charlesn

Mike Wuerthele said:

studiomusic said:

1 point out of 10 points of growth doesn't seem to be "panic buying" of iPhones. That seems "tiny".

Tim Cook disagrees with you.

Mike, maybe you can clarify something for me. This report from William Gallagher states the following: "During Apple's previous earnings call in May 2025, Tim Cook said that there had been some iPhone panic buying ahead of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, but that it had not been significant." Well, I went back to AppleInsider's coverage of the last earnings call and find no mention of Cook using the phrase, "panic buying." In fact, I can find no quotes anywhere from Tim on either call in which he says "panic buying." For the May call, that phrase seemed to have been part of a question put to him, not his words at all, and you reported it like this:

"...Cook did comment on the question of whether panic buying had set in among consumers, prior to the tariff announcement. "We don't believe that there was a significant pull forward due to tariffs into the March quarter," he said. "There's no obvious evidence of it."

And then there's the headline for this report on current earnings: "Fears Over Tariff Price Rises Prompted Panic Buying of iPhones" Really? You make it sound like trying to buy toilet paper in the midst of the Covid lockdown. Here are Tim's actual words about this: ""On the buying ahead relative to worrying about prices and so forth on tariffs, we did see some evidence of that in the early part of the quarter," Cook told CNBC. "We would estimate it to be about one point of the 10 points of company growth." Sorry, but can you point me to where he says there was "panic buying?" And that one point out of ten in revenue growth that he pegs to consumers buying ahead reflects all of Apple's revenue categories, not just iPhones. And to give this some further context: Apple's 10% YOY revenue growth amounted to $8.2 billion in actual dollars. That means 1 point of that 10 point increase would be $820 million. So out of $90 billion in total revenue for the quarter, $820 million can be attributed to consumers buying products ahead to avoid tariffs. That's less than 1% of total revenue. If there's any "panic buying" in that number, I'm sure not seeing it. Also, on the earnings call, Apple attributed one-sixth of the 13% increase in iPhone sales to tariff-related buying ahead. In other words, the tariff buying bumped iPhone sales by 2.1%. That's not nothing, but again, where's the panic in that number? 

Consumers trying to get ahead of an anticipated price increase in a product by buying now happens all the time. There's no panic in it. It's just about trying to buy smart. But nobody wandered into an Apple Store since April 1 and found empty shelves where there used to be iPhones. This just feels like sensationalism for the sake of it, and then trying to baselessly pin it back on Tim Cook. 

kellie said:

The cost of US tariffs are not always passed on fully to consumers.  As has been shown thus far the vast majority of the cost of tariffs have been absorbed by the manufacturer/importer/distributor/retailer.  

True, BUT... here's a real example of how "absorbed" actually translates to the economy. A good friend has a very substantial business importing and selling specific European goods in America for which there is no U.S.-made equivalent. He has decided to eat the 15% tariffs rather than raise prices, but that will mean many hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the government that will not be available for business expansion, hiring new people or other new business investment. And this story is being repeated ad nauseam at companies large and small across America. Do you think GM takes a billion dollar hit from tariffs and simply shrugs. "Oh, well?" In addition to this, some companies are also using a "shrinkflation" strategy to deal with tariffs. That's a real thing, I didn't make up that word. Instead of passing along price increases to consumers, they are shrinking size or quantity (mostly) or reducing quality while keeping prices the same. So the customer IS paying more, just in a less obvious way.

kellie said:

Don’t forget we’ve been paying tariffs on imported products for decades.  So this is nothing new. 

Actual research is your friend, Kellie. The truth is that the last time tariffs were this high was 1925. And THAT sure worked out well, didn't it? In fact, the last time average tariffs even hit double digits was 1947, at a little over 10%. Average tariffs have been in the single digits since then, and in the low single digits in recent decades. So your suggestion that Trump's tariffs are nothing new, or somehow not so different from what we've been paying right along is false. We haven't seen anything like it in a century, and that ended very, very badly for the country. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-average-u-s-tariff-rate-since-1890/

What's also terrible for business is that Trump's word and signature are worthless. The agreements he signs today he'll toss out tomorrow subject to his whim of the moment. Look no further than his torching of the USMCA shortly after he got back into office, an agreement he personally negotiated and signed after tearing up NAFTA. Or that he intends to punish Brazil with tariffs--a country with which we've had a trade surplus for decades!--for its legal actions against a Brazilian politician he likes. Where does that insanity leave American companies who export to Brazil? Trade policy is not a tool to serve a man-baby's friends and ego. He also wants to punish Canada anew because it's going to recognize Palestine as a state, something it has every right to do as a sovereign state. This is ALL absolutely unprecedented and nuts. 

Reality check:

The iPhone 7 Plus 256GB cost $969 in 2016 -- accounting for inflation, that works out to $1293 in 2025 dollars. 

The iPhone 16 256GB--which has a much bigger screen than the 7 Plus and is an exponentially better phone in pretty much every measurable way costs $899 in 2025 dollars. Not only is that less in actual dollars, it's a little over 30% cheaper than an iPhone 7 Plus when accounting for inflation and you're getting a hugely better phone. Even if you slap a $50 increase on the iPhone 17/256 for tariffs, it's still ten bucks cheaper in actual dollars than the iPhone 7 Plus. 

When we consider the base model Pro, it's the same $999 price it was when introduced in 2019... accounting for inflation, that's $1255 in 2025 dollars, so the Pro has actually decreased in price by a little over 20% in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Again, hard to argue with a $50 price increase given the brutal tariffs, and what I suspect Apple may do is sweeten a price increase with an increase in base memory from 128gb to 256gb. We know that storage prices are a massive profit center for Apple, bordering on criminal, so it probably costs Apple little to do the bump up and keeps customers happier than they would be with just a price increase. In fact, if the base 17 Pro goes to $1049 with 256 storage, that would be $50 cheaper than what that configuration costs for the 16 Pro. This is not just wishful thinking--the last revision of the base iPad Mini went from 128GB storage to 256GB with no increase in price at all. Of course, similar to what it did with the Pro Max, Apple could also make 256GB the new base model Pro and charge the same $1099 that it does now, and claim "no price increase," which would technically be true.  

It's impossible to run a business seriously under Trump, no surprise from an idiot who knows nothing about business and operates by whim of the moment. with six bankruptcies and counting to prove it. (Bankrupting America will be his crowning achievement.) And even if a deal with India is struck, as well as the deals already concluded, why should anyone take them seriously? Because he signs them? You're kidding, right? Look no further than the Trump-negotiated and signed USMCA--his fabulous deal that he touted as so much better than NAFTA, when it was nothing of the sort--which he proceeded to torch almost as soon as he got back into office. His signature and word mean NOTHING--they're worthless--and are subject to being disregarded at any moment for reasons Trump will happily fabricate when no good reasons exist. 

Stabitha_Christie said:

charlesn said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 

Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.

I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.

Not sure if you missed the point or intentionally avoiding it. I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. This person now has their pictures splattered around the internet. The news value?  That there is a new phone and if you put in a giant case no one will see what it looks like? Stop the presses! 

Stabitha, I hear the Photography Police are actively recruiting. Give it some thought. Seems like you'd be an enthusiastic candidate. 

Yes, suggesting that we should respectful of people's privacy is really just me being overbearing. What a terrible world it would be if we respected each other.

This is YOUR idea of what's respectful and how the world should work. And I fully support your right to live your life this way! Have at it! But like most pompous, overbearing people, you believe your POV is correct and that anyone who doesn't abide by it is wrong--in this particular case, they're being disrespectful. No--we just don't agree with your opinion, that's all.