Many people imagine Apple’s manufacturing operations in China in very simple terms. The familiar story is that Apple designs elegant products in California while low-skilled labourers elsewhere assemble them.
Recently I listened to Patrick McGee speak about Apple’s investment in China, and his description suggested something far more complex. In fact, it caused me to rethink not only how Apple operates, but how modern corporate power works more broadly.
According to McGee, many of the people working within Apple’s manufacturing ecosystem in China are highly educated — engineers, technicians, and specialists, many with advanced degrees. The workforce supporting Apple’s production network includes individuals trained in sophisticated manufacturing processes, materials science, robotics, logistics, and supply chain management.
In fact, McGee described Apple as something close to a technical training ecosystem. Through its enormous supply chain, Apple has effectively helped educate and train generations of engineers and technicians. The skills required to produce modern electronics are complex, and the companies that participate in Apple’s network develop that expertise over time.
Another point he raised was equally interesting.
Apple does not actually own most of the factories that produce its products.
Those factories are owned by other companies — often large manufacturing firms that invest heavily in buildings, machinery, and labour. Apple’s investment lies elsewhere. Rather than owning the physical infrastructure, Apple governs the system through design, standards, and supply contracts.
In other words, Apple exercises influence without necessarily owning the assets.
The factories belong to others. The equipment belongs to others. The labour is employed by others.
Yet the system itself often revolves around Apple’s requirements.
This struck me as a revealing example of a broader trend in modern economic life. Increasingly, large corporations do not need to own the underlying infrastructure in order to exercise significant influence over it. Control flows through intellectual property, design, contracts, and standards rather than through bricks and mortar.
Economists sometimes refer to this as an “asset-light” model of business. Companies invest less in physical assets and more in intangible forms of capital: ideas, systems, networks, and control over supply chains.
The result is a form of influence that is both powerful and portable.
A company that owns factories is tied to them. A company that governs a system through contracts and design can move more easily. Its leverage lies not in land or buildings but in the relationships and structures that organize production.
Apple is not alone in this approach. Many modern corporations operate in similar ways. Retail giants, technology firms, and global brands frequently coordinate vast production networks without directly owning most of the facilities within them.
Another implication quietly follows from this kind of corporate organization.
When companies coordinate production networks that involve hundreds of thousands of workers and billions of dollars in economic activity, their influence naturally extends beyond the marketplace. Governments inevitably pay attention to institutions that sit at the centre of such large systems of production. The result is not necessarily direct political control, but something subtler: a form of structural influence that flows from being central to how the modern economy functions.
None of this is necessarily good or bad in itself. The system has produced remarkable technological innovation and global economic growth.
But it does raise an interesting question.
When we talk about economic power, what exactly do we mean?
Traditionally, power in industry was associated with ownership — factories, railways, mines, land, and machines. Today, influence often lies elsewhere: in design standards, intellectual property, data, and the ability to coordinate complex global networks.
In that sense, modern corporations increasingly resemble architects of industrial ecosystems rather than traditional manufacturers.
Listening to McGee’s talk did not leave me with a sense of alarm so much as a sense of curiosity. It simply reminded me that many of our assumptions about how economic power works may be somewhat outdated.
Many people still imagine modern manufacturing as companies that own factories and employ workers.
But increasingly, the real influence may lie with those who design and govern the systems that connect them all.