Recommended Posts

Please, every Windows 8 hater - read this carefully. I'm not justifying anything, I just think my input may help you realize the beauty of this change.

Why no regular start menu while browsing Metro?

I for one like Metro for my desktop PC. I love the fact that the desktop is now a "box" that runs inside a fluid environment. I also like the concept of the immersiveness and the chromeless interfaces instead of having a taskbar being there.

Also, applications can use toast notifications to notify when things are done, or something requires attention - globally. There's no longer need for individual applications such as Skype and Messenger to use their own notification types, and these notifications will be able to be turned off at one central location - the control panel. This theoretically elliminates the need for the cool Windows 7 progress bar indicators in the task bar. While not offering itself as an alternative, it is indeed a nice complementary feature.

Metro for desktop computers

I don't see how Metro is not good for desktops actually - please help me understand. I've read most complaints entirely, and I still don't understand. You move your mouse to the lower-left screen, and voila - there's your start menu.

Finding apps has never been easier - do a search while in the Metro menu.

Don't want Windows 8 to start up in Metro? Turn it off. I like when my PC starts up in Metro, because then my PC isn't spending 99% of its resources on launching all kinds of apps in the background, when I know exactly what I want.

For instance, if I want to start Visual Studio to do programming as the first thing I do, I click my pinned Visual Studio icon on the Metro screen. It takes me to the desktop, and starts loading the application - even with full priority (allowing it to be priored over all the other program processes while it starts up).

I get the idea that people want some kind of "Default" state that their PC is in, but really, I believe people have become way too used to the old "inside the box"-way of thinking. Let's face it. You start up your PC anyway, and you always start out by launching 1 single app to do your primary purpose, isn't that right? You never start out by launching 20 apps at a time. These will be started automatically for you.

Turning your computer off is harder - or is it?

For those having issues finding the power button I can only ask "really?". Pressing your power button on the computer itself will shut down your PC as default in Windows 8, so why bother anyway? Isn't it more natural to hit the power button to turn something off? They just removed the noise that we thought was needed for centuries. If you're not happy with that, you can configure what happens when clicking the power button.

If you're on a desktop, hitting "Windows + I" to launch the menu for shutting down your PC isn't that hard either, although, less intuitive. In this scenario I agree, if your power button is physically too far away from you.

Normal applications will be offered through the marketplace as well as Metro apps, so the app-store is still going to be awesome.

Why Metro as it is now?

As a developer, I see clearly what Microsoft is doing here. The following is based on knowledge within the field, and common sense. However, some of it is based on beliefs and assumptions.

  • Microsoft will make Windows Phone 7 apps compatible with Windows 8. When these apps run, they will run in the docked mode (left or right) always for compatibility reasons, since that'll match the proper phone aspect ratio.
  • Windows 8 apps that are compatible with the docked (left or right) app format will run in that mode always when running in Windows Phone 8.

Scaling is no problem, since Silverlight (or WPF for that matter) is resolution independent, and uses vector graphics. Hence a much higher compatibility with larger screens.

I will keep this post updated with new points of view as replies arrive - please read the post carefully before you reply!

If you're on a desktop, hitting "Windows + I" to launch the menu for shutting down your PC isn't that hard either, although, less intuitive. In this scenario I agree, if your power button is physically too far away from you.

Win+C is much more efficient and specifically designed to pull up the "C"harms. I restart/shutdown using Win+C every time and it's second nature now, was after 10 minutes.

You make good points and some that don't really matter at all - this is a preview and things will change between now and a potential RC build as well as the RTM which should be this year at some point. They have a long way to go.

Best thing I can say: people need to get over the whole Metro thing, really. It's there, use it, don't use it. I can sit here and use my machine for hours and hours and hours and never once see the Start screen at all - not one time. I start up the apps I normally keep open by their Taskbar buttons/shortcuts and that's it - I have no reason to see the Start screen and on the very rare times that I hit just the Windows key itself I type what I'm looking for and hit Enter so fast it's a non-issue, that means the Start screen is irrelevant in the big picture for those of us that continue to use Desktop "mode" since Metro apps are so few and useful at this point.

People don't like change, but they adapt in time.

  • Like 2

Win+C is much more efficient and specifically designed to pull up the "C"harms. I restart/shutdown using Win+C every time and it's second nature now, was after 10 minutes.

Win+I requires one less click to shut down compared to Win+C.

...every Windows 8 hater...

I stopped reading, and and taking this opinion seriously, here. Disliking one feature in a desktop environment doesn't mean people hate the whole OS and you'd know that if you actually read what people were saying, so given your opening and request that people read your post before replying, I'd say that qualifies you as a hypocrite. Good Day.

Oh boy.

Please, every Windows 8 hater - read this carefully. I'm not justifying anything, I just think my input may help you realize the beauty of this change.

Haytazzz!

Why no regular start menu while browsing Metro?

I for one like Metro for my desktop PC. I love the fact that the desktop is now a "box" that runs inside a fluid environment. I also like the concept of the immersiveness and the chromeless interfaces instead of having a taskbar being there.

I'm glad for you. But how is you liking it proving anything?

Also, applications can use toast notifications to notify when things are done, or something requires attention - globally. There's no longer need for individual applications such as Skype and Messenger to use their own notification types, and these notifications will be able to be turned off at one central location - the control panel. This theoretically elliminates the need for the cool Windows 7 progress bar indicators in the task bar. While not offering itself as an alternative, it is indeed a nice complementary feature.

Notifications are awful as they're too easy to miss. Look at same thing in upcoming OS X or how it's been for a few years in Ubuntu -- there are notification counters and you can see what you've missed. And "theoretically," they don't replace progress bars as they're not visible at all times (but not much is anyway in Metro).

Metro for desktop computers

I don't see how Metro is not good for desktops actually - please help me understand. I've read most complaints entirely, and I still don't understand. You move your mouse to the lower-left screen, and voila - there's your start menu.

And I just click the start menu, and, voila, there's my start menu. Actually, what you've mentioned is exactly one of the things that's wrong -- everything's hidden. From the clock to any taskbar indicator. Everything.

Finding apps has never been easier - do a search while in the Metro menu.

...or in the start menu. Plus you can still view your open app, no need to change views, like you have to to achieve anything in Metro!

Don't want Windows 8 to start up in Metro? Turn it off. I like when my PC starts up in Metro, because then my PC isn't spending 99% of its resources on launching all kinds of apps in the background, when I know exactly what I want.

You can't turn it off, at least not by a Microsoft sanctioned way. Btw, Metro still loads the desktop, so your argument's invalid.

For instance, if I want to start Visual Studio to do programming as the first thing I do, I click my pinned Visual Studio icon on the Metro screen. It takes me to the desktop, and starts loading the application - even with full priority (allowing it to be priored over all the other program processes while it starts up).

Not sure what this is supposed to mean? I can also click on an icon in the superbar, plus I don't have to confused by a gazillion animated tiles.

I get the idea that people want some kind of "Default" state that their PC is in, but really, I believe people have become way too used to the old "inside the box"-way of thinking. Let's face it. You start up your PC anyway, and you always start out by launching 1 single app to do your primary purpose, isn't that right? You never start out by launching 20 apps at a time. These will be started automatically for you.

Purely subjective, but I start the browser, email client, twitter app and possibly the music player the moment I sit in front of my computer. Later I add the programs I work in.

Turning your computer off is harder - or is it?

Yes, it is.

For those having issues finding the power button I can only ask "really?". Pressing your power button on the computer itself will shut down your PC as default in Windows 8, so why bother anyway? Isn't it more natural to hit the power button to turn something off? They just removed the noise that we thought was needed for centuries. If you're not happy with that, you can configure what happens when clicking the power button.

Haha, are you high? "They just removed the noise that we thought was needed for centuries." Yeah, that pesky shut down button has been a rock in our shoes for centuries.

Second part I'll post later as there are too many quote tags to fit in one post.

  • Like 2

Second part.

If you're on a desktop, hitting "Windows + I" to launch the menu for shutting down your PC isn't that hard either, although, less intuitive. In this scenario I agree, if your power button is physically too far away from you.

Haha, I never used this shortcut.

Normal applications will be offered through the marketplace as well as Metro apps, so the app-store is still going to be awesome.

Could agree with this, except it looks like crap.

Why Metro as it is now?

As a developer, I see clearly what Microsoft is doing here. The following is based on knowledge within the field, and common sense. However, some of it is based on beliefs and assumptions.

Microsoft will make Windows Phone 7 apps compatible with Windows 8. When these apps run, they will run in the docked mode (left or right) always for compatibility reasons, since that'll match the proper phone aspect ratio.

Windows 8 apps that are compatible with the docked (left or right) app format will run in that mode always when running in Windows Phone 8.

Scaling is no problem, since Silverlight (or WPF for that matter) is resolution independent, and uses vector graphics. Hence a much higher compatibility with larger screens.

Okay, have nothing to say about this one.

I will keep this post updated with new points of view as replies arrive - please read the post carefully before you reply!

Can't wait!

Yeah, I was bored.

snip

If you buy me a copy of Windows 8 when it is released then I will use metro. Until then, please don't tell me what to do.

Also, we're supposed to take your opinion as fact and just agree with you? Well I see the light now! The metro start screen is the super duper!

Why no regular start menu while browsing Metro?

I for one like Metro for my desktop PC. I love the fact that the desktop is now a "box" that runs inside a fluid environment. I also like the concept of the immersiveness and the chromeless interfaces instead of having a taskbar being there.

Also, applications can use toast notifications to notify when things are done, or something requires attention - globally. There's no longer need for individual applications such as Skype and Messenger to use their own notification types, and these notifications will be able to be turned off at one central location - the control panel. This theoretically elliminates the need for the cool Windows 7 progress bar indicators in the task bar. While not offering itself as an alternative, it is indeed a nice complementary feature.

Oh, you mean like Growl? Cool!

Turning your computer off is harder - or is it?

For those having issues finding the power button I can only ask "really?". Pressing your power button on the computer itself will shut down your PC as default in Windows 8, so why bother anyway? Isn't it more natural to hit the power button to turn something off? They just removed the noise that we thought was needed for centuries. If you're not happy with that, you can configure what happens when clicking the power button.

For the past 17 years, what have the masses been groomed to do?

A: The power button is off limits and that they should shut down through Windows. So that's what they think they're going to have to do with Windows 8.

Win+I requires one less click to shut down compared to Win+C.

Perhaps, but with Win+C I can do that with two fingers in a split second whereas even my large hand and fairly wide finger-reach can't do Win+I with the left hand - and that means you're using two hands to get Win+I so...

Win+C is still more efficient overall. ;)

Perhaps, but with Win+C I can do that with two fingers in a split second whereas even my large hand and fairly wide finger-reach can't do Win+I with the left hand - and that means you're using two hands to get Win+I so... Win+C is still more efficient overall. ;)

You either have tiny little girl hands, or a gigantic keyboard. :huh:

I stopped reading, and and taking this opinion seriously, here. Disliking one feature in a desktop environment doesn't mean people hate the whole OS and you'd know that if you actually read what people were saying, so given your opening and request that people read your post before replying, I'd say that qualifies you as a hypocrite. Good Day.

Did I ever state that? I realize my statement might have been harsh, but I had no bad intentions regarding this statement at all. I'm sorry if it came out that way. A guy that hates or doesn't like Windows 8 is a Windows hater, although the word "hater" might sound offensive. I should have used the term "Critics" instead probably. If you don't hate Windows 8 but only parts of Windows 8, then I'd say you are still hating it. I didn't mean to say that you hate in general, but just that you hate Windows 8 or parts of it.

Did I ever state that? I realize my statement might have been harsh, but I had no bad intentions regarding this statement at all. I'm sorry if it came out that way. A guy that hates or doesn't like Windows 8 is a Windows hater, although the word "hater" might sound offensive. I should have used the term "Critics" instead probably. If you don't hate Windows 8 but only parts of Windows 8, then I'd say you are still hating it. I didn't mean to say that you hate in general, but just that you hate Windows 8 or parts of it.

so the only way to like a product is to be it's fanboy?

If you buy me a copy of Windows 8 when it is released then I will use metro. Until then, please don't tell me what to do.

Also, we're supposed to take your opinion as fact and just agree with you? Well I see the light now! The metro start screen is the super duper!

It's funny how people react to a simple opinion. I was basically just trying to state my part of the whole experience, and perhaps help you understand a few things you might have missed. I'm no consultant, nor an expert within the field, and I can certainly not know what your opinions are, or what you're thinking. This whole post was just made because I don't understand your points, and I basically just shared a few experiences I made for myself to clear some confusions up in regards to Metro.

That's why I lead up to a discussion. It'd be great to keep hearing your criticism, and to figure out the pros and cons of Windows 8 constructively.

And no, I'm not saying that my opinion is a fact - that's entirely up to you. I just made my opinion, and you can choose wether or not to pay attention to it. You're a human, and you're acting like a child. If a guy tells you that he believes in God, it doesn't mean you have to as well. Be cool.

You either have tiny little girl hands, or a gigantic keyboard. :huh:

While it is possible to do Win+I with just the left hand, if I wanted to stress the muscles in the left hand with such a move it wouldn't take long to create some form of RSI doing it whereas Win+C is pretty much a bare twitch of the left thumb and index finger since my left thumb is resting on the very left edge of the Space bar pretty much constantly in my normal daily usage:

wincwini.jpg

Win+I for anyone with just the left hand is a stretch for anyone, pun very much intended. :)

It's basically the same on a full size desktop keyboard as well, actually slightly longer on the reach by about 1/2" (using a standard Dell USB desktop keyboard for comparison).

Still easier to do Win+C...

It's funny how people react to a simple opinion. I was basically just trying to state my part of the whole experience, and perhaps help you understand a few things you might have missed. I'm no consultant, nor an expert within the field, and I can certainly not know what your opinions are, or what you're thinking. This whole post was just made because I don't understand your points, and I basically just shared a few experiences I made for myself to clear some confusions up in regards to Metro.

That's why I lead up to a discussion. It'd be great to keep hearing your criticism, and to figure out the pros and cons of Windows 8 constructively.

And no, I'm not saying that my opinion is a fact - that's entirely up to you. I just made my opinion, and you can choose wether or not to pay attention to it. You're a human, and you're acting like a child. If a guy tells you that he believes in God, it doesn't mean you have to as well. Be cool.

And the people on the other side of the fence don't understand how anyone can like it in it's current form. As it stands now, I can do everything the metro start screen does more easily in Windows 7. Be more efficient, more organized, the entire thing. Metro start screen is a pointless addition for a desktop pc.

Why do I need to relearn how to use my computer just to do the things I do now... only different?

  • Like 2

from the latest entry on the B8 blog about Metro IE10, I thought this was interestingly worded:

Snap makes it easy to use Windows 8 for more than one thing at a time.

As a user in the comment section points out:

Has that actually been hard in the last two decades?

Haytazzz!

Yeah, sorry for that.

I'm glad for you. But how is you liking it proving anything?

Not at all. I was just hoping that (in some scenarios) my points of view had not been seen by you - and that they might have been a reasonable explanation to the design choices behind Metro.

Notifications are awful as they're too easy to miss. Look at same thing in upcoming OS X or how it's been for a few years in Ubuntu -- there are notification counters and you can see what you've missed. And "theoretically," they don't replace progress bars as they're not visible at all times (but not much is anyway in Metro).

The notifications will stay as long as you don't move your mouse or your keyboard. In other words, when you're at your computer. Future computers (including desktops) will have approximity sensors, allowing the PC to detect your presence as well. Windows 8 supports this natively. There's an old post full of leaks from years back which still holds so far. More specifically, this part may be interesting to you.

And I just click the start menu, and, voila, there's my start menu. Actually, what you've mentioned is exactly one of the things that's wrong -- everything's hidden. From the clock to any taskbar indicator. Everything.

I understand this criticism entirely. Showing the clock might prove a good thing, or getting a status of something while in Metro. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. It's not something I've noticed though, since my usage of Metro apps are often in and out, just like on Windows Phone. You get the basic information through tiles, and once there's more you'd like to catch up on, you quickly go in, and back out again. That doesn't justify anything though, and I agree.

On Windows Phone, when you swipe your finger from the top of the screen to the bottom, a task-bar fades in, showing battery status, connection status and the time. Perhaps that'll be the same for Windows 8?

...or in the start menu. Plus you can still view your open app, no need to change views, like you have to to achieve anything in Metro!

See, this is quite interesting. I was thinking the exact same thing the other day, until a Neowin member commented "how often do you actually use the Windows 7 start menu?". I quickly realized that most of my stuff is pinned to the taskbar anyway, and when I want to find specific information, I never browse through a list - searching just makes more sense.

As for the full-screen interface, it is not at all needed. Using the charm bar's "search" button will allow searching while on the desktop, or using the Windows + W, Windows + Q or Windows + F hotkeys for the different search categories respectively.

You can't turn it off, at least not by a Microsoft sanctioned way. Btw, Metro still loads the desktop, so your argument's invalid.

Metro only loads the desktop with really low priority. This has already been mentioned in a news post (I think it was even on Neowin), and on the Windows 8 blog (Engineering Windows 8). However, the heavy loading only occurs once you make a desktop-based activity. This is made to decrease load especially on tablets and phones. Combined with hybrid-boot tech, it does this quite well.

As it is right now, there's an application inbuilt in Windows 8 called "Show desktop". It's an EXE hidden in the system. Putting it as automatic startup with the system causes Metro to disable during boot. There's been rumors that this will be an option later. There are also security policy settings that can be disabled/enabled to achieve the same effect. Not very user-friendly and intuitive, I know.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean? I can also click on an icon in the superbar, plus I don't have to confused by a gazillion animated tiles.

Yes, but you can't do it as efficiently, because your PC will most likely be busy booting up other programs, while you (most likely) just want to load one thing with full priority. Metro gives you that control. Also, the Metro interface can show way more tiles, and by differentiating things in color, named categories and custom positions, I doubt you'll be confused by your own setup. Microsoft elaborated on their decissions on this here, showing scientific results through heatmaps that describe how the average user doesn't even use the Windows 7 start menu optimally (focus on the images in the post if you're a TL;DR guy :) ).

Purely subjective, but I start the browser, email client, twitter app and possibly the music player the moment I sit in front of my computer. Later I add the programs I work in.

Interesting. I take it back then! :) One could however argue that it would probably be wise for you to configure those to start up automatically.

Yes, it is.

Through the usual ways (as I also state), yes. Could you elaborate a bit more?

Haha, are you high? "They just removed the noise that we thought was needed for centuries." Yeah, that pesky shut down button has been a rock in our shoes for centuries.

No, not last time I checked :laugh: . What I mean by noise is elements that aren't needed for the functionality to still be there.

While it is possible to do Win+I with just the left hand, if I wanted to stress the muscles in the left hand with such a move it wouldn't take long to create some form of RSI doing it whereas Win+C is pretty much a bare twitch of the left thumb and index finger since my left thumb is resting on the very left edge of the Space bar pretty much constantly in my normal daily usage:

wincwini.jpg

Win+I for anyone with just the left hand is a stretch for anyone, pun very much intended. :)

It's basically the same on a full size desktop keyboard as well, actually slightly longer on the reach by about 1/2" (using a standard Dell USB desktop keyboard for comparison).

Still easier to do Win+C...

Couldn't resist. When a touch interface encourages you to touch your keyboard, often, it may be implemented improperly ... lol.

If you don't hate Windows 8 but only parts of Windows 8, then I'd say you are still hating it.

No, I disagree. If I see a car that has ugly wheels, I don't hate the car - I hate the wheels.

The same with Windows 8. I don't hate it. I might dislike a feature in it, but a feature doesn't make it the whole.

from the latest entry on the B8 blog about Metro IE10 ...

Snapping in Windows 8 is different. You can snap the "desktop box", and you can snap Windows 8 apps in the side at the same time, in an entire isolated environment outside the box. Here's a screenshot I just made demonstrating it, and here's the same concept just with the desktop-box in collapsed-mode. IE10 in Metro mode can snap like this too.

And the people on the other side of the fence don't understand how anyone can like it in it's current form. As it stands now, I can do everything the metro start screen does more easily in Windows 7. Be more efficient, more organized, the entire thing. Metro start screen is a pointless addition for a desktop pc.

Why do I need to relearn how to use my computer just to do the things I do now... only different?

Could you be more specific? I'm curious, and I'm not trying to be a tease. Sorry if I am. What (more specifically) do you do faster on your Windows 7 machine?

Sounds like BS Microsoft marketers at work to me.

You sound like a troll to me with no constructive comments what so ever.

No, I disagree. If I see a car that has ugly wheels, I don't hate the car - I hate the wheels.

The same with Windows 8. I don't hate it. I might dislike a feature in it, but a feature doesn't make it the whole.

Point taken, I get you. I take it back. I appologize. :)

so the only way to like a product is to be it's fanboy?

Surprisingly enough, I wouldn't call myself a Microsoft fanboy. I objectively use what I like the most. I use Microsoft Word instead of OpenOffice because of formatting issues with Microsoft OOML or whatever it's called, which is used almost everywhere. I use Google Docs instead of Office Live because it's just better when it comes to collaboration.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      505
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!