AppleZulu

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.

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. 

It’s important to remember even as Cook manages some carve-outs for Apple that the underlying tariffs will be devastating for all the other businesses that don’t get the exemptions. I listened yesterday to an interview with a man who runs a business making the things new mothers need for their babies. Sippy cups, strollers and the rest. The 145% tariffs mean that he and his competitors have all cancelled their orders for new supply. They’ve already absorbed the previous tariffs, and the new rate would make their wares unsalable. They have sixty days’ supply already here, and it takes at least 45 days from placing an order to receiving it at the port. He can’t get the manufacturing tools and machinery he’s invested in out of China to move a factory here. He can’t afford to start from scratch, and even if he did, building a factory takes years. 

CarmB said:

That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 

You're misunderstanding how this works. Processors aren't built for current need. They're built for what's needed four or five years into the future. The "compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade" happens in the years after you buy your iPhone. The mistake would be selling a "good enough for now" iPhone that starts choking on the OS or apps in two years, or worse yet, just won't support the upgrades at all.

So, old tariffs, new tariffs, big tariffs or no tariffs, the consistent factors are misinformation, disinformation, chaos and instability, none of it good for businesses, big or small.