AppleZulu

9secondkox2 said:

Spreading it around now doesn’t hide the original apple-focused discrimination. 

“Oh.  They’ll notice if we steal more big money from apple. Maybe we will steal less and then also get some from other companies too. That should do it.”

total sham operation. 

Interesting. You’ve been confidently telling us how, as part of a brilliantly planned strategy, Trump’s tariff “negotiations” were going to protect Apple from the EU. 

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

Cook can’t help but be happy about that. 

Tariffs could have hit them hard. But they have been treated well. Hopefully it continues.

looking forward to iPhone 17 and am m5 max MacBook Pro 16” if a large iMac doesn’t materialize by end of winter. Been looking forward to apple prices heading toward back to reality in pricing now that the covid uncertainty and shutdowns has been over for a while. Then the tariffs came, but also seems to be done in a way that could enable healthier pricing (for the consumer - it’s already been healthy for apple). Wanted to hold out for m6 in 2nm, but I don’t know if I can wait much longer. 

The on-again-off-again-even-more-on-again tariff regime is already creating economic instability that won’t be stoppable even if a total “off-again” pronouncement comes tomorrow. Businesses that didn’t get an exemption have already cancelled orders. Consumers will soon find that many things they need won’t be available at any price. For Apple, having the exemptions is better than not having the exemptions, but they don’t exist in a vacuum. The chaos created by this administration will harm Apple anyway. Your fantasy world where this is all ok doesn’t actually exist. 

You do the right thing because it’s right. Not because it’s simple or easy to do. More often than not, it’s rather difficult and those around you prefer the easy way, even if it only defers disaster. Things were getting out of hand. Some had been that way for a while. And it doesn’t stop at trade imbalances. We start seeing abuse like the eu with apple.. next thing we knew, all kinds of governments were looking to take their own bite out of apple. These recent actions put the world on notice: not only will trade imbalances need to be more equitable, but leveraging financial consequences to stem abuse in other ways is quite a powerful tool when needed. All of a sudden the eu is very careful about slapping more fines on Apple. With tariffs, foreign goods get more expensive, leading to a glut of unsold items when consumers buy elsewhere. That hurts the seller much more than the buyer. It’s supply and demand. When demand dries up, the supplier is left having wasted money on unsold inventory. The supply will be provided elsewhere, buying habits change, etc. and yet Apple does seem to be in the enviable position of avoiding most, if not all, of that. Everyone has an opinion, but time will tell of course. 

You're making a lot of presumptions here. 

"You do the right thing because it’s right. Not because it’s simple or easy to do."

This would be a more meaningful if this administration's tariff policy was actually defensible. What they are doing is not "right," and in fact, the ridiculous formula they used to create what they falsely claimed to be "reciprocal" tariffs only shows that they did what was easy - for themselves - to generate their chart of tariffs. Also easy for them was the default 10% applied to every country (except Russia) without regard to whether there were any "trade deficits" or documented "abuses" at all. So from the start, your premise is false.

"Things were getting out of hand."

Here you're referencing the emergency that wasn't an emergency. You inadvertently give that up with your next sentence.

"Some had been that way for a while."

Things that are getting out of hand and have been that way for a while may require a response, but the gradual nature implicit in the description strongly suggests that any response should be well thought out and measured, not impulsive and reactive. There may be a problem, but it's clearly not a sudden emergency. It is actually possible to use bold tactics to implement a careful strategy. Alienating the entire world, including our closest allies before attempting to take on our largest trade "opponent" is not that. It's pure foolishness. 

"These recent actions put the world on notice".

They did indeed. The world has been notified that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner or ally. They have also been notified that the administration's actions are not based on actual facts and conditions, and that responses giving the US administration exactly what they say they want will likely be rebuffed anyway, so why capitulate early?

"With tariffs, foreign goods get more expensive, leading to a glut of unsold items when consumers buy elsewhere. That hurts the seller much more than the buyer."

You are making the false assumption that foreign manufacturers produce items on spec with no buyer identified. It's pretty doubtful that this happens in manufacturing*. Also, in many cases, there is no "elsewhere" available for consumers. In the next couple of months, there will be many headlines about products that US consumers want and need that cannot be found at any price.

For goods already ordered by US importers, there is almost certainly a contract in place. The company that placed an order before tariffs were imposed is almost certainly obligated to pay for those items. If they refuse and renege on their contract, even if the tariffs are all dropped a week later, that importer will no longer have any credit with the foreign manufacturer they refused to pay. So they'll probably pay the manufacturer for orders already placed. The question then becomes, can the importer pay the tax required before receiving the items, or will they have to eat the loss and leave the product on the ship? If the tariff is 145%, and the importer knows they can't sell the items for 2 1/2 times the normal price, they lose considerably less money by paying the manufacturer and abandoning the purchase before paying the tariff. 

*On the other hand, in agriculture, season-long lead times and the variabilities of weather mean farmers have to plant speculatively. China isn't paying up front for soybeans that haven't been planted and harvested yet. The US farmer that has been selling soybeans to China in the past is shouldering that risk. Many have already bought seed and many of those may have planted already. So as China retaliates in the tariff war, the US farmer must decide if they risk spending more money to water, fertilize, grow and harvest their soybeans in hopes that things will be resolved by then, or do they cut their losses now and plow the crop under?

You're right that "supply and demand" are at play here, but you're grievously misguided in your belief that these actions are more painful "over there" than they are here. Nobody wins a tariff war.

That’s some impressive acrobatics. 

It’s simple. Much of the world has had tarriffs on our goods for a very long time, while we stood by and did hardly anything. No more. We are now leveling the playing field. In any kind of deal, you strive for equity to ensure your value is met. Whether that is the process of a Ford vs the price of a BMW, eggs, toilet paper, a MacBook Pro, etc. so if you’re willing to pay the tarriffs, then that’s how much that product meant to you. But many won’t. And that will cause the seller to adjust their stance. The USA is the largest consumer economy in the world. That’s power. Heck, even apple charges app developers for being on the iOS ecosystem. And everyone wants a piece of that market. This is the same principle on a grand scale - only it’s not out of a simple profit plan. It’s to create fairness. We could easily drop the tarriffs if the greedy countries dropped theirs. That’s why there are deals being made. It’s absolute bizarro world to think that American consumers don’t wield that kind of power. And countries like China are beholden to it. It’s how they go where they are to begin with. 

"Acrobatics"? You should look up the term projection, and then engage in some introspective thought.

Of course other countries want access to the US consumer market. No one is even denying that some countries have engaged in unfair trade practices. 

The point that you are continually ignoring is that this administration's approach is detrimental to improving those trade practices. Being effective at breaking things does not imply there is any particular aptitude for fixing them after they are broken.

You parrot the talking point that "deals are being made." What deals are being made? Israel, Vietnam and others offered the Trump administration exactly what they said they wanted -total capitulation- and have already been rebuffed. No deal. What deals are being made? If your answer is it's secret, or it's still in process or some similar variation, then go ahead and retract your claim that deals are being made. No deals have been made, and low-hanging fruit that could have been used as "proof" deals can be made were tossed aside. But everything has been smashed. Every country, including those inhabited only by penguins, has been penalized (except Russia), assuring that we have no more friends in the world. This in turn weakens our position in negotiating presumably our greatest trade dispute with China. If we still had any friends, we'd have more leverage to force a better deal with China. Now, our former friends are looking at China and wondering if maybe they're the more stable trading partner. A month ago, China was the international pariah, but Trump's impulsiveness now make the US the pariah and elevates China's position on the world stage. 

It's entertaining that while you accurately point out that "the USA is the largest consumer economy in the world," you continue to misunderstand that this means we should expect -as part of fair trade- that we will buy more from many countries than they buy from us. Much of this trade war is based on the false premise that a trade deficit with any given country is necessarily "bad." It's exactly this false premise that has caused the Trump Administration to undercut its own position by penalizing friends and allies.

So sure, the US has power stemming from its position as a buyer of things, but we have considerably less power now than we did just a few weeks ago. 

applesauce007 said:

It is in the interest of the whole world to keep iPhone prices down for all big businesses to buy them.
Countries would be ill advised to apply tariffs on iPhones or parts as it would be harmful to their citizens and businesses.
Not to mention that China would retaliate against them possibly in a worse manner than the US.

Have faith in Apple management.

Time will tell.

Apple management will do what they can, but Apple does not exist in a vacuum. Even if they were entirely spared of any direct tariff anywhere, the economic chaos that affects everything else will ultimately slow their sales and disrupt their supply chains. People who can't afford or can't even find basic necessities are not going to be queuing up en masse at the Apple Store to buy the latest iPhone. 

Trump's Folly continues. It would be funny to watch the stupidity play out if this wasn't affecting real people's lives. We can only hope that the fever the President is inducing will ultimately help us flush out the Trumpian virus before it kills the rest of us. 

Despite the naive confidence expressed by certain apologists here (and elsewhere), Apple is not going to be "fine," nor will the rest of us. Let us hope the unavoidable reality of these self-inflicted wounds will jolt enough people into demanding accountability, and cause members of Congress to be more fearful of the repercussions of continued inaction than they currently are of doing anything at all now to reassert their constitutional authority to stop this lunacy.

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

Cook can’t help but be happy about that. 

Tariffs could have hit them hard. But they have been treated well. Hopefully it continues.

looking forward to iPhone 17 and am m5 max MacBook Pro 16” if a large iMac doesn’t materialize by end of winter. Been looking forward to apple prices heading toward back to reality in pricing now that the covid uncertainty and shutdowns has been over for a while. Then the tariffs came, but also seems to be done in a way that could enable healthier pricing (for the consumer - it’s already been healthy for apple). Wanted to hold out for m6 in 2nm, but I don’t know if I can wait much longer. 

The on-again-off-again-even-more-on-again tariff regime is already creating economic instability that won’t be stoppable even if a total “off-again” pronouncement comes tomorrow. Businesses that didn’t get an exemption have already cancelled orders. Consumers will soon find that many things they need won’t be available at any price. For Apple, having the exemptions is better than not having the exemptions, but they don’t exist in a vacuum. The chaos created by this administration will harm Apple anyway. Your fantasy world where this is all ok doesn’t actually exist. 

You do the right thing because it’s right. Not because it’s simple or easy to do. More often than not, it’s rather difficult and those around you prefer the easy way, even if it only defers disaster. Things were getting out of hand. Some had been that way for a while. And it doesn’t stop at trade imbalances. We start seeing abuse like the eu with apple.. next thing we knew, all kinds of governments were looking to take their own bite out of apple. These recent actions put the world on notice: not only will trade imbalances need to be more equitable, but leveraging financial consequences to stem abuse in other ways is quite a powerful tool when needed. All of a sudden the eu is very careful about slapping more fines on Apple. With tariffs, foreign goods get more expensive, leading to a glut of unsold items when consumers buy elsewhere. That hurts the seller much more than the buyer. It’s supply and demand. When demand dries up, the supplier is left having wasted money on unsold inventory. The supply will be provided elsewhere, buying habits change, etc. and yet Apple does seem to be in the enviable position of avoiding most, if not all, of that. Everyone has an opinion, but time will tell of course. 

You're making a lot of presumptions here. 

"You do the right thing because it’s right. Not because it’s simple or easy to do."

This would be a more meaningful if this administration's tariff policy was actually defensible. What they are doing is not "right," and in fact, the ridiculous formula they used to create what they falsely claimed to be "reciprocal" tariffs only shows that they did what was easy - for themselves - to generate their chart of tariffs. Also easy for them was the default 10% applied to every country (except Russia) without regard to whether there were any "trade deficits" or documented "abuses" at all. So from the start, your premise is false.

"Things were getting out of hand."

Here you're referencing the emergency that wasn't an emergency. You inadvertently give that up with your next sentence.

"Some had been that way for a while."

Things that are getting out of hand and have been that way for a while may require a response, but the gradual nature implicit in the description strongly suggests that any response should be well thought out and measured, not impulsive and reactive. There may be a problem, but it's clearly not a sudden emergency. It is actually possible to use bold tactics to implement a careful strategy. Alienating the entire world, including our closest allies before attempting to take on our largest trade "opponent" is not that. It's pure foolishness. 

"These recent actions put the world on notice".

They did indeed. The world has been notified that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner or ally. They have also been notified that the administration's actions are not based on actual facts and conditions, and that responses giving the US administration exactly what they say they want will likely be rebuffed anyway, so why capitulate early?

"With tariffs, foreign goods get more expensive, leading to a glut of unsold items when consumers buy elsewhere. That hurts the seller much more than the buyer."

You are making the false assumption that foreign manufacturers produce items on spec with no buyer identified. It's pretty doubtful that this happens in manufacturing*. Also, in many cases, there is no "elsewhere" available for consumers. In the next couple of months, there will be many headlines about products that US consumers want and need that cannot be found at any price.

For goods already ordered by US importers, there is almost certainly a contract in place. The company that placed an order before tariffs were imposed is almost certainly obligated to pay for those items. If they refuse and renege on their contract, even if the tariffs are all dropped a week later, that importer will no longer have any credit with the foreign manufacturer they refused to pay. So they'll probably pay the manufacturer for orders already placed. The question then becomes, can the importer pay the tax required before receiving the items, or will they have to eat the loss and leave the product on the ship? If the tariff is 145%, and the importer knows they can't sell the items for 2 1/2 times the normal price, they lose considerably less money by paying the manufacturer and abandoning the purchase before paying the tariff. 

*On the other hand, in agriculture, season-long lead times and the variabilities of weather mean farmers have to plant speculatively. China isn't paying up front for soybeans that haven't been planted and harvested yet. The US farmer that has been selling soybeans to China in the past is shouldering that risk. Many have already bought seed and many of those may have planted already. So as China retaliates in the tariff war, the US farmer must decide if they risk spending more money to water, fertilize, grow and harvest their soybeans in hopes that things will be resolved by then, or do they cut their losses now and plow the crop under?

You're right that "supply and demand" are at play here, but you're grievously misguided in your belief that these actions are more painful "over there" than they are here. Nobody wins a tariff war.