AppleZulu

China just upped their tariff rate to 84%. I guess the negotiations are going well. 

I don’t see where the constituency for these tariffs is, in the medium to long term. Anyone involved with the tech sector can’t be happy with this. The very wealthy can’t be happy as their portfolios lose value. Corporate America is surely taking a financial bath as well. The impulsiveness and chaos of this “policy” does not lay the groundwork for making long-term investments to do anything like move manufacturing here. Based on some of the comments here, the MAGA crowd is currently buying the talking points, but that’ll drop off eventually as reality sets in with inflation and recession. Inside traders and market speculators are probably happy right now, but that’s not sustainable either. Gamblers eventually lose money and inside traders have nothing if they drop off the most favored crony list, and for that, it’s worth observing that Donald Trump does not have any old friends. 

foregoneconclusion said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

Nobody wins a tariff war, and certainly not one of this breadth and scope. We will all be paying for this for years to come. 

The thing that is so stupid about the tariffs is that Trump already tried this strategy in his 1st term and it was a complete failure. American farmers had to get $28 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts to prevent the farming industry in the U.S. from collapsing. So instead of creating a better market for farmers, the tariffs just created unnecessary debt for Americans that pay taxes. 

Keep in mind that farming requires seasonal lead time to make decisions about crops and livestock. This administration has already impulsively cancelled agricultural purchases for USAID and now for domestic food banks. They've also deported or threatened migrant workers who would normally do the planting and picking. Now, as China and others countries impose retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural products, farmers have already made seed purchases, planted some and are either holding or obligated to buy other crop seed. Similarly, breeding of livestock is already well under way. Do they go ahead and grow the stuff planned for export, or do they cull herds, plow under crops and let seed rot as they try to cut their losses?

For domestic consumers, this may mean some low prices on a few things they don't want and higher prices on things they do, as farmers seek to offset their huge losses on exports, or simply go out of business and don't grow anything for anyone. Similar chaos will impact manufacturing industries like at Apple, but it'll be immediate and hugely damaging in the Agricultural sector. Again, there's no pleasure in seeing this pain, but the people hurt are the same ones in red-state "flyover country" who were sold a bill of goods by a con that would make Bernie Madoff blush. Watch this summer for the news stories about farmers going bankrupt. Willie Nelson will show up to help, but there's only so much he can do. Also watch this summer for the stories about famine all over the globe as the disruptions affect the poorest people everywhere. People are going to die because of one man's egotistical bluster.

A tariff is a sales tax levied on goods as they enter the country. The buyer pays the tax, not the seller. On finished products, that tax will be passed on directly to the consumer. On parts, that tax will be incorporated into the price and passed on to the consumer. The talking point that Apple or “China” or anyone on the supply side will pay the tax for any length of time is ridiculous. Also remember that sales taxes are regressive. The more of your income that goes directly to buying things, the greater percentage of your income goes directly to paying the tax. 

"Apple's going to release a foldable iPhone. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

I appreciate your confidence, but I don't see what it's based on. For the reasons you've stated as well as some others, I don't think it's anything Apple would want to put their name on. Other than the novelty of it (which will wear off quickly), it doesn't seem like it would serve any particular purpose, and certainly not any purpose that would warrant the added cost along with heightened risk for wear and breakage. This doesn't fit Apple's modus operandi.

Vision Pro is also an expensive niche product, but it's actually something profoundly different from anything else in Apple's line-up. You can do things with it that you can't do with other Apple devices. You're right that a folding iPhone wouldn't replace either the iPad or the regular iPhone, but that's not because it does something fundamentally different, but rather because it wouldn't be as good as an actual iPad, and wouldn't do anything that you can't already do with an iPhone, other than fold open and closed.

So the inevitability you describe seems only based on things other prognosticators keep insisting on, and as we all know, those guys are not nearly as "oft correct" as they'd like us to believe. I think there probably will be a foldable iPad, because that serves a purpose. It makes a large-screen iPad more portable, and does so with few of the compromises that would be inherent in a folding iPhone.