More importantly, Samsung's big strategy is to use Chinese ODMs, not move out of China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-more-phones-to-fend-off-rivals-idUSKBN1XR0TJ
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Avoids iPhone Tariffs as U.S. and China Reach Trade Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More importantly, Samsung's big strategy is to use Chinese ODMs, not move out of China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-more-phones-to-fend-off-rivals-idUSKBN1XR0TJ
Yes. And they no longer manufacture in China. Wondering how they managed to do so.
[automerge]1576350845[/automerge]
Thanks, that is interesting information.
Do you ever make accurate statements?
https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/about-us/location/manufacturing-centers/
Last edited:
Samsung closed their last in-house phone plant in China October this year. I asked how Samsung was able to do this and JPack kindly provided the answer.
And please, I get that we do not agree on things. Being abrasive about it will do little to help your point.
Last edited:
First you made the claim that Samsung has stopped manufacturing in China. When given contradicting information you narrowed your claim to 'phone manufacturing'.
If pointing out that you repeatedly make baseless claims means that I'm being abrasive, then so be it. The link I gave you points to current Samsung semiconductor manufacturing which has a large base in China and South Korea. I suggest that before you make a claim, do a bit of research first to see if what you think actually has a basis in fact. Try and have an ounce of intellectual integrity.
P.S. JPack didn't provide you an answer he was countering your claim.
Last edited:
I find it amusing that posting a link to website and thereby calling out repeated BS is abrasive. Your friend can keep making false assertions and I'll keep calling them out. Then you can complain about how I'm not doing it in a nicer way. 😂
I asked “how Samsung extricated their manufacturing”. I did not intend to imply ALL manufacturing rather only in respect to the manufacturing that Samsung has relocated. However, while on this topic, Samsung is far from the only company moving [at least some] manufacturing and supply chains out of China. HP, Dell, Nintendo, Nike for example... and even some Chinese companies like TCL have moved [at least a portion of] their manufacturing out of China.
Again, please ease up a bit. Personal attacks do little to advance your ideas or the thread.
More dissembling. They didn't 'extricate' themselves. You clearly stated "they no longer manufacture in China". I think you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Samsung has not moved all its manufacturing out of China. It's bizarre that you are still asserting this.
Agreed, but in the context of Trump's policy one should be aware that none of this benefits US workers as almost none of this manufacturing has moved to the US. Trump's original claim was that his China tariffs would drive manufacturing to the US. Even Apple's been assembling (not manufacturing) Mac Pro's & iMac's in Texas way before the Chinese tariffs.
It's not a personal attack when I am pointing out your repeated factual inaccuracies. Usually, one's beliefs are based on actual facts. Instead, it seems your 'facts' are conjured to support your pre-existing beliefs.
Last edited:
extricate: transitive verb - to free or remove from an entanglement or difficulty.
Samsung no longer manufactures (phones) in China. I never said they moved ALL manufacturing. Sure, I could have specified that Samsung is no longer manufacturing PHONES in China. Again, this was an (apparently overly abstracted) illustration of the trend of manufacturing leaving China and Apple should take note (Foxconn has already started a mega project in India).
I do not care about whether manufacturing returns to the US. I care that measures are being taken to force China to rethink their economic policies.
You have made several rude personal attacks WHILE less than diplomatically stating your opinion. If you take issue with my posts because something fails to meet your standard for detail, by all means, ask for clarification. No need to be nasty about it.
For what it is worth, here is latest data on Soybean sales reported from USDA:
| Week ending | Weekly exports | Accumulated exports | Net sales |
| 12/7/2017 | 1,190,614 | 24,161,377 | 1,381,916 |
| 12/6/2018 | 1,090,333 | 14,076,420 | 735,789 |
| 12/5/2019 | 1,443,227 | 17,431,172 | 1,050,138 |
Last edited:
Nice backtracking. When you make arguments based on factual inaccuracies and are called out on them and then try and reframe the argument you are no longer making the same argument. When you are asserting something the onus is on you to be precise. As for your soybean stats, this is known as cherry picking data. This is again disingenuous. What you perceive as a personal attack is in fact a comment on the substance and integrity or, in this case lack thereof, of what you say. Especially in this day and age, countering those who peddle misinformation as fact requires a firm hand. My aim is not to engage in ad hominem and not my intention and if I have done that I sincerely apologize.
Last edited:
I appreciate your good intentions. No need to use a “firm hand” when a question or clarification will do. I did state that Samsung moved manufacturing out of China. Factual inaccuracy? Not at all. Samsung has indeed ceased manufacturing in China but I can appreciate how this phrasing left room for misinterpretation. As such, I clarified this was with respect to phone manufacturing (although this still fits a trend with corporations leaving China). The discussion about soybeans and other commodities being affected by tariffs was also part of that over arching discussion about economic policy and not an attempt to “move goal posts”. Unless you can provide data to the contrary, the materials (the charts that you laughed at and US dept of Agriculture data) I have supplied seem to support what I have said (eg. commodity prices are subject to speculation but sales are actually stable, many major companies are moving at least some manufacturing and supply chain out of China). Furthermore, even China’s ‘ace’ - rare earth metals - may be a dud because the US is restarting mining with the new owner adding a state of the art processing plant.
Please explain how I have cherry picked soybean data. I took data from same period from last three years and linked to unbiased and definitive source going all the way back to the 90’s. Data points include bushels for that week and cumulative sales for year up to that point.
Last edited:
Trumps tariffs have moved manufacturing to the US. Well over a half million.
And Apple was considering moving Mac Pro manufacturing to China until Trump threatened them on Twitter
But go ahead and keep lying, good look lmao
Great single example.
How about the price hike of the iPhone X up to 999 bracket. or the Max variants?
I think that had something to do with how much Samsung was charging for the OLED and some of the other parts Apple introduced (like FaceID, steel frame). I dunno. But the price sure did jump.
Again, the onus is on you to be precise. When you say "Samsung has moved manufacturing out of China", the implication, to anyone who reads that, is that Samsung no longer has manufacturing in China. This was a factually inaccurate statement. When called out on it you then narrowed your statement specifically to 'phone manufacturing'. I accept your subsequent clarification. As for corporations moving supply chains out of China, this has little to do with Trump's tariffs and the trend predates Trump all together. The primary driver has been rising labor costs in China. Trump's tariffs did have an affect on this trend as they temporarily accelerated plans that were already in place.
With regards to Soybeans, the main point at issue was that Trump's tariff wars have been detrimental to US Soybean farmers. Even the sales data you presented, though narrow in scope, indicates that. And I repeat, if this was not the case, there would have been no requirement for a $20bn+ taxpayer funded bailout package for farmers.
Trump's tariff war on China has been a net loss for US workers and consumers so far. China engages in unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation, dumping, significant subsidization of domestic firms, IP theft, demands for technology transfers for market access and much more. The only agreement Trump has gotten so far is that China will partially restore it's purchases of agricultural products which would leave sales still 60% lower than pre-trade war peaks. For that he is going to remove some tariffs which further lowers his leverage in any ongoing negotiations. There is some noise that there are some agreements of IP, currency manipulation and market access, but without a public text of his initial agreement, we essentially know nothing. Fundamentally, Trump is a terrible dealmaker. He doesn't seem to understand that the only way to get China to change is to partner with our allies and present a united front.
Last edited:
Again, data on soybean sales indicate your statement is incorrect. The US has sold more soybeans than in the year before tariffs. I have provided quantitative and unequivocal data both from marketplace and the USDA.
It is good that businesses have even more reason to exit China. The tariffs have done far more damage to the Chinese than the US. Their growth rate (6% reported but this number is well known to be inflated by at least 2%) is the lowest since 1992 (and that was before their alarming levels of off-balance-sheet borrowing started). Meanwhile the US GDP is rising from same period last year (2.1%).
I don't know what planet you're living on, nor can you read your own numbers. The numbers you posted clearly indicate Total accumulated sales (exports) for 2017 at 24 mn (the year before tariffs), 2018 at 14 mn and 2019 at 17 mn. They've barely risen this year vis a vis last year and only because Trump eased up on the tariffs this year and China reciprocated. If you are referring to weekly sales, I hope you realize that number only refers to the week ending Dec 5th, 2019 (i.e. 7 days out of the year). This is another case of your pre-existing beliefs warping facts.
As for your claim that tariffs have done more damage to China than the US I simply point you to the following article: http://fortune.com/2019/10/08/trump-china-tariffs-trade-war-us-economy-impact/
Keep in mind Fortune swings right of center politically. Trump has failed when it comes to China period.
Again, the numbers are the numbers. The US is selling more soybeans this year than last year. That means although Chinese switched to buying soy from elsewhere, someone else switched to buying US soybeans. Tariffs on commodities did not affect sales (futures speculation did affect prices).
Post all the opinion pieces you want, GDP numbers for China are lowest in decades while the US GDP has actually increased. Empirical data beats opinion and conjecture.
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion.
Sorry you are wrong. Your initial claim was, "The US has sold more soybeans than in the year before tariffs". 2017 was the year prior to tarrifs. And 2019 is this year. The numbers you posted show a precipitous drop the year the tariffs were implemented (2018) vis a vis the year prior (2017). This year the Chinese resumed purchasing soybeans from the US as is documented in the media if you care to do a little research yourself. However, even this year, accumulated purchases are still massively less then in 2017. This shows Trump's tariffs have significantly damaged farmers. Hence the taxpayer funded bailout. As you said, the numbers are the numbers and they completely contradict your claim.
Opinion lol! 😂 If you actually read the article you would see they also base their analysis on US numbers or as you like to call it empirical data. It is obvious you cannot see beyond the bubble you have created for yourself.
Here's the empirical data:
"The damage to China from loss of exports to the U.S. is .4, and zip for deadweight costs, for a total of .4%. For the U.S., the tally is .1% from lost exports to China, and .9 points from overpaying for third-country imports, for a total of 1.0%. China wins in a two-and-a-half-to-one walk away. It's like winning the Super Bowl 40 to 16. Losing .4% of your growth when you're expanding at over 6% is a lot easier to bear than losing 1.0% when you're growing at 2.0%, the predicament for America."
You can be disingenuous and dishonest in your posts as much as you want.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for this!!!!! I got more infor from your comment then from the whole article. I kept reading, getting closer and closer to the end. Waiting and waiting to finally get to the part of the story that said what the trade deal actually was. Reading, reading, reading........nothing. I dont expect the deal to be reprinted verbatim but a couple points at least. Nope. So, yeah, as expected, no deal has happened, Chinese havent caved, ( and probably wont) and a non story all around.
I guess it was assumed that there will be a deal based on a Trump tweet. Maybe decision was overshadowed by the other Trump related news?
They already said it would take several weeks to put the agreement onto paper and arrange a signing ceremony.