It seemed like every territory with a top-leve domain got a tariff.
Happened to the Norwegian Svalbard-archipelago (Spitsbergen) also since it has the top-level domain sv.
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 to Lessen Tariff Impact by Shipping More iPhones From India
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seemed like every territory with a top-leve domain got a tariff.
Happened to the Norwegian Svalbard-archipelago (Spitsbergen) also since it has the top-level domain sv.
Where in "the media" is it saying that? Is it the WSJ? CNN? Fox News? USA Today? Local TV stations? What I've seen (here on MR, completely unscientific) is people assuming things and going hysterical based on barely comprehending what they read, and making assumptions. And it's hardly the first time I've seen that here.
MR itself is often hyperbolic in its stories and headlines, and this piece mentions a "$2,300 iPhone," even though they do use the word "could" five times. The Reuters item they link to uses the word "could" 13 times. Is that kind of coverage clickbait? Definitely.
So yeah if you want to blame people for uncritically reading things and hysterically assuming, that's on the people.
But blaming the media for "proven lies" is so weak.
Until they get fed up and start dumping dollars at a discount to destabilize the dollar as retaliation...
I'm glad someone said this. Not that I want my razor back. In fact, I still have one! The one that supported iTunes back in the day, not the flip one. Anyways, this reason here is the BIG reason why this will all fail in the end. As business WILL NOT PAY MORE. They will have to charge more first and see if anyone will bite. And if they do. They will still not pay more! They will only pay more when they absolutely have to. And just a day or two later than the absolutely have to part.
Clearly the exact percentage borne by the end consumer may not be 100% correct, but big deal. The point is that the consumer, importer likely others involved in the supply chain will all bare some part of paying the tariff. So whether a end consumer gets the lion share or some middle man risks going out of business due to low margins there will be suffering.
Almost every (western) country got a high inflation. You have to explain how all the other countries got the same high inflation, even countries with extremely solid economics and no net state debt like Norway.
Exactly.
Also why are there now tariffs on countries that never had tariffs on the US only a trade imbalance? Because the Mango Moron lacks basic understanding of economics, supply chain and trade.
We have the village idiot that bankrupted casinos running our economy.
Without rendering an opinion on the current tariffs, the U.S. does desperately need to rehabilitate its manufacturing abilities, for survival if nothing else—are we planning to fire CDOs and paperwork at China or some other near-peer adversary in a military confrontation, once we’ve expended our munitions supplies within a week? Apple has dawdled embarrassingly on this front. The supply chain might always have some overseas parts, but imagine if a fraction of the misguided Apple Car efforts had gone instead into kicking the nasty Foxconn habit by automating and streamlining the iPhone assembly process, a la Steve Jobs’ old dream of a fully robotic Mac factory. And as a bonus, it would provide a defensible excuse to finally glue the whole device shut!
Isn't it amazing that he can manage to quote an obscure immigration law from 1798, but when someone asks him about the Signal chat that included the editor of The Atlantic, or the stock market dropping like a paralyzed falcon with a rock tied to its feet, he just goes Huh? What? First I've heard of it.
The end consumer pays nothing but the retail price. I don't send a $1 bill to some Chinese child who put the pentalobe screws in when I buy an iPhone, do you? No. Apple decides a retail price, I pay it, end of story. I don't worry about all this minutiae.
The end consumer does not care about all this BS. What is the price. I will decide if I will pay it or not.
You've just made the case for having strategic alliances—which Trump is systematically blowing up for no reason whatsoever—not for bringing manufacturing back to the US.
Lol what? Yeah, and when Apple decides to increase the price of the iPhone by 15% you'll be paying 15% more, which is the consumer directly bearing the cost of tariffs.
The ONLY way that the consumer pays none of the tariff is if the retailer or someone in the US supply chain pays all of the tariff meaning much lower margins. Multiple factors go into setting a retail price but a big one is the cost to the retailer. So, AS I SAID, maybe the consumer only has to pay some of the tariff (via a price increase from the retailer). Maybe the retailer or supply chain pay most and risk their business due to low margin. One way or another a combination of Americans pay 100% of the tariff.
Last edited:
I agree it is a cop out. There are a LOT of skilled workers looking for a better job here in the US.
They don't want to pay them. Funny that everyone is all for a living wage until it drives up what they have to pay. Everyone wants companies to be good to the environment.
But they would rather get their [device] from a place that is cheaper specifically because they do not pay their works as much and are not as good to the environment.
But that’s the other part of the economy arguement. The reason why China can do things cheaper is because they do literally the dirty work, less work place and environmental enforcement.
Does America want or even need the low paying and environmentally damaging jobs back? You want to educate and let the poor have the social mobility to move up, give them better paying jobs. That moves the economy more. Keeping the poor poor doesn’t help as much.
you may, but I won't. I won't pay it. Apple's been selling the same phone for 6 years now just with bigger camera tumors and bigger notches, why would I pay more for that?
Wrong to a large degree. There isn't ONE consumer with the ONE price. There is a whole spectrum of consumers each willing to pay a different price. So when production costs go up they jack up the price knowing it will be bought by fewer but still bought. If the demand is very high and costs are low the seller may get large margins. But when setting that price the seller is limited in what price to charge -- they must charge a price that at least covers all costs. So when their costs go up they must either raise the price or lower their margin but never to the point of zero margin.
If there are no sellers willing to sell at that price then there will be nothing to buy.
If the consumer is only willing to pay $X but the company determines $X will not give them appropriate margins, they don't build the product. That happens a lot in business. A lot of people on here really need to take an Econ 101 class it seems.
You just explained why there is no longer a dollar menu in American fast food, and why McDonald's sales are declining (at least in the US). A lot of folks on here need to revisit Econ 101 it seems.
Exactly. If the costs go up (raw costs, tariffs, etc.) to the point where the demand to pay that is too low they don't sell the product. So this is yet another way that the tariff may impact things. So in some cases there is still enough demand to cover the new higher costs so we see a price increase that removes low end consumers but keeps others. In other cases we might see that the costs are now too high so the product doesn't get produced which clearly impacts both the seller (no money made from that product) and the consumer (no product they wish they could have bought). So one way or another consumers and sellers and supply chain folks all suffer if we artificially increase costs.