Could robotics lead Apple to make iPhones in the USA?

A robotic arm working on the floor of a Shawnee manufacturer in roughly 2017.

One day in the summer of 2017, I toured the GF Central Plastics plant in Shawnee on an assignment with the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST).

The visit was an eye-opener for me.

Central Plastics makes plastic and metal fittings, as well as specialty parts primarily for the natural gas industry. At that time it operated out of a 500,000 square foot facility and employed roughly 500 people.

What caught my attention was the incredible use of robotics in the company’s manufacturing process. There were about 30 of these large yellow robotic arms that picked up a piece of metal or plastic and placed it exactly where it needed to go in the machine that would mold it into whatever it was intended to be.

Here’s what I wrote at the time:

“The robotic arms employed in the process never stop, repeating their assignment 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Their human co-workers are busy ensuring the machines have needed parts to work with, as well as inspecting and packaging finished pieces.
‘The primary goal of the robotics and automation is not to eliminate people, but allow us to continue to grow and continue to improve the quality of our products,’ Bryan Lucas, GF Central Plastics vice president for Operations, told me.

You can read the story here on the OCAST website. 

Mark Smith, GF Central Plastics Managing Director and President, put it another way:

“One of the abilities the robot has, is I’ve got 24/7 operation from them.” he told me. “They don’t take vacations, and they don’t need to sleep like I do.”

While I’m not certain that Lucas or Smith are still in their positions with the company, I’m pretty sure that at this very moment there are scores of robotic arms picking up parts and slamming them into the production machine exactly where they need to be placed. And then removing them when they are finished and stacking them in the right bin.

So, what does that have to do with anything today, eight years later?

I’ve been thinking about how robotics and artificial intelligence might be used in the production of ubiquitous smartphones — iPhones and Android phones. Phones are full of tiny parts that have to be fit into a small space in exactly the same way millions of times over and over.

Are robotics used to produce the phones? According to what I was told by my know-it-all friend, ChatGPT, much of phone assembly in 2025 is done by robotics.

Here’s what my AI pal told me:

“Yes — robotics manufacturing is already widely applied to devices as small and precise as smartphones. In fact, smartphone production is one of the most advanced examples of robotics and automation in action.”

Unless Chatbot was hallucinating, there’s a ton of robotics that go into each phone. It cited Foxconn, maker of the iPhone, as a major user of robotics in the manufacturing process.

“In some facilities, entire production lines are almost fully automated,” it said.

So, that makes me wonder if the thousands and thousands of low-paid workers are still needed to produce smart phones. Are those folks still needed to assemble the cases with tiny screws, perhaps? Can’t that process be automated?

This is all leading me to the purpose of this blog post. If there is almost 100 percent automation in the assembly of iPhones, why can’t Apple Inc. at least build a pilot project in the U.S. to see how production would go here.

I understand there is required testing of each unit and then the packaging and shipping, so there are humans involved in the process.

If the robotic arms were assembling millions of phones in the U.S., would the scale of that production keep the costs somewhere close to what it is in China or India? And they would save on shipping costs, too, so price of phones might stay close to what they are today.

We all know that Trump is pressuring Apple and other high-tech manufacturers to bring their manufacturing into the U.S. If nothing else, a pilot plant located in the states would appease the President, who could slap (more) tariffs on China- or India-made phones at any moment.

I just read an awesome book, “Apple in China,” about how the company is trapped by the large scale of manufacturing investment it has made in China. It has recently moved some of that production to India and elsewhere.

I’m not a visionary, but I’m thinking that we could someday soon unbox our new iPhone and see the words “Designed in California, Assembled in the USA.”

Are you listening, Tim Cook?

I’m great at spending someone else’s money.  But it could happen.

BONUS CONTENT: Watch some robotic arms in action in the video below.

DOUBLE BONUS CONTENT: Here is some info that ChatGPT provided me about robotic arms in smartphone manufacturing.

Robotics manufacturing is already widely applied to devices as small and precise as smartphones. In fact, smartphone production is one of the most advanced examples of robotics and automation in action.

Here’s how robotics is applied in smartphone manufacturing:

Microscale Precision Assembly: Specialized robotic arms with extremely fine motion control place tiny components such as microchips, sensors, and capacitors onto circuit boards. These parts are far too small for human hands to place consistently.
Surface-Mount Technology (SMT): Automated machines solder thousands of micro-components onto printed circuit boards at high speed and with extreme precision.
Optics & Camera Module Assembly: Robotic systems align and insert delicate camera lenses and sensors with tolerances measured in microns.
Battery & Screen Placement: Large but fragile components like batteries and OLED screens are installed by robotic arms that apply uniform pressure without damaging them.
Quality Control & Testing: Robotics and machine vision systems test buttons, touchscreens, speakers, and other parts to ensure durability and functionality.
– Micro-assembly with Collaborative Robots (Cobots): Some processes still require human oversight (like cable placement or adhesive application), but cobots assist workers by handling the repetitive and delicate positioning work.

So while people often imagine robots assembling cars or appliances, the highest level of robotic precision is actually in electronics manufacturing — smartphones, tablets, and semiconductors.

Companies Using Robotics in Smartphone Assembly

Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision Industry)

  • World’s largest electronics manufacturer (makes iPhones for Apple).
  • Uses thousands of robots, called Foxbots, for tasks like soldering, polishing, dispensing adhesives, and precision assembly.
  • In some facilities, entire production lines are almost fully automated.

Pegatron

  • Another major iPhone assembler.
  • Uses robotic arms for component placement and automated optical inspection (AOI) to check for microscopic defects.

Samsung Electronics

  • Runs highly automated factories in South Korea and Vietnam.
  • Uses robotics for screen production (OLED and AMOLED panels) because they require sub-millimeter precision.

Xiaomi, Oppo, and Huawei suppliers

  • Many Chinese factories use robotic arms for final assembly and packaging.
  • Robotic vision systems test touchscreens and fingerprint sensors before shipping.

🤖

Types of Robotics Technology Used

  • SMT (Surface Mount Technology) Pick-and-Place Robots
  • Place up to 100,000 components per hour on a circuit board.
  • Robotic Dispensing Systems — Apply adhesives in perfect micro-lines to secure parts like glass panels.
  • Automated Optical Inspection (AOI) — Uses robotic vision and AI to detect microscopic defects.
  • Laser Robots — Used for cutting phone frames, engraving, and even removing defective solder joints.
  • 📱 Why Robotics Is Essential for Smartphones
    Smartphones have billions of transistors and hundreds of components packed into a device only millimeters thick.
  • Human assembly alone can’t achieve the precision or consistency needed.
  • Robotics improves yield, speed, and quality control while reducing labor costs.

👉 So yes, robotics not only can be applied to smartphones — it’s already at the core of how every major smartphone is made today.

Technology evolves, but Paul McCartney — and his music — live on

A turntable console with reel-to-reel tape much like my parents had in the 1960s.

When the Paul-is-Dead rumors began floating around in the late 1960s, I was devastated. There was evidence everywhere that Paul McCartney had died in a car crash and The Beatles went on with a look-alike substitute.

I was 16 in 1969 and read — and clipped — every article I could find that shared evidence of Paul’s demise. For instance, there was the hand over Paul’s head on the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club album that symbolized death. And the whole cover resembled a funeral gathering.

There was more. Paul was dressed as a walrus on the Magical Mystery Tour poster, said to symbolize death, and a line from the song Glass Onion says “here’s another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul.”

But the clue that sealed it for me was the rumor that if you played Revolution 9 backward you could hear the words “turn me on dead man” and the sounds of a car crash.

My family owned a giant stereo console that had both a turntable and a reel-to-reel tape player. So, I played Revolution 9 from the White Album on the turntable and recorded it on the reel-to-reel.

When I turned the tape backward and played it I heard those terrifying words. “Turn me on dead man.”  And the sounds of what could be a car crash.

That clinched it for me, at least for the next couple of years until it became evident to me that Paul McCartney was indeed, Paul McCartney.

I’ve written all of this not to show how gullible I was as a teenager; rather to talk about technology and what we had then and what we have today.

In the late 1960s, our family had the latest and greatest in the giant console with the turntable and the reel-to-reel.

That’s how we rolled in 1969.

Vinyl records, both 33 rpm long play albums and 45 rpm discs that played a single song each on front and back, were as common then as, well, iPhones today.

Everyone I knew had a record player or two in their homes. My sister and I had a little portable record player that we would take out into the carport and play our favorite singles on.

When I was a sophomore in high school, I took all the money I had saved up and bought a portable stereo turntable at Kmart that served me well for years.

But advances in technology made turntables obsolete in the early 1970s as 8-track tape players became everyone’s obsession. I installed a cheap Kraco 8-track in my car, which seemed to ruin as many tapes as it successfully played.

Then came cassette tape players that were much smaller — and dependable — than 8 tracks.  But analog taped recordings didn’t have much of a future, because they gave way to CDs — compact discs — in the 1980s.

I remember the frustration of my dad in the ’80s when he had to buy a CD player because it had become the technology on which most music was recorded and played.

“They keep changing the formats just so we will have to spend money to buy something new,” he told me.

But time advanced as did technology.

MP3 players began to emerge in the late 1990s replacing CDs and making music much more portable. And in 2001, Apple Inc. debuted the groundbreaking iPod, which CEO Steve Jobs famously said allowed you to carry “1,000 songs in your pocket.”

So, here we are in 2025.

Today we have massive music services like the iTunes Store and Spotify that allow us to hear virtually any song ever recorded at any time.

And technology advances continue to make yesterday’s formats obsolete.  The old console turntable and reel-to-reel tape player my parents owned was probably sent to a landfill decades ago.

But some things remain. The memories of chasing down Paul-is-Dead clues on that big old console.  Hearing my dad — who passed on in 2012 — complain about changing technology.

And Paul McCartney — the real Paul McCartney — endures. As of July 7, 2025, he’s as alive as he was in 1969.  I continue to listen to his music, but now in a digital format that reaches my ears through a pair of AirPods Pro 2.

That’s how we roll in 2025.

BONUS CONTENT
So, what’s next in how music is recorded and enjoyed? I’ve read a lot about how future music will be made by artificial intelligence, but what I’ve heard of it so far lacks the creativity of human song writers and performers. I’ll take humans any day.

I asked ChatGPT what it sees for the future of music, and this is how it answered:

1. AI and Generative Music

  • AI tools can now compose, produce, and even perform.
  • Personalized or adaptive soundtracks for games, workouts, moods.

2. Immersive & Spatial Audio

  • Formats like Dolby Atmos Music and 360 Reality Audio offer 3D sound experiences.
  • Becoming popular in streaming and VR/AR contexts.

3. Blockchain & NFTs

  • Exploring decentralized ownership, royalty tracking, and digital collectibles.

4. Holographic & Virtual Performances

  • Digital twins of artists (dead or alive) performing live.
  • Integration into virtual worlds and the metaverse.

5. Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI)

  • Experimental: Listening to or composing music via brainwaves.
  • Potential for direct neural engagement with music.

Chatbot argues both sides of Thunder tanking issue

Rumble
Thunder mascot Rumble makes an appearance in the stands at a recent OKC game.

I’ve heard a lot recently about this Artificial Intelligence app called ChatGPT, which allegedly will answer any question and write a report or an essay on any topic.

So, I found the OpenAI page and signed up for the free chatbot service.

I figured that I owe BlogOKC readers an explanation of what ChatGPT is, so I went right to the source. Here’s what the Chatbot told me.

“ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI. It is trained on a dataset of internet text, which enables it to generate human-like responses to a wide range of text-based prompts. It can be used for tasks such as text completion, question answering, and conversation. It is based on the GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer) architecture.”

A little long-winded, but there you have it.

So, I came up with a topic for my Chatbot to address to see how awesome it could be. Since much of my time seems to be focused on the Oklahoma City Thunder and my opposition to its tanking philosophy to rebuild for the future, I thought I would ask Chatbot for its take on the subject.

Here’s Chatbot’s take on why tanking is not the right philosophy for the Thunder:

Tanking, or losing on purpose, is a controversial strategy that can have negative consequences for teams in the NBA. For the Oklahoma City Thunder, tanking may not be the best route to rebuild their team and become a contender in the league.

“One of the main reasons why tanking is a bad route for the Thunder is that it can have a negative impact on the team’s culture and morale. When a team is losing on purpose, it can be difficult for players and coaches to stay motivated and maintain a positive attitude. This can lead to a lack of effort and poor performance on the court, which can ultimately harm the team’s development. Additionally, it can also lead to a lack of fan support and engagement with the team, making it harder for the team to attract and retain fans.

“Another reason why tanking is a bad route for the Thunder is that it doesn’t guarantee success in the future. The NBA draft is not a sure thing and even the top draft picks do not always turn into star players. Therefore, tanking may not result in the Thunder getting the high-quality players they need to become a contender in the league. Additionally, even if they do get a high draft pick, it takes time for young players to develop and it’s not guaranteed that they will become the star player the team needs.

“Additionally, tanking can also lead to a lack of stability for the team. When a team is consistently losing, it can be difficult to keep coaches, players, and management in place. This can lead to frequent changes and a lack of continuity, which can make it difficult for the team to build a sustainable winning culture.

“Furthermore, tanking can also be detrimental to the league as a whole. When teams are not trying to win, it can lead to a lack of excitement and interest in the league, which can negatively impact the league’s reputation and overall revenue.

“In conclusion, while tanking may seem like a quick fix, it can have negative consequences for teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder. Tanking can lead to a negative team culture, lack of fan support, lack of stability, and lack of success, and it can also harm the league as a whole. Instead, the Thunder may be better served by taking a more gradual approach to rebuilding, focusing on player development and making strategic moves in the draft and free agency.”

Did you read that? “Detrimental to the league.”  Chatbot went right to the heart of why tanking doesn’t fly for me, and I hope millions of other fans.  If a lot of teams are playing to lose, the interest will wane everywhere.

I think Chatbot is dead on in its assessment of the impacts of tanking, including decrease in attendance and a loss of revenue.

All in all, I would grade this essay with an A+.

Chatbot, you’ve impressed me with this argument.

After I read this essay, I decided to have Chatbot argue the other side of the equation for balance. So I ask it to write 450 words on why tanking is good for the Thunder.

Here’s what it wrote in favor of tanking:

“Tanking, or losing on purpose, is a controversial strategy that teams in the NBA have used in order to rebuild their rosters and improve their chances of success in the long term. The Oklahoma City Thunder are currently in a position where tanking could be the best route to rebuild their team and become a contender in the league once again.

“One of the main reasons why tanking is the best route for the Thunder is that it would give them a better chance of getting a high draft pick. The NBA draft is the primary way for teams to acquire young, talented players who can help them improve in the future. The higher a team’s draft pick, the more likely they are to select a player who can make a significant impact on their team. By losing on purpose, the Thunder would increase their chances of getting a high draft pick and selecting a player who could be a cornerstone of their team for years to come.

“Another reason why tanking is the best route for the Thunder is that it would give them more financial flexibility. The NBA has a salary cap that limits how much teams can spend on player salaries. When a team is not competitive, they may not be able to attract top-tier free agents who can help them improve. By rebuilding through the draft and developing young players, the Thunder would have more financial flexibility to make moves in the future.

“In addition, tanking would give the Thunder a better chance of building a team that can contend for a championship in the future. Building a championship team is a difficult and time-consuming process that requires a combination of talented players, good coaching, and a solid organizational structure. By losing on purpose and getting high draft picks, the Thunder would be more likely to acquire the young, talented players they need to build a championship team.

“Furthermore, tanking would also give the Thunder a chance to give more playing time to their young players and prospects. This would be beneficial for their development and would also help the team to evaluate their potential.

“In conclusion, there are several reasons why tanking is the best route for the Oklahoma City Thunder to rebuild their team. The Thunder are currently not in a position to compete for a championship, and tanking would give them a better chance of getting a high draft pick, more financial flexibility, and a better chance of building a team that can contend for a championship in the future. Additionally, it would also give more playing time to the young players and prospects and help in their development. While tanking is a controversial strategy, it can be a necessary step for teams like the Thunder to rebuild and become a successful team again in the future.”

ChatBot presented some compelling arguments in favor of tanking for a rebuild.  It hit on an argument that my friend, Steve Buck, often makes in favor of tanking: player development.

Chatbot wrote: “Furthermore, tanking would also give the Thunder a chance to give more playing time to their young players and prospects.”

Again, Chatbot wrote a compelling essay without an factual errors that I can detect. I give it an A+ on this assignment, as well.

However, I’ve still not moved an inch from anti-tanking stance.

Chatbot, when I finally found you at the OpenAI web page, you surprised me with some fine writing and compelling arguments.

Well done.

Editor’s note: My first attempt to have ChatGPT to write essays for and against tanking by the Oklahoma City Thunder was done via an app I downloaded to my iPhone from the Apple App Store. I’ve since discovered that app is ChatGPT filtered through a company hoping to make money by charging a weekly fee for the free, open-source app.  So, I signed up on the OpenAI page and had the Chatbot write me new, much improved essays. 

Thunder game