Apple recently requested that the Fair Labor Association conduct audits of its assembly suppliers, with Foxconn being a focus due to recent media attention surrounding the working conditions there. The FLA has now indicated that general conditions within Foxconn's iPad and iPhone production facilities have better overall ratings than most other assembly vendors in the business.

“The facilities are first-class; the physical conditions are way, way above average of the norm,” said FLA president Auret van Heerden. He spent the past several days visiting Foxconn plants to prepare for the study. “I was very surprised when I walked onto the floor at Foxconn, how tranquil it is compared with a garment factory. So the problems are not the intensity and burnout and pressure-cooker environment you have in a garment factory. It’s more a function of monotony, of boredom, of alienation perhaps.”

Additional FLA staff members plan to visit more of these factories run by other Apple suppliers, like Pegatron. Whether you're of the opinion that Apple is taking the brunt of the negativity here when many other technology companies use the same vendors for their own products, or that Apple's position in the industry comes with added responsibility, it's at least good to know the FLA is taking quick action in their investigation and seeing mostly positive results thus far.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has previously gone on record stating that Apple "cares about every worker in their worldwide supply chain", and added emphasis on the matter during a speech held at a Goldman Sachs conference yesterday saying they will be a leader in improving working conditions regardless of the investigation's outcome.

Source: Reuters

Steve Jobs' FBI file has been released and is now available for public viewing on their web site. It contains information from a background investigation conducted in 1991 when Jobs was being considered for an appointment to the President's Export Council during the Bush I White House. It also includes information relating to a bomb threat against Jobs in 1985.

The link comes via Gawker who pulled a lot of quotes from it about Jobs' character and personal behavior. The issue of Steve Jobs' character has come up on numerous occasions including his autobiography by Walter Isaacson. To many Apple fans his tendency to be abrasive and aggressive probably isn't anything new.

Creating an empire like Apple and products like the iPhone and iPad isn't typically done by killing everyone with kindness and constantly deferring to the needs and opinions of others. He was an entrepreneur, not someone running for sainthood, and I'm sure most of us, if we ever became that popular or successful, would get our fair share of the same treatment.

Hit the source link below for the full file.

Source: Jobs FBI file via Gawker

After yesterday's news that Verizon would be charging a $2 fee for paying bills online and over the phone, the FCC has chimed in.

“On behalf of American consumers, we’re concerned about Verizon’s actions and are looking into the matter,” the statement said.

A lot of subscribers have spoken out against Verizon's decision to institute this new convenience fee. It'll be interesting to see what the FCC ultimately decides to do, and what if any effect that has on other networks like Sprint which don't "surcharge" but do offer "discounts" for their preferred payment options. (Just goes to show how far smart PR and better marketing language can get carriers who aren't Verizon...)

Source: NYT

Word is the US federal government, and the always eager European Union, are looking into Apple's new in-app subscription service. Last year, following complaints from Adobe, they looked into Apple's ban on cross-compilers for iOS and policies on competing advertisers like Google's AdMob. Apple ultimately reversed their decision on cross-compilers and Apple may well alter their in-app subscription plans as well but here's the thing -- why is the government looking into Apple?

Most cable companies are monopolies that can package channels in a way that force consumers to pay more than they would if they had a-la-carte alternatives. They can sell cable boxes that haven't evolved in 10 years while making sure cablecards are difficult to obtain. They can use and abuse copy protection and can lock down your cable box to the extent that you can't even watch previously recorded programs in your own home on your own TVs. They can set bandwidth caps low enough to dissuade users from Netflix, iTunes, and other competitive services and, apparently, can even buy their own TV networks. They have a complete lock in. Likewise PayPal can freeze your account with little in the way of recourse or accountability, pretty much doing what they want with potentially vast amounts of your money. They have total power over your cash. Verizon can lock down GPS, forcibly put un-removable Bing and crapware on their phones, and get Google to agree to horribly backwards net neutrality concessions. They own your telephonics.

How about the US and EU look into them. How about they fix them. How about they protect consumers money and public airwaves and critical infrastructure elements before they worry so much about our toys. Not to get all Aaron Sorkin on them but just because Apple is a sexy headline and trendy target doesn't mean every time a huge mega-corporation gets upset with Cupertino the regulators need to rev up their anti-trust PR reps.

If Apple steps out of bounds, if they're anti-competitive or abusing monopoly position or illegally restraining trade by all means, investigate them and take action. But investigate cable and carriers first. Investigate defacto banks that act with impunity and first.

Protect us first.

The European Commission is calling off the investigation into Apple's ban on cross-compilers after Apple reversed the policy. The EU also claims that the policy change was a direct result of their investigation.

"Apple's response to our preliminary investigations shows that the Commission can use the competition rules to achieve swift results on the market with clear benefits for consumers, without the need to open formal proceedings," Almunia said.

While the FTC/EU investigation is certainly one of the leading theories behind Apple's new App Store policies and guidelines, others have suggested increased competition from Google's Android, and a desire to have games in the App Store based on engines like Unity and Unreal.

So which theory is correct? Or was it a combination of factors that made Apple change their minds?

[Electronista, Engadget]

This is an official entry by Slyfi in TiPb’s next top blogger contest. Think you have what it takes to join Team TiPb? Bring it!

The US government is reportedly now investigating Apple for the terms in the iOS 4 GM license that restrict rival ad networks owned by competing platforms -- i.e. Google's AdMob. Independent ad networks are not effected, nor is Apple's own iAd platform.

According to two people close to the situation, US regulators have already taken an interest in Apple’s actions, though it is not yet clear whether it will be left to the Federal Trade Commission, which carried out the recent Google investigation, or the Department of Justice to take an investigation forward.

This follows other reported probes into Apple's restriction on cross-compilers -- i.e. Adobe's Flash CS5 packager for iPhone, and its position in music -- i.e. Apple's decision to not promote tracks that gave rival Amazon MP3 a 24hr exclusive.

Google's AdMob acquisition itself faced intense US government scrutiny due to its dominant position in the online advertising market. Both Apple and Google want to buy AdMob, with Google winning out and Apple purchasing Quatro Wireless to power their new iOS iAd platform instead.

If one thing is clear, it looks like PC-underdog Apple is a high profile investigative target in the mobile space.

[Financial Times]

The New York Times is reporting that the Justice Department is taking a look at Apple's conduct in the digital music space:

people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released.

This goes back to a story in March about Amazon asking for 24hrs of exclusivity on certain new music tracks in exchange for prominently featuring those tracks on Amazon MP3. Apple reportedly asked labels not to give Amazon that exclusivity, and withdrew their own marketing support for those who made the deal with Amazon.

This is also comes on the heels of rumored DoJ/FTC questions about Apple's banning of cross-compilers in the iPhone OS 4 SDK.

Whether or not these investigations become serious, they do show the government has increased interest in Apple and their businesses.

Question of the night goes to Seth from 9to5Mac:

Perhaps while they are at it, the DoJ should look into at why four companies, that are often in cahoots, control 95% of the music production in the US?

We'd add the carriers and cable companies to that list.

[New York Times, 9to5Mac]

As manufacturer Hon Hai/Foxconn opens their facilities for an unprecedented media tour in the wake of a growing number of worker suicides, Apple has issued the following statement:

"We are saddened and upset by the recent suicides at Foxconn. We are in direct contact with Foxconn senior management and we believe they are taking this matter very seriously. A team from Apple is independently evaluating the steps they are taking to address these tragic events and we will continue our ongoing inspections of the facilities where our products are made.”

In addition to Apple, Dell, HP, and others are also looking into conditions at the Shenzhen, China based manufacturer.

Apple has previously posted a supplier responsibility progress report.

[Reuters, Bloomberg]

While Gizmodo showed off a prototype iPhone HD/iPhone 4G just over a week ago, and revealed the identity of the Apple engineer who brought it to the now-infamous bar, the identity of the man who brought it from the bar to Gizmodo was not revealed -- until now.

An investigation by Wired involving (we kid you not), looking at social network posts and confirmed via a source (which was not revealed) led them to Brian J. Hogan, a 21-year-old resident of Redwood City, California who, through his lawyer, said:

• a story broadly matching that previously provided by Gizmodo
• that he regrets not doing more to try and return the iPhone prototype
• that the $5000 he received from Gizmodo was for exclusive access to the device for review purposes

According to his lawyer, he's also a good boy.

UPDATE: CNET has identified the man who contacted technology blogs like Gizmodo, Engagdget, etc. about the iPhone prototype as Sage Robert Wallower, a 27-year-old University of California at Berkeley student.

Police continue their investigation, the internet continues their discussion.

[Wired, CNET]

Exercising a search warrant last Friday, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized evidence in the ongoing investigation into the iPhone HD/iPhone 4G that wound up outside of Apple's control and plastered all over the internet last week.

Gizmodo has the full account up, including the warrant, a response from Gawker legal, and their account of the events.

[Gizmodo]

Techcrunch got a hold of a letter sent by the FCC to Apple seeking more information on the rejection of Google's Google Voice app, and removal of third party Google Voice apps already in the iTunes App Store.

Specifically, the Federal Communications Commission wants to know why Apple rejected the apps, and which apps exactly were rejected, whether Apple alone made the decision or whether AT&T played any part, what role -- if any -- AT&T plays in the App Store approval process, what makes Google Voice any different than VoIP apps Apple has already approved, what other apps have been rejected and why, whether or not there's a list of verboten apps and how that list is made available to developers and consumers, and other timing and statistical information concerning the approval process and rejections.

Basically, it reads as a wish list of every question every frustrated developer, consumer, and -- yes -- even blogger has ever wanted Apple to simply, plainly, and consistently answer. There is, however, a proviso for Apple to request confidentiality, which given Apple's penchant for secrecy, likely means we may never see those answers.

Similar letters were sent to Google and AT&T.

Opinions always vary about when and how much government should intrude into business. Some will think never, some will hope always, and we like to think there's a balance in between. App Store rejections currently annoy developers and the more tech-savvy consumers who read blogs and technology columns. Unfortunately, until it breaks the confidence of the average consumer and suffers immediate, painful consequence, Apple likely thinks most users aren't even aware of the issue and it can take its time and follow it's own agenda.

If nothing else, the FCC has just thrown a monkey wrench into that strategy.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

The New York Times (via Daring Fireball) reports that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is looking into whether the ties between Apple and Google's respective Boards of Directors violate Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

The provision is designed to prevent two rival companies from acting in concert to reduce competition. While Google and Apple have rival mobile phone platforms and cloud services, iPhone vs. Android and Gmail (etc.) vs. MobileMe, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt is on Apple's board of directors and the iPhone makes use of Google technology such as the built-in Google Maps, Google Search, etc.

According to the NYT, however:

Antitrust experts say that investigations of interlocking directorates rarely lead to major confrontations between companies and the government. Executives typically choose to resign from the board of a competitor if it poses a problem rather than face a lengthy investigation or a bruising legal fight.

The article also points out the "closeness" of Google to the Obama administration, and how that "closeness" doesn't seem to offer Google any insulation from the FTC.