The Apple-China Symbiosis and What it Means for the Future of Electronics with Patrick McGee

What happens when innovation meets scale, and survival choices shape the trajectory of global manufacturing?

Patrick McGee is a Financial Times journalist and author of Apple in China, a story about the interdependence of Apple’s relationship with China. Patrick sat down with Anna-Katrina Shedletsky to discuss how Apple’s success in China helped build the company as we know it today, but also set in motion challenges for the future of technology manufacturing. 

Their conversation is a timely reminder for engineers and manufacturers to think carefully about how they build electronics and the lessons Apple has learned along the way.

You can watch the full interview here:

A Partnership That Shaped the Future

Here’s Patrick’s candid view on Apple and China: “Apple and China made each other; their fates are now inextricably linked.” In the beginning, Apple’s decision to partner with China was a lifeline. During the late 90s, when Apple was struggling to stay afloat, Chinese manufacturing offered the company a path to scale and grow in ways that would have been impossible elsewhere. But in hindsight, while this partnership brought Apple success, it also set the stage for China to become a tech power in its own right, according to Patrick.

At first, Apple’s strategy worked. China’s manufacturing capabilities helped propel Apple to the top. But over the years, Chinese companies absorbed Apple’s manufacturing know-how and quickly began competing in ways Apple had never anticipated.

Sleepwalking into China: Survival or Strategic Misstep?

Patrick describes Apple’s entry into China as a “sleepwalk,” meaning it was not a well-planned, long-term strategy but rather a reactive move to save the company. Back in the late 90s, Apple wasn’t the tech giant it is today. It was hanging by a thread. At that moment, outsourcing production to China wasn’t about making bold moves; it was about staying alive.

“Apple was not the powerful entity we know today,” McGee explains. “It was a scrappy company just trying to survive.” What began as a necessary decision—securing manufacturing in a low-cost region—would eventually lead to a situation where Apple couldn’t disentangle itself from China’s growing influence. And now, China’s capacity to innovate, coupled with its manufacturing strength, makes it more of a competitor than a partner.

Abandoning Ownership: A Threat to Innovation

One of the pressing issues highlighted in the discussion is the growing trend of outsourcing innovation, not just manufacturing. Patrick emphasizes the risk of companies giving up their core expertise—designing and building products—and relying too heavily on third-party manufacturers. As Anna, a product design engineer, points out, this shift has serious implications for the future of U.S. innovation.

“Are we just branding products now? If we abdicate the expertise and innovation, what’s left for American engineers to do?” she asks.

Patrick acknowledges that outsourcing helped Apple achieve success. But he also cautions that by outsourcing design and manufacturing, Apple may be putting its future at risk. “When you outsource the know-how, you risk losing the very foundation that allowed you to lead the industry,” he says. This is the crux of the problem: without ownership over product development and manufacturing, tech companies risk losing their edge altogether.

Diversifying Supply Chains: Can We Build Alternatives at Scale?

As the conversation shifts to the issue of supply chain diversification, Patrick remains cautious. While there’s been a push to move manufacturing out of China and into other countries like India and Vietnam, he believes that true diversification is not as simple as it may seem. While some assembly may move to these regions, China’s scale, infrastructure, and expertise are still unmatched, he explains.

“India’s progress in electronics manufacturing is more window dressing than real change,” Patrick says. “China still dominates when it comes to the scale, infrastructure, and expertise necessary for modern electronics production.”

For engineers today, this is a key point: true diversification requires more than just shifting final assembly to another country—it requires building entire ecosystems that rival China’s. And that’s no easy task.

Can the U.S. Regain Its Manufacturing Edge?

The discussion also highlights the potential for the U.S. to reclaim some of its manufacturing strength moving forward. Patrick sees hope in sectors like defense electronics, where high precision and quality are critical. But he stresses that the U.S. would need to invest heavily in manufacturing infrastructure and expertise to remain competitive on a global scale.

“Could we build better electronics for defense? Yes. But we have to be willing to invest in the infrastructure, the people, and the innovation,” Patrick explains.

Despite challenges, Patrick remains cautiously optimistic. He believes there’s room for innovation, particularly in specialized areas, where the U.S. could still lead. But, as he points out, this won’t happen overnight.

The Role of AI in Future Electronics Innovation

The rise of AI and other new technologies presents a unique opportunity for the next wave of electronics manufacturing. Patrick argues that the U.S. will need to focus not just on the products themselves but on the entire process of making them to remain competitive.

“We need to design for manufacturability. It’s not just about making a product; it’s about knowing how to make that product at scale and doing it efficiently,” Patrick points out.

For engineers, this means understanding the entire lifecycle of the product—design, manufacturing, and distribution. In a world where the cost of innovation is tied directly to production knowledge, owning the process is key to staying competitive.

Building Better, Together

Patrick’s insights serve as a wake-up call for engineers and manufacturers alike. The story of Apple and China is a lesson in what can happen when companies relinquish ownership of their expertise. The future of electronics manufacturing will depend on maintaining that ownership—of knowledge, of design, and of the process itself.

“If we abdicate the knowledge, we may not just lose market share; we might lose our ability to innovate at all,” McGee warns.

For companies like Instrumental, and engineers looking to build better electronics, the message is clear: take ownership of the process. Stay connected to the product. Invest in the expertise that drives innovation to ensure the next generation of electronics is made with the same level of care and attention that helped build Apple into the company it is today.