If Apple decides the only way they can build the iPhone 17 is by relying on Chinese sweatshop labor, then somehow, I think we'll survive without an iPhone 11 + 6. The world hasn't needed the last 5 iterations of the iPhone 11, frankly.
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
If Apple decides the only way they can build the iPhone 17 is by relying on Chinese sweatshop labor, then somehow, I think we'll survive without an iPhone 11 + 6. The world hasn't needed the last 5 iterations of the iPhone 11, frankly.
Valid, but different point than simply about the tariffs. Foxconn of course is better than a lot of Chinese companies (due to input from Apple). But still if we instead somehow analyzed the negative impact to humans and the planet of various companies in various countries then put targeted tariffs consistent with the level of negative impact that would be an interesting approach. That's not the approach taken now and I suspect there are some that also would not like that approach. I personally like that more targeted approach though I'm not sure it would be easy to accomplish.
As for the value of the later iPhones, that too is a valid point BUT it's your personal point. It's subjective. The simple fact that many people are willing to upgrade an existing phone for a newer one and pay big bucks to do so suggests that it's not a point shared by many.
My point is a larger one. Apple has to decide if the higher costs of doing business in China remain worth it to them. If not, they can move to other countries with lower costs (like India - it was reported earlier today that Apple rush shipped lots of phones from India to beat tariffs via air) (are those phones still carbon neutral? LOL funny how the environment doesn't matter suddenly to Tim Cook). Or, they can increase prices for their Chinese goods. All of this depends on the consumer's willingness to shoulder increased prices.
Apple hiked the price of the Pro Max by $100 a year or two ago - IDK how that affected sales. Maybe that was a test case to see how elastic demand is. Of course, as long as Apple and carriers are willing to basically give these devices away in the US, then retail price is basically imaginary anyway.
Obviously the point of the tariffs is to reshore lots of industrial activity that was offshored ~30 years ago in the US. That won't happen tomorrow. But hopefully, it will happen. And even if it doesn't - then the US will be getting fairer trade with its global partners.
interesting points. I'm just glad we got past the notion that retail price is solely set by the consumer willingness to pay and not also influenced by costs such as tariffs. Nice discussion. Good night.
Apple and many other corpos could build fully automated factories with minimal human intervention or assembly so an iPhone wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to produce.
and this news ends my purchase of any iPhones going forward. I do not buy anything from a country where my job has been shipped to.
I support the tariffs.
I support the tariffs.
They have to build them in India, otherwise they can't sell them in India. They have factories there, although many components come from other Asian countries, but they are assembled in India.
The tariffs only make sense if there are conditions to produce in the country already, not the way it is now! This makes no sence in a short/medium period of time, the companies and consumers are going to lose!
Any valid enconomist has the same view, I'm not a specialist in the field, but if the pros say it is a bad idea, who am I to disagree?
When you say you support tarrifs, you mean you agree to pay more for a lot of products that may (or even may not, other countries are canceling the export to the USA) be sold in the future with a huge price increase to the consume (you).
Also, you agreed to buy an iPhone that was manufactured in China because (I presume) your job hasn't been shipped to that country?
Just remembetr that one Mr. Timmy Cook donated $1M to make him a richer moron and then shipped jobs from China to India..............
Why is it Ok for India to say "If you sell them in India, you have to build them in India" but it's not ok for Americans to say the exact same thing??
For years, Apple said "it's impossible to build phones anywhere but China"... but now they assemble in India and Brazil. So basically they were really saying they didn't want to build them here. Anywhere but here. Very disappointing for an American company.
For years, Apple said "it's impossible to build phones anywhere but China"... but now they assemble in India and Brazil. So basically they were really saying they didn't want to build them here. Anywhere but here. Very disappointing for an American company.
LOL! 😂
For sure, we want to race to the bottom, ensure massive inequality, make workers powerless, pollution widespread, factories unsafe, bring back child labor and the 12-hour work day, galvanize racial and gender discrimination, etc. and turn the U.S. into just another Third World, third-rate country. 🙈
Can't bring back the 1890s, Robber Barons, and laissez-faire capitalism soon enough! 👎🏽 Yes, let's Make America Great Again -- for the bratty tech brats and investment banker billionaires. ❌
N.B. You left out the /s.
They are trying to permit 14 year olds to work the graveyard shift in Florida, and at least one Google executive recently said that 60 hours/week is the “sweet spot” for their AI engineers… so yeah, what you said is exactly correct. Sadly. 😟
What?? LOL! Unions are bad? This is why the whole civilized world has them.
And I posted a direct quote from Trump's senior trade counsel saying exactly the opposite. Regime officials don't even have a coherent message on this disaster of a policy!
And yet they have all sold like crazy. So your personal thoughts vs what the market as a whole wants appear to be two different things. People keep buying 'em so Apple keeps making 'em. It's Econ 101, right? 🤣
I just quickly looked that up:
“U.S. goods exports to India in 2024 were $41.8 billion, up 3.4 percent ($1.4 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from India totaled $87.4 billion in 2024”
India
U.S.-India Bilateral Trade and Investment U.S. goods and private services trade with India totaled $93 billion in 2012 (latest data available). Exports totaled $34 billion; Imports totaled $59 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with India was $25 billion in 2012.
According to Apple’s last annual report, net sales of iPhones were slightly more than $200 billion. A bit more than half of their overall $391 billion annual revenue - of which the U.S. accounts for 36% (over all segments - but reasonable to assume it has a similar geographic share of iPhone revenue). So we can roughly estimate U.S. annual iPhone sales at $72 billion.
SEC Filings - Apple
Apple’s transfer prices or what they paid to their manufacturing partners will be considerably lower than their sales revenue. But still…
Assuming Apple used to import all of its iPhones sold in the U.S. from China…
And assuming they were shifting all of that to importing from India…
👉 Seems that Apple‘s imports alone might increase the U.S. trade deficit with India substantially.
To a similar (relative) deficit like the one with China - or even more.
I can’t help thinking that’d be more than enough for Trump to impose higher tariffs on India.
Last edited:
The unions played a significant role in sending millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. They priced American workers out of their jobs and into lower paying service sector jobs.
Sounds like the problem isn’t unions, but the businesses. If a business can only survive by making people work 60 hours a week, or if it can’t operate without paying so little that it needs to hire 12-year-olds, then something is seriously wrong with that business. And blaming the workers for that is even worse.
Businesses don't make employees work 60 hour weeks if they (the employees) don't want to. If an employee has a problem with it they are always free to get another job from an employer who treats his staff better. That's how a free market works. Employers know they have to treat and pay their employees well or they will leave for something better. The problem is the unions were a contributing factor in sending the majority of the high skill, high paying manufacturing jobs overseas leaving many Americans with mostly lower paying service sector jobs. That's why employees have to work such long hours now, to make up for their lower hourly service sector wage.
The reason why school age kids stopped having to work in the early 20th century was due to gains in productivity allowing one person, usually a man to support his entire family on a single income. Absent those gains in productivity kids would still be working. There's no way the government would have been able to pass child labor laws if children working was necessary for them to eat.
It's sad, but we went from a society where one person could support a family to one requiring two incomes. Then the cost of living got to be so high the savings rate went to zero. Finally people started having to go into debt to maintain their standard of living. Unfortunately the latest trend in this hollowing out of the middle class is adult children staying in their parent's house until their late 20's or early 30's. There's a great documentary that explains how this happened in detail called End of the Road, How Money Became Worthless on YT. It's worth a watch. Also highly recommend Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money, also on YT.
Last edited:
Before unions, workers had no choice but to work whenever their boss told them to. And since the factory next door had the same conditions, there was no alternative, no workplace with better hours or treatment.
Child labor too would have persisted much longer if it hadn’t been for the efforts of both churches and labor unions.
Child labor too would have persisted much longer if it hadn’t been for the efforts of both churches and labor unions.
You should be very careful when saying things like people had "no choice." That is the equivalent of saying they were forced to do something. From a legal perspective no one was ever forced by law to work for one company or another. From a financial or economic perspective people have to work to earn a living, but what they do for work and who they work for is completely up to them.
People always have a choice. For example, they could have started a business rather than be an employee. The American dream was founded on entrepreneurship. If starting a business isn't your thing, it's not your employer's fault. It's up to you to get the best job you can at the highest wage you can, under the best working condition you can.
We don't have purely free markets, first of all.
People don't "want to work 60 hour weeks".
I can't even believe you posted that.
They are devoid of options and switching costs and friction are too high and cumbersome.