Why doesn’t the U.S. do this. Make the selling of iPhones dependent on X% manufacturing here.
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.
Indonesia iPhone Ban: Apple Proposes $10M Manufacturing Investment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would never survive a challenge in the courts for one. Secondly, it cannot be done in an economically feasible manner. I've tried to do simple plastic parts here in the US (and in MX for that matter) that were 5x+ the cost of doing them in China, Malaysia or India. And the machines and molds for said parts were all from China. Even taking into account the shipping, lead times, additional cost of carrying more inventory as well as the tariffs, it was still vastly cheaper to do it in Asia.
US and EU for the EV Cars with tariffs.
India forced Apple to produce locally.
Countries can try to protect themself or look after their own economy.
This is where collusion between manufacturers would actually be beneficial. If no manufacturers were willing to play ball with this protectionist requirement, eventually the people of the country might not be too happy with their government when it is impossible to get a modern smartphone.
As a European I think a lot of what's happening is not at all what the actual EU market ever asked for. I am all for market regulators checking companies from time to time, ensuring fair competition because it never ends well otherwise. But I'm most certainly stuck between 'I don't want the EU dictating what the iPhone looks and acts like' and 'Apple has proven time and time again that they stand for anti-consumer practices and will sell devices with well-known and documented hardware defects while still being anti-repair so I'm not going to oppose any of it'.
40% content is weird and I wonder how it's even measured because you can call anything a component. For example instead of calling the whole middle frame one component you could make the buttons in Indonesia and count towards that 40%. Why not call every CPU transistor a component of the device? Or is it raw materials? 40% of the bill of materials? Of the weight of the device? It makes 0 sense. Some components are way less valuable than others, smaller or bigger than others, etc.
Last edited:
Indonesia has an annual median income below $9,000. Most people in Indonesia who own an iPhone can't really afford it. They should not waste their money.
Or they could be the few wealthy people who control the government and take payoffs. You can bet that at least ⅓ of that $10 million investment will wind up in the hands of corrupt politicians.
But, the USA needs to finally start again, somewhere and at some point if there's any hope left of us manufacturing much of anything. The more time that keeps slipping by, the more likely these shifts in manufacturing become permanent, once and for all.
But what you fail to mention is that in most countries "the people" have no say in these laws and regulations. They have zero ability to decide anything. Just try criticizing the government or speaking out. They are used to prop up governments, enrich special interests and steer economic gain to a privileged few.
You really don`t have the slightest idea, have you. Getting even slightly upset over this is odd.
It`s not like governments and corporations operates separate from each other. The production of Mercedes and BMW in the US is not because someone at BMW or MB suddenly figured out it was a great idea to make cars there. The Taiwanese didn`t BEG for permission to manufacture chips there, and the US is fighting tooth and nail (tax lenience and economic incentives to keep producing cars++ in the US).
When the US agreed a free trade agreement with Mexico it caused a disaster for small farmers who couldn`t sell their corn anymore. Guess picking the US car industry`s pockets counters that, but it doens`t helpl poor farmers. (Guess who the cocaine cartels are recruiting for their legwork).When the US started to subsidize Vietnam to develop a coffee industry it caused huge problems for poor Kenyan and Central American coffee farmers. US fruit corporations have totally blocked African bananas from the European market.
Besides that, the US have for a long time used debt as strategy to secure access and dominance. For instance "Investments" which requires purchases of American heavy machinery, financed by US, and it`s clear from the beginning that the profits will never pay off the debt. And US gets control.
Which is exactly what PRC is doing with their "Belt and Road" strategy. Britain did probably realize that the island would not be able to support itself within EU. More like it, they need a "colonial approach" to feed their population (as if they cared about their population).
Indonesia is doing what India does - and what PRC has been doing for a loooong time. They fight for industry, work and the opportunity to train their (huge) population. They want to have skilled labor. Very contrary to e.g Britain and US where corporations don`t care at all.
When Sir Rathcliffe wanted to build a modernised competitor to the Land Rover, he excluded Britain from consideration of factory locations and chose France due to the quality of British manufacturing labor. The car is "very British". Built in France with A LOT of German parts.
Indonesia realises what they need. US and British corporations have completely forgotten.
$10 million is enough to build a factory these days? Granted, that's obviously a fortune on a personal level but is pocket lint for Apple.
Regardless, Apple needs to diversity some of its manufacturing out of China so this is good--though small scale.
Regardless, Apple needs to diversity some of its manufacturing out of China so this is good--though small scale.
The USA – as virtually every other today's developed country – industrialized and developed with copy-cat strategies. In the United States, this including for example smuggling engineers from the UK who had been prohibited from leaving the country. Still today, the United States is a big government and big state when it comes to financing and subsidising R&D and other corporate stuff, directly and indirectly through targeted public procurement etc. Even Apple got a lifeline of public sector deals back in the days when it was sailing in deep waters.
The states primary function actually is the security and protection of the state. And its administrators!
Even here in the US, you can’t criticize the government. Not even if you’re an expert in the subject matter! And we don’t have to go very far back in time for evidence of that. Just look at how badly we treated each other during Covid.
Close. A bribe would be if Apple approached the Indonesian gov't and offered them money. This sounds more like extortion, which is when the Indonesian gov't tells Apple they can't sell their product in that market unless they cough up a $10M "investment."
No. That would be like saying it's extortion when Apple tells developers they can't sell apps/in-app products on Phones unless they pay Apple 15% to 30% of those sales.
I'll stop you at the definition, which you clearly didn't understand. Frankly didn't bother to read much of the rest.
"Money or favor given or promised [very much obviously to the person who makes the choice, privately, for their personal gain] in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust".
This doesn't apply if there's no conflict of interest because the person who takes the choice has no (evident) personal benefit and is just making a regular deal in the name and, plausibly, benefit of the community they represent.
Absolutely doesn't fit any reasonable definition of bribe.
In simpler words, a bribe is when you take money or favours for yourself. Not the case. Not at all, unless you know something the rest of the world ignores.
It's already permanent. It's not coming back. It will continue to cycle to lower cost countries. Vietnam is next.
You are pretty much and sadly right. Today (election day in the US) will also set the stage for the future of the country as well.
What you are discovering is your American centric view is not how much of the rest of the world thinks or acts.