Apple CEO Cook announces new China R&D facility

“Apple Inc., facing mounting competitive pressure in China, plans to open a new research-and-development facility in the world’s second-biggest economy,” Alex Webb reports for Bloomberg.

“The site will bring together engineers from some of Apple’s existing centers, the company said during Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook’s visit to Beijing. Apple didn’t specify the office’s location or planned number of employees,” Webb reports. “Apple has more than doubled its number of corporate sites in China to 45 since 2011, so the move may help it consolidate some of those facilities.”

“‘The center will open later this year, bringing together our engineering and operations teams in China as we develop advanced technologies and services for our products,’ Apple said,” Webb reports.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Expect even more Apple investment in China.

Tim Cook returns to China, this time for wedding dresses, fitness classes, and more – August 16, 2016
Tim Cook back in Beijing, says Apple will further boost investment in China – August 16, 2016

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Carlos” for the heads up.]


  1. Stupid move. How many times have we seen this played out.

    China dangles the carrot in front of the CEO. In order to acquire the China market, you must “partner” with the Chinese.

    Once they have all your IP, it’s “See ya’ Sucker!” and the American company is holding nothing.

    This trick works every time and the stupid American CEOs fall for it again and again.

      1. Sheesh. So China:

        The Chinese government just shut down two of Apple’s key service products, the iBooks Store and iTunes Movies. It has also denied Apple the right to trademark the name “iPhone,” allowing other companies to use the name for their own, non-Apple-related products.

        It’s time for Apple to own the ApplePhone or Phone trademark and move over to that name instead.

        Why this is so China: Its government consistently wrecks choice, creativity, inventiveness, innovation, trust, respect, reliability, openness, privacy, incentive, individualism, diversity… Oh-so-typical totalitarian turd twaddle.

  2. If the totalitiarian Chinese government can keep-the-hell-out,
    If Apple can seriously engender and reward creativity in China,
    This could be GREAT.

    But if this turns into another fruitless attempt at creativity within a criminal ‘communist’ state, it will be a waste of time, money and secrets for Apple.

    IOW: I worry. 😧

  3. Apple needs a new board of directors.

    All companies should pay 80% of the profits to shareholders. This is just wasting cash. If China is ready for democracy, then american companies should support that effort, not by claiming they are opening up their society by sell them stuff, but by making deals that help China’s people obtain greater freedoms.

    Cook has made apple even more political, so as and american company they should export freedom. google, microsoft, goodyear too. Money is not everything. So, pay shareholders 80% of the profits and a corporation can forget about paying taxes.

    And for those shareholder that don’t want that 80%, how about you leave your dividend with the company and get a dollar for dollar deduction off of your taxes.

    1. 80% of profits to shareholders?
      I’m not sure that even 80% of shareholders would agree with that.

      When you are dealing with governments, you have to be political. You have no choice. I disagree with Tim Cook’s social justice pursuits but this is appropriate. Sometimes you have to dance the dance.

      1. Ridiculous you say. Why? What do you think a business is for? Please tell me. Maybe I have the wrong idea about what a business is for. Those that work for the company receive compensation. The business get to keep 20% of the profits.

        What about research? Well that’s part of the cost to do business. I would be willing to let corporation, publicly traded, to pay no taxes if 80% of the profits are paid to shareholders. Just the accounting fees would save millions for some companies.

        Most importantly it is a true reflection from quarter to quarter how well a company is doing. The money is where the mouth is.

        1. Hey Bob,

          Here is what Tim Cook thinks his business if for: “The North Star has always been the same, which for us, is about making insanely great products that really change the world in some way — enrich people’s lives. And so our reason for being hasn’t changed.”

          Money isn’t everything, there are qualities that drive those to strive for excellence, just as there are qualities that drive others to mediocrity.

          I hope that helps.

  4. Road Warrior, hm. Interesting. That’s great to tell the troops, the people that work for you, and that’s great, great marketing material. Here’s the thing once that has been satisfied by paying the troops for their genius, management, research, is paid for, then does it require a company to hold on to large amounts of cash in order to get the marketed hyped products out. Hm. I don’t think so, see apple’s been doing that with a lot less extra cash hanging around for years.

    1. All right Bob, if you think what Tim Cook is saying is marketing material, that’s fine, it’s your free will. You asked a question, you got an answer, and instead of accepting it, you put a marketing spin on it.

      Here’s the thing Bob, it does requires the company to do what they darn well pleased to do with the money. That’s freedom of choice, and you don’t attain freedom by removing it from others. Apple made the money so Apple is free to do what they darn well please with the money.

      If you want to toss that principle out of the window, well then pass a law that all companies should pay 80% of the profits to shareholders.

  5. Road Warrior don’t get so upset. Calm down. Look I read your answer and it just doesn’t seem to be right, but it does seem to be an opinion, fine, and fair. That Apple has made “great products that change the world” was done before Apple had over a quarter of a trillion dollars. So it seems wrong to me to say they need that money and it should not be shared with those that invested in the company.
    (note: any publicly traded company)

    I wonder if the bank agrees with you. They make you a loan, but you make the money, maybe you should not pay them or at the rate of your choosing.

    I watched a bunch of shows about the Mob the other day, I kind of feel they would show up on your doorstep and explain business, the real free market system, to you differently. They would perhaps say, not wanting to speak for them, but, we own part of this business where is our money. Somehow someway I believe they would leave with money and they will be back next quarter for more. The unregulated free market at work.

    Yes there should be a law. We are all reasonable men and women here.

    1. Hey Bob, thanks for the reply. You talked about a few items previously, I was just focused on a singular question you asked and context ” What do you think a business is for? Please tell me. Maybe I have the wrong idea about what a business is for.”

      My answer was to provide Apple’s answer cause it was fresh in my mind and I happen to know it’s not marketing fluff, it’s a sincere approach, one of the many and valid approaches reasons for companies to go into business, making money is certainly one of them, passion for a particular product or service is equally viable, heck sometimes it’s peer pressure or two guys just having fun in their garage. When it comes to diversity, every answer is right and there are many diverse reasons and models for business.

      Now to your other point, your original sentences: “Apple needs a new board of directors. All companies should pay 80% of the profits to shareholders.” “So, pay shareholders 80% of the profits and a corporation can forget about paying taxes.”

      Now you/we aren’t talking about money to pay taxes, repay a loan to a bank, money assigned to R&D or money used to pay people who work. That’s not the profit, that’s the cost of doing business. The profit is what comes after and there are situations where profit is not allowed or must be reassigned, like non-governmental or charitable organizations.

      Apple is not one of those, it is part of free enterprise, an economic system in which private businesses operate in competition and largely free of state control. Being part of free enterprise allows Apple and other similar companies the freedom to do what they want with the profits, that’s freedom of choice. It’s not about right nor wrong, it’s about the freedom to do what you want with the profits. If Apple wants to sit on it, fine. If they want to give it back to the share holders, fine, it’s their choice.

      Certainly you feel that there is an alternative, and if you do want to pursue that alternative you’ll have to take the steps necessary to make it so.

      One last item that is a non-issue for me, is that at no time during this exchange was I upset so I’m a bit miffed at where you got that idea though I will say that I am beyond reasonable. Logic dictates that there is more to it than itself, that’s where intuition comes it. Something to think and/or feel about.

      Enjoy the day.

  6. “All companies should pay 80% of the profits to shareholders”. That’s pretty greedy and shortsighted.

    The whole plan for buying back Apple stock is to ensure control of the company’s stability: shareholders are all too often fly-by-night, fickle gamblers who buy and sell at short notice and have no loyalty to any company. Precisely the sort of people Apple doesn’t need.

    80% profit to shareholders would simply attract more of those parasites.

    Sure, every shareholder deserves a reasonable dividend, fair enough, but in return the business expects — and needs — longevity and loyalty.

    Apple would never have amassed its huge “war chest” resources, world class R&D expertise, powerful investment capability and excellent economies of scale if they had recklessly distributed 80% of profit to shareholders.

    The likely outcome of a policy such as that is predictable. It’s called bankruptcy.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.