to national price level; thereby its profits had steadily decreased
(Rawson, 2010).
Additionally, until Apple outsourced and offshored most of its production in 1990s, its
production process was vertically integrated, completing production internally. Since production
was finished within the company, it took a long time and cost a whole lot of money because the
company could not produce all the components at the same time and assembled. Enabling it
would cost the company billions of dollars and not be worth it because then the company should
set products’ prices higher in order to pay back the money it had spent and invested for
facilitating intra-firm production, causing a decrease in demand. However, the slower speed of
the production process than that of its competitors could mean a loss of market share in the long
run. Accordingly, in order for sourcing efficiency to be realized, Apple had outsourced and
offshored its production. Since then, costs of goods sold had remarkably decreased from $8.86
billion in 1993 to $5.75 billion in 1999 before the iPod was mass-produced (“Cost of Goods Sold
Annual,” 2012).
Market access is another reason why Apple has globalized. In the 1980s before most
corporations in America had gone global, competition in the domestic market was fierce. For
Apple, due to the rise of Microsoft and IBM, the company had lost much of its market share.
IBM produced the personal computer against the Apple series and the Mac, and Microsoft
invented Windows against the Mac’s operating system (Dilger, 2006). Therefore, Apple’s market
share in the domestic market had been decreasing due to the rise of competitors and severe
competition for consumers.
Besides competition for consumers, there was also competition for raw materials and
subcontractors. At that time, most of the electronic devices companies’ commodity chain was a
captive supplier model in which subordinate firms only supply to the single lead firm in order to
protect intellectual property from leaking to competitors. If one small company possessed a
patent or a knowledge that could be crucial for future products or inventions, big firms like IBM,
Microsoft, Dell, and Apple competed against each other to sign a contract for this hierarchical
relation. Because the supply of companies, usually smaller in size that had a pivotal technology,
was so small while demand was high, big corporations like Apple had to offer millions of dollars
to satisfy conditions suggested by those smaller companies, and it was a huge risk (Bello, 2006).
If a contract was signed, the lead company could have enjoyed “monopolistic” market power
until other companies caught up with the equivalent technology, which usually took long time.
On the other hand, if an agreement failed, companies’ market share could be dramatically
shrunken.
Therefore, Apple had decided to go global in order for sourcing efficiency—to find
cheaper inputs and to enable faster production—and for market access—to attract more
consumers and to look for other subcontractors in global markets—rather than limiting itself to
domestic markets. Apple’s globalization had just begun.
4. How Apple Has Globalized
Apple has globalized by applying various marketing strategies and by exercising
subcontracting. In the first part of two sections, the Apple Store, Apple’s most successful
marketing strategies will be discussed. In the second part, the production process of the iPhone
will be examined with the case study of the “Foxconn Scandal.”
First, Apple’s various unique marketing strategies have enabled Apple to be globalized.
The Apple Retail Store is the epitome of those strategies. As briefly mentioned in When and
Where Apple Has Globalized, the Apple Retail Store—or the Apple Store—is Apple’s unique
marketing tactic aimed to reinforce relationships between the company and its customers. Owned
and operated by Apple, the Apple Store is not just a store in which the main function is to sell
products. Its main functions are instead to communicate with consumers, to offer services such
as technical training and support, and to provide places in which customers can relax and play.
Deemed as a failure by the board of directors when first suggested by Steve Jobs, the Apple
Store instead actually became a smash hit. As of August 2012, Apple has 393 stores worldwide
in 14 different countries—including USA, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, Spain,
Japan, China, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Netherlands, and Sweden (“Apple Store Location,”
2012).
The strategy is to glocalize, or to adhere to different cultures and regions, and market its
products differently region by region. Adjusted to local regions, Apple can apply different
approaches to attract local consumers. The company can collect data from each Apple Store all
around the world, and provide different services for local preferences. For example, in China,
PCs are more commonly used than Mac. Hence, the Apple Stores in China are more focused on
introducing customers to the company’s products, while those in US are more likely focused on
Apple users to communicate with each other to obtain useful information about different
applications (Staff, 2010). The Apple Store vastly supports Apple’s globalization and successes
in world markets.
Second, Apple’s globalization is developed mainly through combination of outsourcing
and offshoring. Before the 1990s, Apple’s commodity chain was highly vertically integrated.
The company had some subcontractors, but the relationships could be characterized as captive
supplier models. However, notably after 1995, its commodity chain had experienced a huge shift
from vertical integration to horizontal integration. Since the great success of its 1995 subcontract
with a Taiwanese company, South Software Park Co., Ltd, Apple had outsourced and offshored
most of its production process. Currently, the iPhone production is completed with 27
subcontractors from 8 different countries. As one can see at the back of his/her iPhone—
“Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China”—the iPhone is first designed and
researched by Apple engineers in the United States. Then, its components are outsourced to
subcontractors all around the world; 8 subcontractors in USA; 3 subcontractors in Japan; 2
subcontractors in South Korea; 7 subcontractors in Taiwan; 3 subcontractors in UK; 1
subcontractor in Switzerland; 1 subcontractor in Germany; 1 subcontractor in Bermuda (“Supply
of Components”).
Figure 5: The Map of the iPhone Production Process
Nevertheless, the iPhone is only assembled in factories in China by a Taiwanese
company, Foxconn. Outsourced and offshored most of its production to 27 subcontractors in 8
different countries, Apple not only could produce the iPhone more cheaply, but also was able to
spread its brand name and market the countries in which its products were made. The main
reason why Apple had outsourced and offshored was to seek cheaper labor, thereby minimizing
costs (Bello, 2012). Under this practice, however, labor exploitation was practiced, and the
“Foxconn Scandal” occurred.
As the “Foxconn Scandal” illustrates, a company’s globalization is not always good for
everyone. The “Foxconn Scandal” is a term for labor exploitation managed by Foxconn
Technology Co., Ltd, one of the largest subcontractors and assemblers of Apple products with
more than 1.2 million employees. Foxconn’s labor exploitation was revealed when 18 workers
attempted suicide with 14 deaths in 2012. The suicide drew media attention, and Apple, one of
the largest customers, had to investigate Foxconn’s labor management, fearing bad press of its
own. Apple found that employees in Foxconn worksites worked excessive overtime while
underpaid (Chan and Peng, 2011, 437). Additionally, Apple discovered that the working
conditions in factories did not even satisfy the minimum requirements set by law while
examining 14 facilities (Lowensohn, 2012).
Therefore, both Foxconn and Apple had been condemned for violating the human rights
of the workers, and Apple was criticized to upgrade its code of conduct for labor management of
subcontractors (Lowensohn, 2012). By outsourcing and offshoring, consumers can enjoy cheaper
prices, and companies can earn higher revenues. However, in some places in the world where the
products are manufactured, workers may be exploited.
Adopting and applying many marketing strategies, Apple has become one of the most
globalized transnational corporations in the world. However, Apple’s globalization has been
accelerated by the Apple Store’s glocalization and the combination of outsourcing and offshoring
that results in violation of human rights in some countries.
5. Current Issue—“Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit”
“Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.” was a patent war begun by Apple suing
Samsung Electronics for infringing on seven Apple’s intellectual properties, including designs,
on April 15, 2011 in the District Court of California, US. Samsung then countersued Apple for
copying Samsung’s properties. The jury, however, adjudged Samsung guilty, ordering it to pay
Apple $1.05 billion in damages. Moreover, Samsung could not use some of its features such as
round angles and “pinch and zoom” without paying Apple a hefty bill (Bosker and Grandoni,
2012).
Figure 6: The Graphical Representation of Stock Price from 2002 to the Present. Source:
(“Price,” 2012)
This was a huge win for Apple. After the verdict, Apple’s shares had gained almost 2%,
while Samsung stock fell by 7.5% during the first three days of trading after the victory. Apple
not only prevented Samsung from chasing Apple’s market share, but also could spread its brand
name for the better while Samsung was badly labeled as an imitator in the world (Arthur, 2012).
As a result, Apple could have established a more solid position over Samsung. In addition, as
this paper will soon explore, based on the Ten Commandments of neoliberalism, the 10th rule—
property rights have to be strengthened—supports Apple’s triumph over Samsung.
Neoliberalism and globalization are believed by most people to be the right direction to
go. However, one argument had arisen after the “Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit.” To achieve
neoliberalism or the true globalization with which there are no trade barriers or governmental
regulations, the Ten Commandments have to be realized. Nevertheless, in order to fulfill those
commandments, governments inevitably have to intervene in the market. This section will focus
only on the 10th commandment: strengthening property rights. Without government’s arbitration
and regulation, property rights cannot be fulfilled and maintained. Then, was Apple’s win over
Samsung a contradiction to neoliberalism and globalization? On the one hand, who wins does
matter. There should be neither laws regulating businesses nor government mediation at first in
order to truly accomplish neoliberalism and globalization. In addition, Samsung issued a
statement after the verdict saying that
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the
American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially
higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one
company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is
being improved every day by Samsung and other companies (a lawyer from
Samsung Electronics).
On the other hand, without property rights, no companies will do their utmost to innovate and
invent things, since anyone can copy and imitate afterhand. However, with property rights,
consumer choices will be diminished, a company with a patent will enjoy the monopoly, and so
prices will be higher (Sell, 1995, 318). If everybody cannot be happy, who should be happy:
consumers or companies? If consumers are happy while companies are not, the companies are
not going to produce commodities that do not make them happy. If companies are happy while
the consumers are not, the companies will not make either because consumers are not going to
purchase. Thus, there is a huge debate on patent laws as illustrated in “Apple vs. Samsung
lawsuit” (Bora, 2012) if they are necessary.
6. Conclusion
In summary, Apple’s globalization accelerated after the 1995 subcontract with a
Taiwanese company, South Software Park Development Co. Ltd. in China. It has globalized
through various kinds of marketing strategies, especially the creation of the Apple Store, and
through subcontracting in order to reach a bigger market and to accomplish sourcing efficiency
as evidenced in “Foxconn Scandal,” thereby maximizing profits. However, as two recent events
referenced in the paper—“Foxconn Scandal” and “Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit”—demonstrate,
Apple’s globalization has raised some controversial questions if globalization is really the right
direction to go. As shown in “Foxconn Scandal,” people in the production part of the world,
usually in poorer countries, have suffered while those in the consumption part, usually in richer
countries, have enjoyed cheaper prices. Nonetheless, if companies move out of poor countries
where commodities are produced, those countries’ economies will never be able to grow at the
same speed as they do now. In addition, as exemplified in “Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit,” patent
laws give companies incentives to innovate and invent new commodities. However, they also
give the companies monopolistic market power and prevent other companies from competition in
the markets. On the other hand, if there is no patent law, companies will not do their utmost to
create and research for the better, since those new technologies or products can be easily copied
and imitated by other companies. Thus, in either case, which one is better for the most is a hardto-answer question. Nevertheless, one thing for sure is that Apple is just one company among
other transnational corporations whose main motives are to maximize profits, and as there is a
ceaseless search for profits and so competition, economies will grow, and societies will develop.
Work Cited Page
“Apple Income Statement,” 2012. Apple Inc. YCharts. 01 November 2012. <
http://ycharts.com/financials/AAPL/income_statement/annual/2>.
“Apple—Job Creation,” 2012. Apple—Job Creation. Apple Inc., n.d. Web. 01 November
2012. <http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/>.
“Apple Store Location,” 2012. Apple Retail Store. Apple Inc., n.d. Web. 02 November
2012. <http://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/>.
Arthur, Charles, 2012. “Samsung Hits Back at Apple but Shares Tumble after
Smartphone Patent Ruling.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 27 Aug. 2012.
Web. 03 November 2012.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-patentruling>.
Bello, Walden, 2012. “Toward Freedom.” The Apple Connection: Globalization and
Outsourcing. Toward Freedom, 07 Feb. 2012. Web. 02 November 2012.
<http://www.towardfreedom.com/globalism/2713-the-apple-connection-globalizationand-outsourcing>.
Bora, Kukil, 2012. “Apple Vs. Samsung Lawsuit: How The Tech Giants Responded To
The $1 Billion Verdict [Full List Of Infringed Products].” International Business Times.
International Business Times, n.d. Web. 03 November 2012.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-vs-samsung-lawsuit-how-tech-giants-responded-1billion-verdict-full-list-infringed-products>.
Bosker, Bianca, and Dino Grandoni. “Apple-Samsung Lawsuit: What You Need To
Know About The Verdict.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Aug. 2012.
Web. 03 November 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsunglawsuit-verdict_n_1829268.html>.
Chan, Chak Kwan, and Zhaiwen Peng, 2011. “From Iron Rice Bowl to the World’s
Biggest Sweatshop: Globalization, Institutional Constraints, and the Rights of Chinese
Workers.” Social Service Review 85.3 (2011): 437. JSTOR. The University of Chicago
Press. Web. 15 November 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662328>.
“Company Financials,” 2012. Mergent Online. Web. 31 October 2012.
<http://www.mergentonline.com/companyfinancials.php?pagetype=asreported&compnu
mber=12161&period=Annuals&dataarea=BS&range=15&currency=AsRep&scale=AsRe
p&Submit=Refresh>.
“Cost of Goods Sold Annual,” 2012. Apple (AAPL) Chart. YCharts, n.d. Web. 04
November 2012.
<http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/chart#series=type%3Acompany%2Cid%3AAAPL
%2Ccalc%3Acost_of_goods_sold_annual&format=real&recessions=false&zoom=&start
Date=&endDate=>.
Coy, Peter, 2004. “Just How Cheap Is Chinese Labor?” Bloomberg Businessweek
Magazine. Bloomberg Businessweek, 12 Dec. 2004. Web. 15 November 2012.
<http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004–12–12/just-how-cheap-is-chinese-labor>.
Dilger, Daniel Eran, 2012. “1990–1995: Apple vs. Microsoft in the Enterprise.” Roughly
Drafted Magazine. 12 October 2006. Blog. 02 November 2012.
<http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/9D82740A-139C-432C-8279AD2D4E04892E.html>.
<http://www.mergentonline.com/documents.php?compnumber=12161>
“History,” 2012. Mergent Online. Web. 01 November 2012.
<http://www.mergentonline.com/companydetail.php?pagetype=history&compnumber=1
2161&year=1997#container>.
“Historical Inflation Rates: 1914–2012,” 2012. US Inflation Calculator. Web. 02
November 2012. < http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ >.
Linzmayer, Owen W, 2006. “30 Pivotal Moments in Apple’s History.” Macworld.
Macworld, 30 March 2006. Web. 30 October 2012.
<http://www.macworld.com/article/1050112/30moments.html>.
Lowensohn, Josh, 2012. “Apple’s Latest Supplier Report Details Labor Issues.” CNET
News. CBS Interactive, 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 November 2012.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301–27076_3–57358758–248/apples-latest-supplier-reportdetails-labor-issues/>.
“Markets and Distribution,” 2012. Form 10-K. Annual Reports. Mergent Online. Web. 31
October 2012. <http://www.mergentonline.com/documents.php?compnumber=12161>.
“Net Income Annual,” 2012. Apple (AAPL) Chart. YCharts, n.d. Web. 04 November
2012.
<http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/chart#series=type%3Acompany%2Cid%3AAAPL
%2Ccalc%3Anet_income_annual&format=real&recessions=false&zoom=&startDate=&
endDate=>.
“Price,” 2012. Apple (AAPL) Chart. YCharts, n.d. Web. 04 November 2012.
<http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/chart#series=type%3Acompany%2Cid%3AAAPL
%2Ccalc%3Aprice&format=real&recessions=false&zoom=1&startDate=&endDate=>.
Rawson, Chris, 2012. “The Cost of Apple’s Products, Adjusted for Inflation.” TUAW.
Aol Tech, 26 March 2010. Web. 02 November 2012.
<http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/26/the-cost-of-apples-products-adjusted-for-inflation/>.
“Revenue Annual,” 2012. Apple (AAPL) Chart. YCharts, n.d. Web. 04 November 2012.
<http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/chart#series=type%3Acompany%2Cid%3AAAPL
%2Ccalc%3Arevenues_annual&format=real&recessions=false&zoom=&startDate=&end
Date=>.
Sell, Susan K, 1995. “Intellectual Property Protection and Antitrust in the Developing
World: Crisis, Coercion, and Choice.” International Organization 49.02 (1995):
318.JSTOR. The MIT Press. Web. 15 November 2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706974>.
Sparke, Matt, 2012. “Lecture 6: Commodities, Commodity Chains and World Trade.” 10
October 2012. PDF. 01 November 2012.
Sparke, Matt, 2012. “Lecture 8: Tracing the steps of TNC globalization.” 10 October
2012. PDF. 02 November 2012.
Staff, AppleInsider, 2010. “Notes of Interest from Apple’s Q1 2010 Conference
Call.” Notes of Interest from Apple’s Q1 2010 Conference Call. Apple Insider, 25 Jan.
2010. Web. 1 November 2012. <http://appleinsider.com/article/?id=11577>.
“Supply of Components.” Form 10-K. Annual Report. Mergent Online. Web. 03
November 2012. <http://www.mergentonline.com/documents.php?compnumber=12161>.
Svensson, Peter, 2012. “Apple Sets Record for Company Value at $624B.” Yahoo!
Finance. Yahoo, 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 October 2012.
<http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-sets-record-company-value-624b-211841152-finance.html>.