I don’t see how the 2 things are related.
Building a factory to make AirTags does not make the iPhone 16 meet the 35% requirements.
The only way you relate these 2 is by the suggestion that Apple is attempting to bribe the government to let them break local laws.
it’s a complicated situation. How the domestic production requirements can be fulfilled is not clearly specified in the law (are laws ever fully explicit in every detail?). The law appears to suggest goods and services, including Apple's money to build up and support app developers, can fulfill requirements.
Also, if you bring up possible bribery, people can interpret Indonesian’s law as a form of requiring bribes. How about we just say that Apple is trying to figure out how to follow the law in a way that doesn't cost more money than Apple will make in Indonesia (most smartphones purchased there are low-end, inexpensive models), won't result in products that do not meet Apple's quality requirements, have a secure supply chain, etc.
There are various Chinese and some others that have been and are ramping up production and services in the country, but they are also companies that sell inexpensive phone models (that lose the companies money to make or only allow a slim profit).
The history of this law goes back about 10 years. The U.S. government, other governments, and companies are concerned about it for various reasons, including that it might break international trade agreements Indonesia is part of (i.e., the World Trade Organization):
https://www.reuters.com/article/tec...de-in-indonesia-smartphone-law-idUSKBN0LS0CU/
I don't understand this protectionistic law and I'd venture no one commenting here really does. But my take is that Apple appears to be trying to figure out how to follow the law and the Indonesian government's requirements that are a moving target. Then there is also the issue of precedent. If Indonesia can do this, what stops every other country from having a law like this? I dislike bringing up a slippery slope, but given the surge in populism and protectionism around the world, including in the U.S., E.U., South America, India, and other locations, international business is becoming increasingly complex. That's a change from the 1990s through 2010s when globalization generally ruled.
By the way, the requirement is now up to 40%, not 35%:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...investment-proposal-official-says-2025-01-07/