avon b7

I saw this this morning (also citing Reuters) but these figures seem a little extreme:

"Apple's iPhone shipments in China plunged nearly 50% in March 2025, as Huawei reclaims dominance and U.S. tariffs push Apple to shift focus to India. With rising local competition, policy headwinds, and AI lags, Apple faces mounting pressure in its second-largest market. "

https://www.fortuneindia.com/technology/apples-china-sales-plunge-50-as-huawei-surges-tariffs-bite-and-india-gains-ground/123087

There are headwinds and they are persistent, like Tim Cook said during the earnings call but a 50% drop, if only for a month, seems somewhat off. 

Sales (discounts) from major third party vendors in China have been basically continuous for more than two years now. Apple has been joining the party on occasion too and that is a clear sign that things are not good, but 50%?

I think there are a lot of (relatively) smaller issues coming together to have a negative impact. 

The model spread (although vastly increased from times gone by) might not be hitting the right notes. At the premium and ultra premium end (be it for cameras, folding or even flip phones) Apple could be losing sales. 

AI is obviously WIP at Apple and China just makes that scenario worse. 

'Smart Cars' are having a massive rush. One of China's largest German car dealerships recently switched to Huawei based cars. Xiaomi's car is receiving rave reviews. Some foreign car manufacturers are shipping cars with HarmonyOS and/or ADAS from Huawei. That's on top of the 20+ models from Chinese vendors. It's not far fetched to think some (most?) owners (and family members) of those cars will not be using iPhones. 

Then there is the 'patriotic' side that might push users to go with the 'home' brands. 

Plus the subsidies etc. 

Tough times for sure but not unexpected as this has been the case for a few years now and the discounts appeared to be having some success. I have to doubt that 50% drop figure though. 

rotateleftbyte said:

Did Apple not learn anything from 'BatteryGate'? I smell a monster class action lawsuit just waiting to be filed as soon as this release hits the street.
AI has its place but ... I just have this feeling that this is not one of them.

I hope that the default is OFF otherwise, I hope Apple has a better class of lawyer on speed dial than they had with the Epic case.

Other phone manufacturers have been using AI for battery management for years without issue so I doubt Apple will run into problems with that. 

On the capacity/chemistry side maybe there could be issues but silicon carbon combined with truly fast charging would counter that. 

I think here Apple will have learnt from past mistakes. 

Thatguy2 said:

USA wins yet another trade deal, and this one where everyone said china would never cave. Now 90 days to make it permanent and help our farmers with more china purchases like last time. Impressive 

It is as far from a trade deal as it was last week. 

The  recently announced US-UK 'deal' wasn't a trade deal either. 

These are 'goodwill' talks at best. Goodwill obviously being a stretch as we are in an 'America First!' world now where everyone else only exists to follow the orders of the new sheriff. 

Trade deals can take a very long time to be hammered out. They definitely aren't done over a weekend. 

China did not cave. While the Trump administration was claiming the Chinese were in talks (without providing details) the Chinese said no such talks had taken place. 

Later, it was Bessent who admitted there had been no contact with China (that of course changed this past weekend). 

The first Trump term agriculture bailout (to save US agricultural farms suffering from his very own tariffs) still saw a 20% increase in farm bankruptcy petitions.

2024 farm bankruptcy filings rose 55%. Can you imagine the impact of 2025 'Liberation Day' tariffs? Even in spite of a Trump 2 bailout (which he has already said are not off the table). 

No. It's not impressive. It's terrifying. 

Now try to imagine the Trump/Farming/Tariffs trident but just substitute 'farming' for 'semiconductors'. 

Latest news was that Nvidia wrote down a staggering $5B through potential lost sales to China just a couple of weeks ago. $5B in an industry (AI) where, for China alone, Nvidia says could be worth $50B. That is potentially a huge revenue loss and those revenues are for future R&D. Jensen went to the White House in an attempt to transmit the harm being done. Tim Cook was there too (via video link). 


Apple absolutely relies on the semiconductor supply chain and exemptions are a very fickle thing. Moreso with Trump. 

Apple will have its own set of chip related issues going forward and that, in the bigger picture will include lost business through China having been forced to create a supply chain (a full stack solution) from scratch devoid of any US technology. And that is entirely independent of tariffs but is business lost forever. 

Everything is interconnected.

And now, right this month, news out of China (relative to lithography advances and chip manufacturing) will have sent a shudder down the spine of all US-China hawks.

It's rumours at the moment but, at this point, who would bet against it? 

One thing seems clearcut. Trump doesn't hold any, ehem, trump cards. 

Kicking the can of uncertainty 90 days down the road.

The US claiming a de-escalation is paramount when it was the US that unnecessarily escalated everything in the first place.

Tariffs on this. Exemptions on that (the same exemptions that hours before being authorised were claimed wouldn't happen!).

Chaos everywhere (not least in the White House itself). A Treasury Secretary who was unable to answer the question 'Who pays the tariffs?'

I will forgive Tim Cook for not having the remotest idea of what could happen next because, quite literally, nobody does. 

As for de-coupling, that is exactly what the US wants but it wants to pick and choose the de-coupling. It wants others to de-couple from China, too (CHIPS Act). 

US cars in China but no Chinese cars in the US. 
Apple in China but no Huawei in the US. 
No Chinese solar panels in the US.
...

All for 'national security', the go-to card for everything (including these tariffs). 

The US is talking up the 'talks' because it has no option but to try and put some spin on a huge mess of its own making. 

AFAIK, the critical minerals restrictions from China are still in place so if nothing changes there, no amount of tariff easing will help Apple once stockpiles are used up production issues pop up. 

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more. 

Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices. 

I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).

If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations. 

I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems. 

What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring? 

People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones. 

You haven't addressed my point. 

What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?

The answer is zero. 

The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them. 

Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone. 

That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.

The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)

That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.

Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.

On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met  by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection. 

I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.

It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.

It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.

Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.

It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.

That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.

I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost. 

Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions. 

Do users not have a right to know what's going on? 

Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them. 

If your search for users who are aware of “restrictions” consists of asking people if they’re aware they can’t side-load 3rd party apps, for most who respond they aren’t aware, it’s because the thought never occurred to them. If your follow-up question is “do you like that restriction,” most will probably say “no,” particularly if you don’t mention the security, privacy and and stability that comes from it. 

The important thing that you’re misinterpreting is thinking that they actually care about these particular limitations. In the abstract, people don’t like to be told they can’t do something. If, in reality, they never wanted to do the thing they ‘can’t do’ in the first place, then their passion about the “restriction” is nonexistent. 

That doesn't change anything with regards to my point. 

If being transparent, up front and making sure users are aware of the restrictions prior to purchase is enough to get Apple off the anti-trust hook (and it one hell of a hook), why not just let users know? What's to lose? 

The reason, is that many would think twice about moving forward with the purchase and Apple definitely knows this. 

This isn't about 'abstract' situations, it's about the bottom line and when you ask someone to sign off on these types of restrictions (once things are clearly spelt out to them) they won't like it. Marketing would have a terrible time turning such a situation around. "You want it this way. It's why you chose iPhone. It's in your best interest". Good luck with that. 

My whole point is that people don't buy iPhones because of the restrictions, which is what many people here would like us to believe.