AppleZulu

mpantone said:

Look, the topic of reciprocal tariffs has been beaten to death. Before the current administration, a lot of tariffs weren't reciprocal.

Here's a TIME article from mid February on the topic:

https://time.com/7222082/what-are-reciprocal-tariffs-who-might-be-impacted-by-trump-plan/

Not only did the current administration apply reciprocal tariffs, it subsequently also increased them in many markets. And then escalated tariff wars with certain countries.

Like I have repeatedly said, these tariffs aren't really beneficial from a global economy perspective. And the reasoning behind them is even more debatable. But the calculation itself isn't pulled out of thin air. The logic behind using that particular formula is not sound but that's what the current administration has decided on. They aren't picking percentages randomly out of a fishbowl.

However the main point the Pegatron CEO is making is that the flow of goods between borders will be constrained to the point where American consumers will see some empty shelves. Not every product but for some things yet. My guess is that we'll start to see it in August/September with some back-to-school supplies becoming harder to find, followed by Halloween costumes/decorations, then Christmas decorations will likely get hit hard. The lead time for these wholesale orders is like six months so the Christmas merchandise will be the first major wave under the higher tariffs just due to timing.

You can keep calling them reciprocal tariffs, but they aren't. 

You also make no sense when you state that 

• "these tariffs aren't really beneficial from a global economy perspective,"
• "the reasoning behind them is even more debatable," and
  
• "The logic behind using that particular formula is not sound,"

but then you say "They aren't picking percentages randomly out of a fishbowl."

I suppose literally, no, they're not using a fishbowl, but your other three points make the case that they might as well be. Faulty logic to select a random formula to pursue a policy based on faulty reasoning is lunacy, because it does mean that at least figuratively, the calculation was indeed "pulled out of thin air."

I'm beginning to think that maybe the arguments you're trying to make here are also pulled out of thin air.

This is a great example of the sort of short-term business thinking that Apple usually tries to avoid. While a "pull forward of demand" can look great on the current quarter's report, it's just cannibalization of future earnings. This is nothing to be celebrated and certainly isn't a strategy that Apple would intentionally pursue. On the other hand, it's just the sort of thing that the oversupply of MBAs out there will cheer for because quarterly earnings! 

In the best-case scenario, the US administration cancels the whole tariff thing and moves on to some other attention-seeking chaos. Later this year, iPhone 17 gets released, and sales are not quite as robust as they might've been, because some who would've bought them just bought an iPhone 16 instead. The clever folks at JP Morgan will then downgrade Apple stock, because of lackluster sales of iPhone 17. Headlines in the tech trades will speculate that Apple has lost its way with the iPhone 17, and the peanut gallery here will whine about incrementalism and how Apple is doomed and Tim Cook should resign. That's the best-case scenario.

More likely, there will still be tariff chaos when iPhone 17 is released, the price will be higher, sales will be lower, and the short-term thinkers will still be doing their short-term thinking. 

Either way, a "pull forward of demand" is not anything Apple wants to see. As long-term thinkers, they know it's a problem, not a positive headline for quarterly earnings reports.

9secondkox2 said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

9secondkox2 said:

The eu better shape up. This admin does not play. 

Apple has been harmed horribly by these extortionate tactics and it must be reversed. 

Trying to lower the fine amount to fly under the radar would never work as predicted. 

No more abusive treatment toward Apple or any American/American company. Enough is enough. The entire dma must be deleted. It was wrong at the stsrt and it’s wrong now. 

Every time time the eu steals money from an American tech company, their tarriffs should go up and sanctions implemented. 

This administration doesn't play? You mean like announcing tarriffs and then immediately pausing them? I you are as pro-tarrff as you say it seems like say then you would actually be critically of Trump as all he has done is ramble incoherently about them. His actual actions have amounted to squat. Pick a lane, are you pro-tariff or pro-trump? 

Pivot and play are two different things. 

Pivot
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pivot

Play
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/play

An agile administration can pivot and turn on a dime. A foolish one bulls ahead without thought. But even that is missing the idea that there are some nuances planned ahead of time.

Also, not "pro-tarriff" per se. Rather pro-doing the right thing. Tariffs are difficult. But it's the only way to level the playing field. No one likes a fight. But you do it when you have to. And when you do, you do it to win. Even better when you've prepared to do so.

Slavishly painting a bullseye around every misthrown dart while loudly remarking on the king’s incredible skill might make the king happy. After all, this is the same king who keeps proudly announcing -with a straight face- how he’s just won another golf tournament. The thing is, the king is not reading these posts, and everyone else can see you painting the bullseyes. 

shrave10 said:

AppleZulu said:

shrave10 said:

AppleZulu said:

shrave10 said:

Whitehouse is right here IMO.  Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.  

It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing.  Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.  

I feel like a lot of people don’t understand how tariffs work. They are a government tax on goods being imported into this country. The US importers pay the tax. Then, either they eat that cost, or add it to the price of the goods as they are sold to US consumers. 

So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU. 

That ought to show ‘em. 

That's a short term view.  The reason EU manufacturing wants tariffs down is because of the longer term implications.  For ex. cars manufactured in EU will drop in marketshare > raises costs on their cars due to loss of economies of scale > negative feedback loop.  

 Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.  

So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers.  But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.

It's not a "short view." I'm calling out the nonsensical idea of the US collecting a tariff to "recover" the EU fines. Collecting a tax from US consumers in order to pay a fine to the EU does nothing to effect the EU's position on the fine, other than perhaps to provoke them to increase the fine, which will then also either be paid by Apple or as you propose, by the US consumer.

As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.

The reason China and EU want tariffs dropped is not to protect the US consumer.  Lol.  It's to gain more market share for their products and grow economies of scale.  China did not  build out their supply chain within 100 days of a US presidential term.  Rules are set and companies gradually adapt to it.  If the EU auto manufacturers do not set up more assembly plants in US then they *will* lose market share no matter how you want to think about the topic.  This will come at the expense of auto companies that do manufacturing more in the US.  

You seem to be arguing with a straw man. Lol. 

9secondkox2 said:

The eu better shape up. This admin does not play. 

Apple has been harmed horribly by these extortionate tactics and it must be reversed. 

Trying to lower the fine amount to fly under the radar would never work as predicted. 

No more abusive treatment toward Apple or any American/American company. Enough is enough. The entire dma must be deleted. It was wrong at the stsrt and it’s wrong now. 

Every time time the eu steals money from an American tech company, their tarriffs should go up and sanctions implemented. 

The EU’s fine is wrong, yes. So is Trump and his bleach I mean tariff injections. You really are enjoying that Flavor Aid.