It's mostly about cost and market access to China.
Most smartphone supply-chain for Samsung and Apple exist outside China -- primarily in Japan (camera, sensors), South Korea (DRAM/NAND, OLED), and the US (various ICs fabbed at TSMC in Taiwan). There are quite a few reliable estimates/teardowns showing that these three countries account for close to about 90% of iPhone BOM (bill of materials). That's one reason why Samsung's smartphone unit was able to pull out of China without much disruption back in 2019 -- ie, low dependence on China.
I feel that Apple has pushed this misleading narrative a bit too long to defend their massive China outsourcing.
Occam's razor: the wall is most probably the cause of the unnecessary explosion that killed 179 people. The airport built ILS, or localizer, on unnecessarily over-engineered concrete structure where there shouldn't have been any obstruction. The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure so they can be easily destroyed when there is an overrun. There are reportedly at least 4 other airports with such obstructions in South Korea -- at Yeosu, it's 4 meters high (also concrete foundation)[1].
<strikethrough>There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality.</strikethrough>
1. Localizer at Yeosu Airport, similar to Muan's, raises safety concerns, 2025.01.02 (23:58), KBS News.
> There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality.
Are you talking about Asiana Airlines 162? It hit localizer on its way to the runway because it came in too low. It then hit the runway, skidded on the runway, and stopped about halfway (after veering off the runway at the last moment).
If the same thing happened in Muan, the plane would have hit the localizer and then touched down, stopping in the runway. The fact that the localizer's base was concrete wouldn't have mattered because that's not where the plane would hit it.
If the wheels drop off my car at 100km/h and I lose control and hit a wall, is the wall the cause of the accident?
The barrier was 250m away from the end of the runway, the extra 50m if following regulations wouldn’t have changed the outcome. And if the wall wasn’t there, the plane would dive right into a highway anyway. That’s the point.
Technically correct yet missing the point. The plane could have disintegrated in a dozen other ways if the wall wasn’t there, or something else could be in the way.
I think the fact we have dramatic footage of the crash makes it a very attractive topic for engagement. News are spinning it into something it is not. A handful of massive errors happened and we know nothing yet, the focus on the structure for being in the way just makes for good clickbait, gives people an easy target to blame - the airport, engineers, regulators (doesn’t really matter who), and something to get riled up about.
bad analogy. a better one would be: a wheel fell of an F1 car, car hit perimeter wall, driver dies. should we maybe put a crash barrier in front of the wall?
This airport is basically already complying with the highest possible standard [1]; so in your analogy the crash barrier already exists, the equivalent argument would be for the track to have a 200m run-off area all around.
It's not feasible to plan for every possible freak occurrence, an accident like this is only possible after a long list of other safety procedures have failed (as is often the case for aviation).
Planes sometimes overshoot the runway, building an unecessary wall at the end of it might comply with a standard, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Maybe that section of highway could easily be cleared in time with a warning system, like when we warn for crossing trains. A wall doesn't have to be the only solution.
I suppose we have to get into the engineering thought process of these Asian cultures.
Where did the idea of fortifying Localizer (LOC) come from, was there prior art specifying any degree of fortification (or lack) ? Perhaps these kind of radar (adjacent) installations are traditionally fortified, like maybe the civil air services were influenced from militry air services were things tend to be overengineered?
Perhaps saving the LOC is more important than saving a single aircraft? Some idea like this piece of infrastructure being more important that any single aircraft's safety?
The point is we might not see the reason why fortifying the LOC was obvious or straight forward to the Korean engineers.
Also, I've seen no credible evidence to support the idea the LOC is supposed to be built on a level surface, or built in a destructable way. Addressing the first point, the LOC makes sense to be slightly elevated given how they operate with near field low power radio waves. That said, these kind of slightly elevated instrument might not require an earthen mound, sourounded by concreate walls. Which goes to the second point, I can think of reasons to have these kind of LOC runways homing antenas destructable, and I can see them being robustly durrable. This thing was way past the end of the runway, and as unpo0pular as it might seems... it's a very bad thing to run out of runway. Somebody else wrote that some airports have a lack of open field beyond the end of the runway, and so it's a persuasive argument stuff could be built out there.
The pilots on 9/11 were intentionally directing their aircraft toward specific structures to maximise destruction, casualties, and terrorist impact. That was their express intent and mission for which they had specifically trained.
In all likelihood the pilot of Jeju 2216 was not specifically directing his aircraft to the nonfrangible ILS Muan Murder Wall. There is no way to charitably argue otherwise.
China is quite anti-competitive. BYD/CATL's success, which comes from their battery market dominance, is a largely outcome of the CCP's protectionism past ~10 years.
I think we should stop pretending that Chinese EV/battery companies can compete on their own without Papa Xi's big wallet or baton to keep out foreign competition.
What does that even mean? Direct EV subsidies are already gone. In the first place, they were meant to start up an industry, not to be sustained forever.
On a higher level, I find your thinking weird. Nobody ever said "let's not pretend $HIGH_SCHOOL_STUDENT can compete on its own without papa's wallet". Everybody thinks that it's natural to invest in a child's education until they can compete on their own in the world.
College enrollment rates have only recently reached a high level.
You’re delusional, Chinese car factories are way more automated and advanced than our own, and they’re just seeing the benefits pay off. I think we should stop assuming that Asians can’t produce quality work.
asians? - definitely make great stuff. chinese specifically? - they will have to prove that they can in fact make good quality products. I have bought hundreds of chinese products over the years and last thing I would subject myself to (and especially my wife and daughter) is chinese vehicle… they have a steep hill to climb to convince us that have bought many chinese-made goods that they can make good quality products
It's not just mere "subsidies," there is also blatant protectionism. CEOs of incumbents car makers have been warning against the Chinese gov't unsavory anti-market practices to protect their local battery companies and achieve market dominance past 10 years, such as:
1. Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buying local, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, the Wall Street Journal
... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
2. Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries, Beijing gave CATL lavish subsidies, a captive market of buyers and soft regulatory treatment, helping it to control a crucial technology of the future. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec. 22, 2021, The NYTimes
3. The Key to Electric Cars Is Batteries. One Chinese Firm Dominates the Industry. Beijing built the world’s largest EV market, then pressured foreign car makers to use its batteries, Trefor Moss, Nov. 3, 2019, WSJ
... China is by far the biggest EV market, and to boost its standing in the fast-growing industry, China began pressuring foreign auto makers to use locally-made batteries
... Auto makers weren’t pleased, but they fell in line. During a visit to CATL headquarters in 2017, three Daimler AG executives displayed their irritation shortly after the meeting started, recalled Jiang Lingfeng, then a CATL project manager who prepared a technical briefing for the visitors. One Daimler executive cut off his briefing, said Mr. Jiang. “We’re not interested,” the executive said, according to Mr. Jiang. “The only reason we’re here is that we have no choice, so let’s just talk about the price.”
... Still, auto makers bridled at CATL’s dominance, according to Mr. Tsao, the former supply-chain manager there. CATL’s batteries also cost 25% more than those of leading rivals because the company was still learning to mass-produce cost-effectively, he said. “The price is high, and the service is slow,” he said, summing up CATL’s proposition to auto maker clients.
... “What the government did was a good thing for China,” said Mr. Jiang, the former CATL project manager. “Without its restrictions, I don’t think CATL would ever have been successful.”
Let's not forget that the EU also followed up with a WTO complaint against China for their NEV regulation that forced tech transfer (see WT/DS549) in 2018, and waited over 6 years to take a countervailing measure (2024/1866) against prohibited subsidies practices.
ironic comment, considering that the Chinese gov't fossile fuel subsidies's is by far the largest in the world -- or $270+B vs. $3B US (see the IMF's 2023 Fossile Fuel Subsidies Report).
All that to support cheap energy and overcapacity.
We also know that most Chinese battery companies would have been crushed by foreign competitors from Japan and South Korea, had the Chinese gov't effectively not banned them and forced their customers to switch to local Chinese battery makers since 2015.
The Chicken Tax was initially a response to Europe's protectionist measure against American poultry imports. I see how it eventually turned into a protectionist racket, but most never seem to look at the source of the problem.
I feel that the same way about EVs, or EV batteries in particular.
Most smartphone supply-chain for Samsung and Apple exist outside China -- primarily in Japan (camera, sensors), South Korea (DRAM/NAND, OLED), and the US (various ICs fabbed at TSMC in Taiwan). There are quite a few reliable estimates/teardowns showing that these three countries account for close to about 90% of iPhone BOM (bill of materials). That's one reason why Samsung's smartphone unit was able to pull out of China without much disruption back in 2019 -- ie, low dependence on China.
I feel that Apple has pushed this misleading narrative a bit too long to defend their massive China outsourcing.