The reason why they don't amount to anything is because there is usually no follow-up and accountability.
In China,after such an announcement ,a CCP official(whose promotion hinges on successful implementation of the investment)would have been assigned to Apple to see to it that the project is completed
> Because it’s an authoritarian dictatorship that forces people to do things to achieve its goals ?
That's just part of the puzzle. What makes CPC different from most dictatorships is like NK or SU is that most of ruling elite of CPC is made up of engineers. Along with mandatory CPC ideology leaning, they also have notion that a developed nation is one that builds things. Bankers and Lawyers are ranked way down on power rankings.
On the other hand, most of American ruling elite are lawyers or bankers. So their worldview is mostly rule lawyering, interest earning, hedge fund etc.. Power brokers in these fields make the rules. Builders and engineers rank pretty low in power totem pole.
According to the chart it started under Deng, and that’s also around when China’s current phase of development started.
We forget these days that Chinese communism was a tire fire for the first half century. In 1990 China had the same per capita GDP (PPP) as India. Now China is 4x India.
Them being forced to do things due to the dictatorship is not a compelling argument, as people are forced to do things in Western societies too, via other external factors like risk of poverty and hunger.
I think we're so far down the discussion thread, that we've forgotten that we're skeptical about whether Apple will be held accountable to their American investment promises...
For anyone curious, the context here is that he said he'd be a dictator only on day one.
First, even one day of dictatorship is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Second, we're coming up on day 200 and the Trump administration continues to assert an expansive view of executive power far beyond any historical precedent and to degrade the systems designed to check that power, following a 100% run of the mill authoritarian playbook.
Not sure if intentional, but you trimmed the context. The question was about whether he'd abuse power to get retribution. Here's the link to the start of the video: https://youtu.be/dQkrWL7YuGk?t=1
What you trimmed off:
> Hannity: Under no circumstances, you're promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody
> Trump: Except for Day One... look he's going crazy... Except day one.
> Hannity: Meaning?
> Trump: I'm going to close the border and we're going to drill, drill, drill
Update from day 199:
The border is closed (partially illegally) [1], US oil rigs are down [2], and he is in fact abusing power as retribution against dozens of people and institutions.
It’s an authoritarian president that forces Apple to make these promises, even though they will most likely never fulfil them. It’s all just one big play to appease to Trumps love for big numbers.
Well, yes, because it's a "state capitalism" hybrid regime. If your position is that US companies should have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy over the wishes of and at the expense of investors, people might reasonably call that .. communism.
They may call it that, but to be precise it would be just an aspect of a planned economy[0]. NB democracies use a similar mechanism but only via companies where the state has the majority of shares which is completely different.
> have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy
This will happen sooner than you think if the US continues on its current path. Already Trump is asking for something similar for universities. He can use the same hammer for companies as well; deny them all government funding/contracts until they 'voluntarily' give in.
The 'c' word for this is not communism, but corruption. The special thing about corruption is that it can happen in any political 'ism'.
Going after universities using government contracts as leverage was literally on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. People voted the guy who promised to do that to be CEO of the branch of government that manages government contracts.
I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors. I’d call it libertarianism, but the principled libertarian would say we should abolish all funding to private universities.
> I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors.
The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process, and the advice of experts in the administration of grants goes back at least to the magna carta and is so widespread that you would use a more specific term — a "constitutional monarchist", "republican", "democrat", or "democratic socialist", etc., would all agree on this point. The opposite point of view however, has a name — authoritarian — so you could call such a person "anti-authoritarian".
> The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process
Due process protects rights and entitlements. Nobody has a right to receive discretionary government contracts or grants. To the extent we’re taking about preexisting contracts, the universities can sue to enforce whatever contractual rights they have. We have a robust system for recovering from the government for breaches of contract.
> and the advice of experts in the administration of grants
The “expert” stuff is the legacy of a scientific racist who didn’t trust democracy. It’s antithetical to democracy to suggest that the public should be forced to give discretionary grants and contracts to particular entities based on what “experts” think. Those experts are often themselves closely intertwined with the entities receiving the funding! They’re alums of Harvard, they met their spouse during grad school at Columbia, etc. They’ve got deep conflicts of interest.
Those announcements were part of Apple's initiative to build/assemble certain Mac Pros in Texas.
The idea is to do it on a high-margin, low-volume product so that any hiccups can be absorbed in the accounting and aren't as impactful to millions of customers. Hiccups like a dearth of US suppliers of subcomponents.
If a North American customer purchases a Mac Pro its final assembly occurs in Austin, Texas.
According to local media and government reports Apple has spent over a billion dollars in Austin and directly employed about 10,000 new permanent workers so far.
If you count local suppliers, the total is higher.
You can click on "See more dates" and select 2020 to see that in two years that site went from "empty lot" to "hundreds of thousands of square feet and thousands of workers".
The Flextronics facility about a mile-and-a-half to the south is another chunk of cash.
Additionally, many, MANY, components from audio codecs to SoC cores to sheets of glass used in Apple products are made in the US and exported for integration into products that are assembled overseas.
If you think 5 years from announcement to construction is a long time, I've been working about that long on a committee to build a tiny 4-bay fire station. It isn't about money, we have the money and infinite money wouldn't really change anything. It's about permits, contractor availability, and subsystem/subcomponent lead times. The diesel fume extraction system installers had a year-long backlog of work alone.
If you're waiting for the iPhone to be built in the US, you're going to be waiting for a long time, perhaps an infinitely long time. Other, higher-margin lower-volume, products? That's more likely.
I'm more familiar than most with how difficult it is to build things in the US, because I build satellites for a living and fire stations as a civic duty.
> The idea is to do it on a high-margin, low-volume product so that any hiccups can be absorbed in the accounting
As opposed to actually eliminating the source of the hiccups.
The Japanese auto manufacturers moved their high-volume, low-margin assembly to the US and succeeded. They started by importing nearly every component and then steadily replaced them with locally-built components.
If Apple was serious, that’s what they would have done. You know, like how they did it in India. Like how they did it in Malaysia. Like how they did it in Vietnam.
Apple’s not serious about US-based manufacturing until proven otherwise. Gold statues don’t prove anything.
> The Japanese auto manufacturers moved their high-volume, low-margin assembly to the US and succeeded. They started by importing nearly every component and then steadily replaced them with locally-built components.
Ironically, Trump's "gotta show results _now!_" rhetoric might kneecap onshoring like this.
> The diesel fume extraction system installers had a year-long backlog of work alone.
What kind of system are you installing? I’ve provided electrical and control wiring for exhaust hose reels at DOT maintenance facilities and bus garages in my local market, you only need a roofer, a mechanical contractor, and an electrician.
If it’s CO/NO sensors with makeup air units and exhaust fans, again that is just roofers, mechanical, and electrical, with widely available parts.
My guess is your fire station is at the ass end of nowhere which limits contractor availability or something along those lines? I’m used to my local metro area market of 3M people with dozens of mechanical, electrical, and commercial roofing contractors around to work with.
Excellent details. No disrespect to the long and difficult work of real-world projects.
I could've been more precise in my wording. Sometimes these announcements (from Apple and other companies) are realized into completed projects, but very often they are misleading/exaggerated claims about money that was already going to be spent, or could possibly be spent.
Trump 2016 was taken less seriously by multinationals, as the anti-globalization wave hasn't fully realized, and corporation were paying lip service to Trump, which the 2016 administration had no choice but to accept it due to only having power in the executive branch.
Trump 2024 is a completely different animal, with control in all 3 branches of government, plus overwhelming voter support in the election. As well as the collapse of globalization (baby boomer retiring reducing demand), and many countries moving to the right at the same time. Reshoring is the correct choice for the next 10 years and beyond, and many multinationals recognize this and have committed hundreds of billions accordingly.
Fair point. But one difference is that Trump 1.0 was still full of globalist neocons while Trump 2.0 is full of true believers. There is follow-through this time. We now have the highest tariffs since 1910, which was inconceivable a decade ago.
The landscape has also changed. In 2018, Apple could wait out Trump hoping to get the Bush GOP back. That party is dead. It will still be corporate friendly, but not on immigration or trade. Big Ag couldn’t even get carved out of the immigration raids. The Clinton Democratic Party is dead too. What’s the odds that either Vance 2028 or AOC 2028 are going to let Apple off the hook on commitments?
Why would that change anything? Apple already got the exemptions it wanted. If Trump changes his mind and comes back, they just need to give him another shiny object and a headline.
The tariffs themselves obviously do not have the requisite durability to justify actual high scale capex. It would be quite literally stupid to invest much in US manufacturing just to get undercut in either 1) a few months when courts rule the entire endeavor unconstitutional or 2) a few years when Trump is out of office.
> Why would that change anything? Apple already got the exemptions it wanted. If Trump changes his mind and comes back, they just need to give him another shiny object and a headline.
Because before, the administration was staffed with Bushies who were happy to let things go when the boss lost interest. Now it’s staffed with people who would be happy to burn Apple down.
> The tariffs themselves obviously do not have the requisite durability to justify actual high scale capex… a few years when Trump is out of office. Trump is the moderate one.
When Trump leaves office in 2028, he’ll either be replaced with JD, or a progressive Democrat. The Bush GOP definitely isn’t coming back, and I suspect the Biden Democratic Party isn’t either. Cutting tariffs isn’t going to be a high priority of the incoming administration either way. And even Biden didn’t cut many of Trump’s tariffs from his first administration.
Let's appreciate that Tim Cook traveled to the White House to present President Trump with literal gold. Cook said it was "designed for you" when presenting it to Trump.
Top tier fidelity here, like in days of old, the Duke of Apple has traveled far to present King Trump with tribute.
> Today, Apple partners with thousands of suppliers across all 50 states, supporting more than 450,000 supplier and partner jobs. In the next four years, Apple plans to directly hire 20,000 people in the U.S. — the vast majority focused on R&D, silicon engineering, software development, and AI and machine learning.
So the new jobs they're creating _won't_ be in manufacturing.
I would love to see a list of commitments that corporations and foreign bodies have made to investment in the US, and how they've actually played out over time.
They made a similar commitment in 2018 [1] and 2021 [2], but I can't find any info about whether they actually followed through and whether the projected job numbers were accurate.
I'm glad they're doing what it takes to bootstrap the operation. What TSMC does is highly technical and no doubt there will be a ramp up period to build up the labor pool and talent.
Neither TSMC in Arizona or Samsung in Texas were promises made to the Trump admin though. TSMC was announced in May 2020 (tail end of Trump 1) and Samsung was November 2021.
I don't think GP was saying "no one invests in the US," but rather that these particular announcements clearly designed to appease POTUS do not come to fruition.
Yes, because the theater effectively deceives a large portion of the voting public. "Both sides" here are the least important players in the charade. It's everybody they are hosing I care about.
And most who are paying attention are in it for the vibes. They don’t know enough about trade, economics, international relations or policy to really have an opinion independent from “my side good, other side bad”
Not sure - stock market is at all time high, and valuation are above dot com bubble levels. So I think people are actually paying attention and are getting deceived.
Partially true, but the valuation would be much more spread out across the components of S&P500, whereas currently they are extremely concentrated in a handfull of names, and a handfull of others (the ones that CEOs are deceiving the public the most) have sky high valuations without being in any index.
But that's what the voting public wants! They demand to be lied to. The feedback loop is problem announced on Fox news / Truth social -> presidential announcement -> positive coverage on Fox/Truth. It's not like the factory actually has to exist for them to be happy. And if they didn't want to be lied to they wouldn't seek out news sources which lie to them and leave them on in their homes constantly.
> It's not like the factory actually has to exist for them to be happy.
If the factory exists it will be ugly, noisy, shit jobs, exploitative, evil bosses, turning the neighbourhood into a slum, etc. People are happier without it existing.
You say that as if Fox News is the only media org that deceives its viewers. There is a reason that American trust in the media is at an all-time historic low.
I appreciate how calibrated it is. It's literally empty, it's almost completely transparent, and the 24K gold base is worth far less than a millionth of Apple's annual profits.
Luckily the president doesn't know a metaphor when he sees one.
In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.
I agree that seeing the executive branch's authority continue to swell is not good for our democracy, but corporations (and specifically Apple) offshoring all their labor to developing nations has been viewed as a huge negative for ~30 years?
Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing. I can't stand listening to him talk, but if iPhones aren't reliant on slaves mining cobalt and 13 year olds working 12 hours a days I will consider that a win.
> Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing.
I don’t think Americans realize that we haven’t suffered a global war since 1945 precisely because global trade took over and nations’ economies became more interdependent than isolated.
These trade wars are signalling pretty much all countries in the world to become more self-sustaining and less dependent on each other. Countries who succeed will be more confident to enter armed conflict because they’ll have less to lose, and those with lots to gain will have every incentive to start or join a war against those who have resources.
Nothing works without trade now. Literally nothing.
Countries have aligned themselves to maximise Ricardian comparative advantage, and there's no way for the global economy to realign itself towards plain old mercantilism without massive pain for everyone.
I think iPhones can take a good bump in the pricing for bringing the manufacturing onshore. Currently an iPhone is 30% more expensive in developing countries like India compared to US, Dubai or even Japan. Thats insane, and still an average adult is looking forward to own one. That is 50% of your annual income you have to spend for buying an arguably, state of the art mobile phone. If you are in US, an iPhone is only approximately 1% of your annual per capita income. Thats massive difference..
iPhones are more expensive in developing countries due to developing country taxes and tariffs. China used to be the same way (iPhones are imported into China because they are made in SEZs), but has a price that is comparable to the USA now mainly due to china’s push for more consumption by Chinese consumers. iPhone prices are high in India simply because the government would rather Indian consumers not spend money on them, not because the Indian government thinks they can afford it.
The USA is sort of addicted to consumption (where China wants to be actually), you could dissuade a lot of consumption by raising taxes on it (if, for example, you want people to save more and focus only on necessities). It would be a huge change for America though, the market might not survive intact if it happens too quickly.
Even if there are zero tariffs, the per capita difference is so huge. US was so far reaping the benefit of product made with labour from developing countries and consumers getting wages from developed country, making buying a new phone a rather insignificant portion of total yearly salary, however for a common man in developing country, owning an Apple device is sometimes equal to your yearly salary. So yea even if manufacturing moves to US and prices doubles, the consumers can absorb it.
Consumers won't absorb it, they will just buy less of it, like the common man in the developing country does. You don't just absorb higher prices, you re-prioritize your spending so that you still spend the same.
> In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.
Ironically, your comment is double-bladed.
This has likely been in the works from when China shook Apple down and the timing has a nice upside that it also pacifies His Orangeness(tm).
An American president using the bully pulpit (as Teddy Roosevelt so fondly called it) to expand jobs and investment in America is the president doing his actual job.
Of course Apple didn't do it on their own accord, there was way too much profit to be made from outsourcing to China. Everyone else was doing it, why not also the richest company on earth?
You mean manufacturing and farming jobs? Absolutely, they're decent jobs and far more rewarding than serving diabetes to McDonald's and Starbucks patrons.
Tomato harvesting is done in an air conditioned tractor these days:
Production on iPhone can be highly automated these days as well. There are plenty of good examples of revitalized computer hardware manufacturing in the U.S. like the Starlink Factory in Bastrop, TX:
Those jobs require a ton of college education. Atleast as far as I know TSMC only allows PhDs on lithography and etching machines. And Apple smartphone manufacturing is nearly automated and most of the required personnel are engineers.
If we give it to Americans, then we just also rely on brown people making minimum wage or less - undocumented Americans.
The reality is our entire economy is more or less fake - it's propped up like a dead body by hyper-consumerism. We rely on buying way more shit than we should, and that, in turn, requires warm bodies who can't live off their wages. This is in high contrast to the economy of the early to mid 20th century.
We can rip that bandaid off, but things would suck for a while, maybe a long time. That's a hard sell - especially since we (not underpaid) get nothing.
Cook is getting significant considerations on imports and offering Trump PR with zero obligation. Maybe they invest, maybe they don't, maybe they just do what they were going to do anyway.
Then they'll pay import tariffs on the foreign components. And they'll increase their supply chain risk (as well as regulatory risk) in a polarized political climate.
Trump is only in office for 3 and a half years. Spending $600b will take much longer time than that. Assuming america remains democratic, the next president is very likely to wash away most of what Trump has done on day one (since he did all of this via executive order).
1. The escalated tension between the United States and China is unlikely to resolve in the next 3.5 years. Apple already took the step to move iPhone production to India. However, as recently shown, even India could be subject to tariffs as they are purchasing Russian oil and in effect funding the Ukraine war. The next president will have to operate in a multipolar world.
2. The tariffs are producing revenue for the Federal government. Hundreds of billions per year. To remove the tariffs arbitrarily in the future, a President would need to assume the political risk of increasing the national deficit.
3. Trump imposed tarriffs on his first term that Biden did not reverse. Even if the next President is a Democrat it's more likely than not that the trade deals remain in place.
4. A strong contender for the next president is the current vice president, JD Vance, who would be highly unlikely to reverse.
Trump’s approval ratings is in the gutter like it was during his last term. He doesn’t reach out and make new fans, he just loses the ones he has. JD Vance is even less popular than trump, anyone who thinks their electoral success occurs even with extra gerrymandering for the midterms is probably in for a huge surprise.
Trump didn’t initiate sweeping tariffs in his last term, and they weren’t wildly unpopular. Trump is accumulating enough bad will at the moment to make it very politically easy for someone to wash away everything if they win the 2028 election.
Approval ratings are unscientific, fleeting, and wildly variable, even among Presidents that go on to be reelected. It is a stat you take with a grain of salt, especially 6 months into a presidency. Even the polls for the actual election, which get far more money to spend, were wildly inaccurate especially in recent elections.
If Trump's moves pan out in the positive for American people over the next year or two, controversial as they may be in the present, then sentiment will increase, plain and simple.
JD Vance is quite popular among Republicans and reasonably popular among independents, which is all you need to win the presidency. The Democrats, on the other hand, have no heir apparent and have quite a few structural issues within their own party at the national level. We'll see what the actual field looks like in 2028 but that is a long ways off and a lot will change between now and then.
1. Apple moved production to India to avoid Indian tariffs so as to sell it to Indians. Initially the factory only made iphones for Indians.
2. Tariffs revenue will stabilize once they are set and revenue can easily fall.
3. Democrats are for free trade since the FDR administration, Biden was an exception not the norm for democrats.
4. JD Vance has to win first, he is not charismatic or funny like Trump.
Vance doesn't support tariffs except in his role as Trump's agent. Absolutely nobody in politics besides Trump thinks these tariffs are a good idea. It's not clear tariffs are actually going to reduce the deficit just because they bring revenue because they are likely suppressing growth. Repealing the Trump tax cuts would be on the table for Democrats and Republicans would be happy just ignore the deficit issue again.
After reading your comment I was curious whether I misunderstood what authoritarianism was but from reading the wiki that winning an election definitely doesn't make something inherently not authoritarian and there are lots of examples of authoritarians who were elected in.
I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world.
Don't you think that's a bit unbelievable? You don't think there's a bit of bias/hyperbole there?
If you disagree, respond with a specific policy you think is "authoritarian" so everyone can debate it.
-- post limit, replying to below --
In 4 years if your side makes a convincing argument then you can undo those executive orders you feel are "authoritarian". Until then, we feel they aren't and they are just, and they are the right thing to do. And the law agrees.
Sorry you disagree but that's how it is. Sometimes your side doesn't call the shots. But the system is still working. I promise you another person that aligns with you will be in power eventually... unfortunately.
A +1% majority thinks authoritarianism is good for America, and maybe this democracy experiment that the founding fathers wasn’t such a great idea. He is literally ruling by executive fiat, and owns the Supreme Court while congress is inert, so there is nothing there to stop him.
Executive orders, at least, are completely ephemeral. The other side doesn’t have to make an argument, they just need to win the presidency. All of Trump’s executive orders can be undone on day one of the new president’s term. Only laws made by congress are binding past the president’s term. Even Trump supporters should know that, Apple definitely does.
"I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world." -> I mean it is obviously interesting but it sure as hell is not surprising based on my experience talking to people. I've met a lot of people for who democratic norms are pretty low down on their list of politically important things (you can see this in all the anti-democratic stuff like gerrymandering that is pretty rampant in the US. Americans are often willing to sacrifice some amount of democracy for policy goals).
Specifically for examples, I mean the most classic authoritarian action is to wield authority to try to stay in power (which the fact that it was unsuccessful doesn't make it not authoritarian, especially when the lesson from it seems to have been to further consolidate power as he's done this term), it's pretty hard to get more cut and dry than that. But it's also pretty clear in how Trump has taken control of government funding in the US , by centralizing more funding power under him (especially the ability to arbitrarily cut programs legally funded by Congress). It's not really about the specific policies though, its the general pattern of centralization of authority and entrenchment of that authority that we've been seeing.
P.S. this Federalist Paper highlights why the power of the purse is only in Congress in the US and I think is interesting, especially when talking about budget in regards to authoritarianism
(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-02... this paper was written by Madison, who is better known as the primary writer of the Constitution). Relevant excerpt:
"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
You need to expand on what you think is "authoritarian".
Otherwise, a conversation can not be had.
It's interesting you view that he ran on authoritarian ideals, yet still won the popular vote.
Yes while populist leaders can be authoritarian, it does not mean this one is. I'm still waiting for someone to name a specific policy so a discussion debating whether it is authoritarian or not can begin.
It is however, interesting that you believe a candidate ran on and won the popular vote as the leader of the free world on authoritarian ideals. Do you think that little of American voters? Or are you misinformed / biased?
Ugh I can’t wait for the realization of all of the definitely-real-not-fake populist gains and definitely-not-inevitable-now downward spiral of leadership integrity and outcomes.
/s obviously. Does anyone else remember PPP? And the last 10 years of accelerationist wet dreams come true?
I totally agree with you about the motivations... and I can't speak to how many long term jobs will come out of this.
But if this even gives us some chance to jolt our manufacturing sector back, will we start to gain some momentum? Even if it's mostly using automation. Will it help to reduce our reliance on China?
I doubt it will in the same way that it's been extremely hard for other countries to replicate the US momentum in R&D.
People have pointed out that brands all put rainbows on their public docs for pride month. But not in Islamic countries and much less with Trump in power etc.
This is just the same effect but for US nationalists no?
Actual decisions and spending/investment etc will continue to be driven by economics. But PR is about who you want to reassure/appease/curry favour with. And the two are basically independent.
If the US is willing to import many more low-skilled workers, then I would agree it's a great idea. Absent that, with a 4% unemployment, then the pigeon hole principle makes it difficult. Open to proposals about how it could be done without significant downside.
> Open to proposals about how it could be done without significant downside.
That's a policy straitjacket: a demand that strategic and necessary things can be done only if there's no downside for some privileged group.
If the US doesn't want to be a weak-ass paper tiger, it needs the capability to mass-produce consumer electronics (a civilian capability that can be redirected for military purposes, if needed). That will likely require trade offs.
Let's employ fewer people in the sandwich-assembly industry and more people assembling electronics.
Downstream assembly factories attract component manufacturers because of lower transport costs and shorter delivery times, which can lead to network effects. (Remember why Intel wanted to build more foundries in China a few years ago?) That's the success formula of Shenzhen, for example.
He is the CEO of a company. A president has been elected and will be in office for next 4years still, during which Apple may need his help with issue faced with foreign governments.
It's not spineless, it's his job to act in the interests of the company
Apple’s announcement should be welcomed as a tangible demonstration of corporate accountability in the age of offshore tax minimisation and digital opacity. Rather than simply repurchasing stock or warehousing profits abroad, Apple is deploying capital to grow its US footprint, support domestic suppliers and invest in technological infrastructure.
The program’s breadth also deserves recognition. It includes manufacturing partnerships, data centres, clean energy, and support for educational and community initiatives. This is not PR fluff. Apple’s prior commitments funded chipmaking in Arizona, new engineering hubs and 5G innovation. The expansion builds on that trajectory.
Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest. So be it. Public policy should align incentives such that private benefit also serves the public good. In this case, job creation, supply chain resilience, and regional development in states like Iowa and Oregon are clear wins.
Of course, Apple’s global tax practices remain a fair target. But criticising every constructive move on that basis alone risks undermining the very kind of behaviour governments should encourage: strategic reinvestment, not financial engineering.
This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
> Apple’s announcement should be welcomed as a tangible demonstration of corporate accountability in the age of…
They brought a 24k gold trophy for the president. That’s the tangible demonstration here.
> This is not PR fluff.
> Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest.
This is PR fluff and, as a critic, I don’t think it’s in anyone’s best interest.
> This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
How does this compare to the large measurable multi year commitments from the last few administrations that never materialized? What about the one from a few months ago the ago?
In defense of OP (which is something coming from a natural skeptic like me), Apple does mention which companies they're investing in -- which is light years ahead of the usual meaningless "we're going to invest $DOLLAR_AMOUNT in manufacturing" bluff we've seen a lot of. Of course, it's sad this is the standard.
The comment below yours by njovin represents the likely truth: that this is another empty promise designed to carry Apple through to the end of this term before they can call the whole thing off with only mild losses.
It's too bad startups can't invest $600B in local manufacturing to get a tariff carve out, right? Oh well, not like entrenching one of the largest companies on Earth even further could be damaging for the economy, competitiveness, or consumers.
> This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
We'll see. The multi-year nature can be seen as a feature or a bug. The benefits are delivered today: tariff carve outs. The promises can be scaled back at any time in the future. We're dealing with what is likely to be an incredibly anomalous economic... "policy". It is likely to not stick around once the current administration leaves, and perhaps even during the course of the current administration. If tariffs go away in the future, then the threat (and reward) disappear along with it. We'll see how incentivized Apple is to keep these commitments under those conditions if they come about.
> Of course, Apple’s global tax practices remain a fair target. But criticising every constructive move on that basis alone risks undermining the very kind of behaviour governments should encourage: strategic reinvestment, not financial engineering.
It should always go without saying that there are ways to go about this that don't involve policies that hurt both consumers and small companies alike. The CHIPS act was one example, and the benefits were arguably more evenly distributed (vs. a set of investments that probably disproportionately help the existing market leader). This administration went out of their way to dismantle that. No conversation about this should leave that out.
> Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest. So be it.
Neither this administration nor Apple seem to really care much about this. This matters for the reasons above: it doesn't make this deal particularly resilient. Both parties got what they wanted immediately: Apple got to avoid an unexpected roadblock (and perhaps gained an advantage over other companies), and Trump gets to look like he got this great deal. So what's to keep it around? This is why aligning actual long term incentives matters, vs. this short term nonsense. A congressional bill for example at minimum has constituents who will benefit or punish the representative at the polls. But we don't even need to get that technical, if neither party cares or believes in this at all, then it is of course set up to default fail. This is not a trivial undertaking we are talking about. It's not just a matter of getting the right parties to invest. You are asking to dramatically change a set of pipelines that have been established over the course of decades and regularly receive equivalent amounts of investment. If you actually want this to happen, you should care about how it happens, and you should realize it matters if this is made up entirely of cynical players with no real demonstrable upside in the end result.
This is neither accountability nor public policy, it’s bullying by a weak man who wants desperately to be seen as strong, who changes his mind on a whim, and who rarely follows through.
Even if they do actually follow through with it, it'll only be "assembly".
Also people calling for tariffs do not understand them, nor do they understand that; yes, China manufactures a shitload of iPhones, and Chinese companies make a small profit on doing so - a deal with Apple is very lucrative. But the majority of the profit made from selling an iPhone goes to Apple, aka an AMERICAN company. For iPhones sold ALL over the world.
Waaaa, I have to import my iPhone from China to America; the profits are still going back to America, perhaps every country that iPhones are sold in needs to put a tariff on nonlocally made products from a nonlocal company to match the absolute stupidity of Trump's logic.
TSMC is building factories in America, and Apple is the biggest customer so far. It's a similar situation for rare earth magnets. So, not just "assembly".
As to tariffs in general, you should learn about something called the "trade deficit". The other countries, such as China, already had tariffs on American products, America is simply reciprocating. If tariffs are so stupid, why do so many countries use them I wonder?
One beneficial side effect of tariffs is bringing strategic manufacturing onshore, such as...semiconductor manufacturing.
Like it or not, the US economy will grow explosively as a result of the current economic policies, after an adjustment period.
How does this square with the Indian tariffs? Are they going to entirely abandon all of their efforts to shift to India from China and pivot to America instead? Or is this in addition to those efforts as a plea for the current administration to drop India’s tariffs?
Either way, India seems like it has once again miscalculated who to side with on the world stage. Russian oil may be cheap, but Russia hasn’t been a reliable ally to any country in the past 30 years, and now India looks set to lose significant investments from the US.
Apple was investing heavily in Indian manufacturing to move off of Chinese manufacturing (allegedly, of course). India is free to supply other markets but that's not what we're talking about here.
I would be curious to understand better if gay is the trigger for Apple. Is it because when they assess the various geopolitical dynamics that they conclude that this is the best thing for the company? Or did they get strong incentives (whether carrots or sticks) and that is why they’re doing it.
There have been many of these announcements that never amounted to anything:
2017: "Apple promised to give US manufacturing a $1 billion boost"
2018: "Apple will make $350 billion contribution to U.S. economy and promised to create 20,000 jobs"
2021: "Apple commits $430 billion in US investments over 5 years"
From https://bsky.app/profile/bgrueskin.bsky.social/post/3lvqqyd4...
Have we also seen them couple the announcements with similar gifts of gold given personally to the sitting president?
https://www.theverge.com/news/737757/apple-president-donald-...
The reason why they don't amount to anything is because there is usually no follow-up and accountability. In China,after such an announcement ,a CCP official(whose promotion hinges on successful implementation of the investment)would have been assigned to Apple to see to it that the project is completed
Because it’s an authoritarian dictatorship that forces people to do things to achieve its goals ?
> Because it’s an authoritarian dictatorship that forces people to do things to achieve its goals ?
That's just part of the puzzle. What makes CPC different from most dictatorships is like NK or SU is that most of ruling elite of CPC is made up of engineers. Along with mandatory CPC ideology leaning, they also have notion that a developed nation is one that builds things. Bankers and Lawyers are ranked way down on power rankings.
On the other hand, most of American ruling elite are lawyers or bankers. So their worldview is mostly rule lawyering, interest earning, hedge fund etc.. Power brokers in these fields make the rules. Builders and engineers rank pretty low in power totem pole.
Do you have more information about this engineering culture of CPC?
https://archive.md/DrquB
Looking at the chart it seems like it's a relatively new phenomenon though.
According to the chart it started under Deng, and that’s also around when China’s current phase of development started.
We forget these days that Chinese communism was a tire fire for the first half century. In 1990 China had the same per capita GDP (PPP) as India. Now China is 4x India.
Them being forced to do things due to the dictatorship is not a compelling argument, as people are forced to do things in Western societies too, via other external factors like risk of poverty and hunger.
What does this have to do with Apple or manufacturing investment pledges? Who is going hungry?
About 17.9% of households with kids under 18: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
And that is because of Apple Inc.?
that is the point --- precisely because the usual mechanisms of enforcement do not apply, there will be no accountability for Apple.
Accountability of what and to whom? Which law are they supposedly breaking?
I think we're so far down the discussion thread, that we've forgotten that we're skeptical about whether Apple will be held accountable to their American investment promises...
didn't our president say they'd be a dictator on day one?
Yup, and all this needing to appease behavior is part of the shtick
He doesn't pay enough attention to see past the headline though.
grep -C 5 “I’ll be a dictator on day one.”
For anyone curious, the context here is that he said he'd be a dictator only on day one.
First, even one day of dictatorship is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Second, we're coming up on day 200 and the Trump administration continues to assert an expansive view of executive power far beyond any historical precedent and to degrade the systems designed to check that power, following a 100% run of the mill authoritarian playbook.
> For anyone curious, the context here is that he said he'd be a dictator only on day one.
Still not correct.
https://youtu.be/dQkrWL7YuGk?t=26
Not sure if intentional, but you trimmed the context. The question was about whether he'd abuse power to get retribution. Here's the link to the start of the video: https://youtu.be/dQkrWL7YuGk?t=1
What you trimmed off:
> Hannity: Under no circumstances, you're promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody
> Trump: Except for Day One... look he's going crazy... Except day one.
> Hannity: Meaning?
> Trump: I'm going to close the border and we're going to drill, drill, drill
Update from day 199:
The border is closed (partially illegally) [1], US oil rigs are down [2], and he is in fact abusing power as retribution against dozens of people and institutions.
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-limits-trump-asylum-crack...
[2]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_rotary_rigs
It’s an authoritarian president that forces Apple to make these promises, even though they will most likely never fulfil them. It’s all just one big play to appease to Trumps love for big numbers.
project management and accountability are communist ideals .
Well, yes, because it's a "state capitalism" hybrid regime. If your position is that US companies should have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy over the wishes of and at the expense of investors, people might reasonably call that .. communism.
They may call it that, but to be precise it would be just an aspect of a planned economy[0]. NB democracies use a similar mechanism but only via companies where the state has the majority of shares which is completely different.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
> have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy
This will happen sooner than you think if the US continues on its current path. Already Trump is asking for something similar for universities. He can use the same hammer for companies as well; deny them all government funding/contracts until they 'voluntarily' give in.
The 'c' word for this is not communism, but corruption. The special thing about corruption is that it can happen in any political 'ism'.
Going after universities using government contracts as leverage was literally on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. People voted the guy who promised to do that to be CEO of the branch of government that manages government contracts.
I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors. I’d call it libertarianism, but the principled libertarian would say we should abolish all funding to private universities.
> I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors.
The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process, and the advice of experts in the administration of grants goes back at least to the magna carta and is so widespread that you would use a more specific term — a "constitutional monarchist", "republican", "democrat", or "democratic socialist", etc., would all agree on this point. The opposite point of view however, has a name — authoritarian — so you could call such a person "anti-authoritarian".
> The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process
Due process protects rights and entitlements. Nobody has a right to receive discretionary government contracts or grants. To the extent we’re taking about preexisting contracts, the universities can sue to enforce whatever contractual rights they have. We have a robust system for recovering from the government for breaches of contract.
> and the advice of experts in the administration of grants
The “expert” stuff is the legacy of a scientific racist who didn’t trust democracy. It’s antithetical to democracy to suggest that the public should be forced to give discretionary grants and contracts to particular entities based on what “experts” think. Those experts are often themselves closely intertwined with the entities receiving the funding! They’re alums of Harvard, they met their spouse during grad school at Columbia, etc. They’ve got deep conflicts of interest.
Communism is a more specific term than that
[flagged]
> that never amounted to anything
They did amount to something.
Those announcements were part of Apple's initiative to build/assemble certain Mac Pros in Texas.
The idea is to do it on a high-margin, low-volume product so that any hiccups can be absorbed in the accounting and aren't as impactful to millions of customers. Hiccups like a dearth of US suppliers of subcomponents.
If a North American customer purchases a Mac Pro its final assembly occurs in Austin, Texas.
According to local media and government reports Apple has spent over a billion dollars in Austin and directly employed about 10,000 new permanent workers so far.
If you count local suppliers, the total is higher.
You can see some of the billion dollars here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dHy52bEoWizDC5qz5
You can click on "See more dates" and select 2020 to see that in two years that site went from "empty lot" to "hundreds of thousands of square feet and thousands of workers".
The Flextronics facility about a mile-and-a-half to the south is another chunk of cash.
Additionally, many, MANY, components from audio codecs to SoC cores to sheets of glass used in Apple products are made in the US and exported for integration into products that are assembled overseas.
If you think 5 years from announcement to construction is a long time, I've been working about that long on a committee to build a tiny 4-bay fire station. It isn't about money, we have the money and infinite money wouldn't really change anything. It's about permits, contractor availability, and subsystem/subcomponent lead times. The diesel fume extraction system installers had a year-long backlog of work alone.
If you're waiting for the iPhone to be built in the US, you're going to be waiting for a long time, perhaps an infinitely long time. Other, higher-margin lower-volume, products? That's more likely.
I'm more familiar than most with how difficult it is to build things in the US, because I build satellites for a living and fire stations as a civic duty.
It's hard.
> The idea is to do it on a high-margin, low-volume product so that any hiccups can be absorbed in the accounting
As opposed to actually eliminating the source of the hiccups.
The Japanese auto manufacturers moved their high-volume, low-margin assembly to the US and succeeded. They started by importing nearly every component and then steadily replaced them with locally-built components.
If Apple was serious, that’s what they would have done. You know, like how they did it in India. Like how they did it in Malaysia. Like how they did it in Vietnam.
Apple’s not serious about US-based manufacturing until proven otherwise. Gold statues don’t prove anything.
> The Japanese auto manufacturers moved their high-volume, low-margin assembly to the US and succeeded. They started by importing nearly every component and then steadily replaced them with locally-built components.
Ironically, Trump's "gotta show results _now!_" rhetoric might kneecap onshoring like this.
> The diesel fume extraction system installers had a year-long backlog of work alone.
What kind of system are you installing? I’ve provided electrical and control wiring for exhaust hose reels at DOT maintenance facilities and bus garages in my local market, you only need a roofer, a mechanical contractor, and an electrician.
If it’s CO/NO sensors with makeup air units and exhaust fans, again that is just roofers, mechanical, and electrical, with widely available parts.
My guess is your fire station is at the ass end of nowhere which limits contractor availability or something along those lines? I’m used to my local metro area market of 3M people with dozens of mechanical, electrical, and commercial roofing contractors around to work with.
Excellent details. No disrespect to the long and difficult work of real-world projects.
I could've been more precise in my wording. Sometimes these announcements (from Apple and other companies) are realized into completed projects, but very often they are misleading/exaggerated claims about money that was already going to be spent, or could possibly be spent.
Trump 2016 was taken less seriously by multinationals, as the anti-globalization wave hasn't fully realized, and corporation were paying lip service to Trump, which the 2016 administration had no choice but to accept it due to only having power in the executive branch.
Trump 2024 is a completely different animal, with control in all 3 branches of government, plus overwhelming voter support in the election. As well as the collapse of globalization (baby boomer retiring reducing demand), and many countries moving to the right at the same time. Reshoring is the correct choice for the next 10 years and beyond, and many multinationals recognize this and have committed hundreds of billions accordingly.
Fair point. But one difference is that Trump 1.0 was still full of globalist neocons while Trump 2.0 is full of true believers. There is follow-through this time. We now have the highest tariffs since 1910, which was inconceivable a decade ago.
The landscape has also changed. In 2018, Apple could wait out Trump hoping to get the Bush GOP back. That party is dead. It will still be corporate friendly, but not on immigration or trade. Big Ag couldn’t even get carved out of the immigration raids. The Clinton Democratic Party is dead too. What’s the odds that either Vance 2028 or AOC 2028 are going to let Apple off the hook on commitments?
Why would that change anything? Apple already got the exemptions it wanted. If Trump changes his mind and comes back, they just need to give him another shiny object and a headline.
The tariffs themselves obviously do not have the requisite durability to justify actual high scale capex. It would be quite literally stupid to invest much in US manufacturing just to get undercut in either 1) a few months when courts rule the entire endeavor unconstitutional or 2) a few years when Trump is out of office.
> Why would that change anything? Apple already got the exemptions it wanted. If Trump changes his mind and comes back, they just need to give him another shiny object and a headline.
Because before, the administration was staffed with Bushies who were happy to let things go when the boss lost interest. Now it’s staffed with people who would be happy to burn Apple down.
> The tariffs themselves obviously do not have the requisite durability to justify actual high scale capex… a few years when Trump is out of office. Trump is the moderate one.
When Trump leaves office in 2028, he’ll either be replaced with JD, or a progressive Democrat. The Bush GOP definitely isn’t coming back, and I suspect the Biden Democratic Party isn’t either. Cutting tariffs isn’t going to be a high priority of the incoming administration either way. And even Biden didn’t cut many of Trump’s tariffs from his first administration.
Let's appreciate that Tim Cook traveled to the White House to present President Trump with literal gold. Cook said it was "designed for you" when presenting it to Trump.
Top tier fidelity here, like in days of old, the Duke of Apple has traveled far to present King Trump with tribute.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/07/tim-...
"Fidelity", or "fellating"?
> Today, Apple partners with thousands of suppliers across all 50 states, supporting more than 450,000 supplier and partner jobs. In the next four years, Apple plans to directly hire 20,000 people in the U.S. — the vast majority focused on R&D, silicon engineering, software development, and AI and machine learning.
So the new jobs they're creating _won't_ be in manufacturing.
Nice PR headline though.
I’d wager about half of those roles are imported too.
I would love to see a list of commitments that corporations and foreign bodies have made to investment in the US, and how they've actually played out over time.
They made a similar commitment in 2018 [1] and 2021 [2], but I can't find any info about whether they actually followed through and whether the projected job numbers were accurate.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/apple-announces-350-billion-...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-announces-430-billio...
A memorable one was Foxconn https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/foxconn-mostly-abandons-10-b...
> Foxconn will reduce its planned investment to $672 million from $10 billion and cut the number of new jobs to 1,454 from 13,000
There's plenty of positive examples including TSMC in Arizona, Samsung in Texas, etc:
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/29/tsmc-breaks-ground-third...
https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/3210
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/311514/20250728/tesla-tap...
TSMC in Arizona flew in many people from Taiwan due to shortage in local labor
I'm glad they're doing what it takes to bootstrap the operation. What TSMC does is highly technical and no doubt there will be a ramp up period to build up the labor pool and talent.
Neither TSMC in Arizona or Samsung in Texas were promises made to the Trump admin though. TSMC was announced in May 2020 (tail end of Trump 1) and Samsung was November 2021.
I don't think GP was saying "no one invests in the US," but rather that these particular announcements clearly designed to appease POTUS do not come to fruition.
I think we all know the answer to that.
Funniest one is Masayoshi Son announcements, in 2016 - $50B for 50k jobs, and in 2024 - $100B for 100k jobs !
2016: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/trump-says-softbank-will-inv...
2024: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/16/softbank-ceo-to-announce-100...
Funny thing here is, that he doesn't even have that money. But who cares these days...
You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.
I myself, $1T for 100 million jobs.
[dead]
Does it matter? Even if nothing gets built both sides are getting what they want.
Yes, because the theater effectively deceives a large portion of the voting public. "Both sides" here are the least important players in the charade. It's everybody they are hosing I care about.
No large portion of the voting public is paying any attention to this.
And most who are paying attention are in it for the vibes. They don’t know enough about trade, economics, international relations or policy to really have an opinion independent from “my side good, other side bad”
Not sure - stock market is at all time high, and valuation are above dot com bubble levels. So I think people are actually paying attention and are getting deceived.
This would also be true if people were just mindlessly dumping cash into S&P500 funds in their 401k.
Partially true, but the valuation would be much more spread out across the components of S&P500, whereas currently they are extremely concentrated in a handfull of names, and a handfull of others (the ones that CEOs are deceiving the public the most) have sky high valuations without being in any index.
But that's what the voting public wants! They demand to be lied to. The feedback loop is problem announced on Fox news / Truth social -> presidential announcement -> positive coverage on Fox/Truth. It's not like the factory actually has to exist for them to be happy. And if they didn't want to be lied to they wouldn't seek out news sources which lie to them and leave them on in their homes constantly.
> It's not like the factory actually has to exist for them to be happy.
If the factory exists it will be ugly, noisy, shit jobs, exploitative, evil bosses, turning the neighbourhood into a slum, etc. People are happier without it existing.
You say that as if Fox News is the only media org that deceives its viewers. There is a reason that American trust in the media is at an all-time historic low.
THIS. I think making promises and not actually delivering completely has been a very common strategy (not judging) for many companies for some time.
Related: “Apple made a 24k gold and glass statue for Donald Trump”
https://www.theverge.com/news/737757/apple-president-donald-...
Only Apple could make a classy ornament for such a tacky gilded-baroque office...
I appreciate how calibrated it is. It's literally empty, it's almost completely transparent, and the 24K gold base is worth far less than a millionth of Apple's annual profits.
Luckily the president doesn't know a metaphor when he sees one.
In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.
I agree that seeing the executive branch's authority continue to swell is not good for our democracy, but corporations (and specifically Apple) offshoring all their labor to developing nations has been viewed as a huge negative for ~30 years?
Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing. I can't stand listening to him talk, but if iPhones aren't reliant on slaves mining cobalt and 13 year olds working 12 hours a days I will consider that a win.
> Any amount of returning manufacturing here, returning power to the middle class by increasing the demand for labor and stopping the exploitation of foreign workers is a good thing.
I don’t think Americans realize that we haven’t suffered a global war since 1945 precisely because global trade took over and nations’ economies became more interdependent than isolated.
These trade wars are signalling pretty much all countries in the world to become more self-sustaining and less dependent on each other. Countries who succeed will be more confident to enter armed conflict because they’ll have less to lose, and those with lots to gain will have every incentive to start or join a war against those who have resources.
Nothing works without trade now. Literally nothing.
Countries have aligned themselves to maximise Ricardian comparative advantage, and there's no way for the global economy to realign itself towards plain old mercantilism without massive pain for everyone.
I think iPhones can take a good bump in the pricing for bringing the manufacturing onshore. Currently an iPhone is 30% more expensive in developing countries like India compared to US, Dubai or even Japan. Thats insane, and still an average adult is looking forward to own one. That is 50% of your annual income you have to spend for buying an arguably, state of the art mobile phone. If you are in US, an iPhone is only approximately 1% of your annual per capita income. Thats massive difference..
iPhones are more expensive in developing countries due to developing country taxes and tariffs. China used to be the same way (iPhones are imported into China because they are made in SEZs), but has a price that is comparable to the USA now mainly due to china’s push for more consumption by Chinese consumers. iPhone prices are high in India simply because the government would rather Indian consumers not spend money on them, not because the Indian government thinks they can afford it.
The USA is sort of addicted to consumption (where China wants to be actually), you could dissuade a lot of consumption by raising taxes on it (if, for example, you want people to save more and focus only on necessities). It would be a huge change for America though, the market might not survive intact if it happens too quickly.
Even if there are zero tariffs, the per capita difference is so huge. US was so far reaping the benefit of product made with labour from developing countries and consumers getting wages from developed country, making buying a new phone a rather insignificant portion of total yearly salary, however for a common man in developing country, owning an Apple device is sometimes equal to your yearly salary. So yea even if manufacturing moves to US and prices doubles, the consumers can absorb it.
Consumers won't absorb it, they will just buy less of it, like the common man in the developing country does. You don't just absorb higher prices, you re-prioritize your spending so that you still spend the same.
I mean, it's not going to fix the cobalt mining problem.
> In isolation, this might be a positive. But watching one of the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime is neither a good look nor what we should hope for as an example of how to influence corporate decisionmaking.
Ironically, your comment is double-bladed.
This has likely been in the works from when China shook Apple down and the timing has a nice upside that it also pacifies His Orangeness(tm).
An American president using the bully pulpit (as Teddy Roosevelt so fondly called it) to expand jobs and investment in America is the president doing his actual job.
Of course Apple didn't do it on their own accord, there was way too much profit to be made from outsourcing to China. Everyone else was doing it, why not also the richest company on earth?
I’m sure Americans are just dying for jobs like screwing iPhones together all day, or standing in a field under the burning sun harvesting tomatoes.
You mean manufacturing and farming jobs? Absolutely, they're decent jobs and far more rewarding than serving diabetes to McDonald's and Starbucks patrons.
Tomato harvesting is done in an air conditioned tractor these days:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/pDxZhOw9IH4
https://youtu.be/l4Dc6QNWiIs?si=S9qrFNpUBM5KuSrx
Production on iPhone can be highly automated these days as well. There are plenty of good examples of revitalized computer hardware manufacturing in the U.S. like the Starlink Factory in Bastrop, TX:
https://youtu.be/qz0k4wj_KlA?si=qUqJ0DWTRpHa4cgY
or the TSMC factory in Arizona, which has similar amenities to many software offices:
https://youtu.be/X3QuVwR30Uk?si=D92n34OZUpzAHIFn
Those jobs require a ton of college education. Atleast as far as I know TSMC only allows PhDs on lithography and etching machines. And Apple smartphone manufacturing is nearly automated and most of the required personnel are engineers.
Instead we should just give it to brown people and pay them minimum wage or less than in other countries.
If we give it to Americans, then we just also rely on brown people making minimum wage or less - undocumented Americans.
The reality is our entire economy is more or less fake - it's propped up like a dead body by hyper-consumerism. We rely on buying way more shit than we should, and that, in turn, requires warm bodies who can't live off their wages. This is in high contrast to the economy of the early to mid 20th century.
We can rip that bandaid off, but things would suck for a while, maybe a long time. That's a hard sell - especially since we (not underpaid) get nothing.
It’s surprising to see this done by the right, the left is supposed to strong arm corporations to do things.
Cook is getting significant considerations on imports and offering Trump PR with zero obligation. Maybe they invest, maybe they don't, maybe they just do what they were going to do anyway.
They only have to look like they're working on this for the next three and a half years.
Then they'll pay import tariffs on the foreign components. And they'll increase their supply chain risk (as well as regulatory risk) in a polarized political climate.
Trump is only in office for 3 and a half years. Spending $600b will take much longer time than that. Assuming america remains democratic, the next president is very likely to wash away most of what Trump has done on day one (since he did all of this via executive order).
1. The escalated tension between the United States and China is unlikely to resolve in the next 3.5 years. Apple already took the step to move iPhone production to India. However, as recently shown, even India could be subject to tariffs as they are purchasing Russian oil and in effect funding the Ukraine war. The next president will have to operate in a multipolar world.
2. The tariffs are producing revenue for the Federal government. Hundreds of billions per year. To remove the tariffs arbitrarily in the future, a President would need to assume the political risk of increasing the national deficit.
3. Trump imposed tarriffs on his first term that Biden did not reverse. Even if the next President is a Democrat it's more likely than not that the trade deals remain in place.
4. A strong contender for the next president is the current vice president, JD Vance, who would be highly unlikely to reverse.
Trump’s approval ratings is in the gutter like it was during his last term. He doesn’t reach out and make new fans, he just loses the ones he has. JD Vance is even less popular than trump, anyone who thinks their electoral success occurs even with extra gerrymandering for the midterms is probably in for a huge surprise.
Trump didn’t initiate sweeping tariffs in his last term, and they weren’t wildly unpopular. Trump is accumulating enough bad will at the moment to make it very politically easy for someone to wash away everything if they win the 2028 election.
Approval ratings are unscientific, fleeting, and wildly variable, even among Presidents that go on to be reelected. It is a stat you take with a grain of salt, especially 6 months into a presidency. Even the polls for the actual election, which get far more money to spend, were wildly inaccurate especially in recent elections.
If Trump's moves pan out in the positive for American people over the next year or two, controversial as they may be in the present, then sentiment will increase, plain and simple.
JD Vance is quite popular among Republicans and reasonably popular among independents, which is all you need to win the presidency. The Democrats, on the other hand, have no heir apparent and have quite a few structural issues within their own party at the national level. We'll see what the actual field looks like in 2028 but that is a long ways off and a lot will change between now and then.
Most people are upset that Trump isn't going hard enough and that's why his approval rating dropped.
1. Apple moved production to India to avoid Indian tariffs so as to sell it to Indians. Initially the factory only made iphones for Indians. 2. Tariffs revenue will stabilize once they are set and revenue can easily fall. 3. Democrats are for free trade since the FDR administration, Biden was an exception not the norm for democrats. 4. JD Vance has to win first, he is not charismatic or funny like Trump.
Vance doesn't support tariffs except in his role as Trump's agent. Absolutely nobody in politics besides Trump thinks these tariffs are a good idea. It's not clear tariffs are actually going to reduce the deficit just because they bring revenue because they are likely suppressing growth. Repealing the Trump tax cuts would be on the table for Democrats and Republicans would be happy just ignore the deficit issue again.
Either the American market will collapse or they will pay those fées anyways
> But when ... the world’s richest multinationals do this primarily in response to an autocratic, authoritarian regime ...
...it gifts authoritarian power to autocrats and fully guarantees more authoritarian behavior.
[flagged]
After reading your comment I was curious whether I misunderstood what authoritarianism was but from reading the wiki that winning an election definitely doesn't make something inherently not authoritarian and there are lots of examples of authoritarians who were elected in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world.
Don't you think that's a bit unbelievable? You don't think there's a bit of bias/hyperbole there?
If you disagree, respond with a specific policy you think is "authoritarian" so everyone can debate it.
-- post limit, replying to below --
In 4 years if your side makes a convincing argument then you can undo those executive orders you feel are "authoritarian". Until then, we feel they aren't and they are just, and they are the right thing to do. And the law agrees.
Sorry you disagree but that's how it is. Sometimes your side doesn't call the shots. But the system is still working. I promise you another person that aligns with you will be in power eventually... unfortunately.
A +1% majority thinks authoritarianism is good for America, and maybe this democracy experiment that the founding fathers wasn’t such a great idea. He is literally ruling by executive fiat, and owns the Supreme Court while congress is inert, so there is nothing there to stop him.
Executive orders, at least, are completely ephemeral. The other side doesn’t have to make an argument, they just need to win the presidency. All of Trump’s executive orders can be undone on day one of the new president’s term. Only laws made by congress are binding past the president’s term. Even Trump supporters should know that, Apple definitely does.
"I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world." -> I mean it is obviously interesting but it sure as hell is not surprising based on my experience talking to people. I've met a lot of people for who democratic norms are pretty low down on their list of politically important things (you can see this in all the anti-democratic stuff like gerrymandering that is pretty rampant in the US. Americans are often willing to sacrifice some amount of democracy for policy goals).
Specifically for examples, I mean the most classic authoritarian action is to wield authority to try to stay in power (which the fact that it was unsuccessful doesn't make it not authoritarian, especially when the lesson from it seems to have been to further consolidate power as he's done this term), it's pretty hard to get more cut and dry than that. But it's also pretty clear in how Trump has taken control of government funding in the US , by centralizing more funding power under him (especially the ability to arbitrarily cut programs legally funded by Congress). It's not really about the specific policies though, its the general pattern of centralization of authority and entrenchment of that authority that we've been seeing.
P.S. this Federalist Paper highlights why the power of the purse is only in Congress in the US and I think is interesting, especially when talking about budget in regards to authoritarianism (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-02... this paper was written by Madison, who is better known as the primary writer of the Constitution). Relevant excerpt:
"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
> but there's nothing authoritarian about that.
Keeping authoritarian promises is authoritarian. Believing otherwise is interesting.
You need to expand on what you think is "authoritarian".
Otherwise, a conversation can not be had.
It's interesting you view that he ran on authoritarian ideals, yet still won the popular vote.
Yes while populist leaders can be authoritarian, it does not mean this one is. I'm still waiting for someone to name a specific policy so a discussion debating whether it is authoritarian or not can begin.
It is however, interesting that you believe a candidate ran on and won the popular vote as the leader of the free world on authoritarian ideals. Do you think that little of American voters? Or are you misinformed / biased?
“Authoritarian” and “popular” are not antonyms.
It’s distressing that apparently half of the country welcomes or at least doesn’t mind authoritarianism, but it doesn’t somehow disprove it.
Ugh I can’t wait for the realization of all of the definitely-real-not-fake populist gains and definitely-not-inevitable-now downward spiral of leadership integrity and outcomes.
/s obviously. Does anyone else remember PPP? And the last 10 years of accelerationist wet dreams come true?
I totally agree with you about the motivations... and I can't speak to how many long term jobs will come out of this.
But if this even gives us some chance to jolt our manufacturing sector back, will we start to gain some momentum? Even if it's mostly using automation. Will it help to reduce our reliance on China?
I doubt it will in the same way that it's been extremely hard for other countries to replicate the US momentum in R&D.
But one can hope.
Anyone remember the $10B Foxconn factory in WI?
And Intel's $28B factory in OH?
PR (and golden gifts (bribes?)) is easy.
I feel like this is just harmless PR no?
People have pointed out that brands all put rainbows on their public docs for pride month. But not in Islamic countries and much less with Trump in power etc.
This is just the same effect but for US nationalists no?
Actual decisions and spending/investment etc will continue to be driven by economics. But PR is about who you want to reassure/appease/curry favour with. And the two are basically independent.
Onshoring chip manufacturing - good
Onshoring assembly of consumer electronics despite low unemployment - bad
It's good the correct subset of manufacturing is being onshored.
> Onshoring assembly of consumer electronics despite low unemployment - bad
Why? Especially considering military systems are looking increasingly like masses of consumer electronics (e.g. FPV drones).
If the US is willing to import many more low-skilled workers, then I would agree it's a great idea. Absent that, with a 4% unemployment, then the pigeon hole principle makes it difficult. Open to proposals about how it could be done without significant downside.
> Open to proposals about how it could be done without significant downside.
That's a policy straitjacket: a demand that strategic and necessary things can be done only if there's no downside for some privileged group.
If the US doesn't want to be a weak-ass paper tiger, it needs the capability to mass-produce consumer electronics (a civilian capability that can be redirected for military purposes, if needed). That will likely require trade offs.
Let's employ fewer people in the sandwich-assembly industry and more people assembling electronics.
> If the US is willing to import many more low-skilled workers, then I would agree it's a great idea.
Bring back slavery to the USA. :-)
Downstream assembly factories attract component manufacturers because of lower transport costs and shorter delivery times, which can lead to network effects. (Remember why Intel wanted to build more foundries in China a few years ago?) That's the success formula of Shenzhen, for example.
Trump encouraging companies to move engineering outside of the US, and manufacturing inside of the US. Truly a genius.
Cook gave Trump a custom gold trophy. Spineless ******.
The video is so cringey and embarrassing too.
Trump's infantile and self-aggrandizing personality is historically influenceable via such techniques.
So, it's also smart.
Makes me nauseous.
He is the CEO of a company. A president has been elected and will be in office for next 4years still, during which Apple may need his help with issue faced with foreign governments.
It's not spineless, it's his job to act in the interests of the company
So Apple is just straight up admitting, in front of the nation, that the current government blatantly operates on bribes.
A president was elected on a very specific mandate.
Aside from a few things, Trump did say what he was going to do. And that included Tariffs and pressuring US companies to move manufacturing home.
It's what the people voted for and Apple knows this.
Oh please. We all voted for this blatant corruption?
Lesser of two evils?
What was the other evil, exactly?
Will be a good thing ™
Apple’s announcement should be welcomed as a tangible demonstration of corporate accountability in the age of offshore tax minimisation and digital opacity. Rather than simply repurchasing stock or warehousing profits abroad, Apple is deploying capital to grow its US footprint, support domestic suppliers and invest in technological infrastructure.
The program’s breadth also deserves recognition. It includes manufacturing partnerships, data centres, clean energy, and support for educational and community initiatives. This is not PR fluff. Apple’s prior commitments funded chipmaking in Arizona, new engineering hubs and 5G innovation. The expansion builds on that trajectory.
Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest. So be it. Public policy should align incentives such that private benefit also serves the public good. In this case, job creation, supply chain resilience, and regional development in states like Iowa and Oregon are clear wins.
Of course, Apple’s global tax practices remain a fair target. But criticising every constructive move on that basis alone risks undermining the very kind of behaviour governments should encourage: strategic reinvestment, not financial engineering.
This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
> Apple’s announcement should be welcomed as a tangible demonstration of corporate accountability in the age of…
They brought a 24k gold trophy for the president. That’s the tangible demonstration here.
> This is not PR fluff. > Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest.
This is PR fluff and, as a critic, I don’t think it’s in anyone’s best interest.
> This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
How does this compare to the large measurable multi year commitments from the last few administrations that never materialized? What about the one from a few months ago the ago?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/apple-will-spend-more...
In defense of OP (which is something coming from a natural skeptic like me), Apple does mention which companies they're investing in -- which is light years ahead of the usual meaningless "we're going to invest $DOLLAR_AMOUNT in manufacturing" bluff we've seen a lot of. Of course, it's sad this is the standard.
They are doing whatever the guy in charge wants. They are basically throwing money around to make him happy.
There is no grand strategy here and I assure you after he is gone nobody will even know if this pledge was followed through.
The comment below yours by njovin represents the likely truth: that this is another empty promise designed to carry Apple through to the end of this term before they can call the whole thing off with only mild losses.
Your comments read like AI to me.
It's too bad startups can't invest $600B in local manufacturing to get a tariff carve out, right? Oh well, not like entrenching one of the largest companies on Earth even further could be damaging for the economy, competitiveness, or consumers.
> This is a large, measurable, and multi-year commitment. It should be acknowledged as such.
We'll see. The multi-year nature can be seen as a feature or a bug. The benefits are delivered today: tariff carve outs. The promises can be scaled back at any time in the future. We're dealing with what is likely to be an incredibly anomalous economic... "policy". It is likely to not stick around once the current administration leaves, and perhaps even during the course of the current administration. If tariffs go away in the future, then the threat (and reward) disappear along with it. We'll see how incentivized Apple is to keep these commitments under those conditions if they come about.
> Of course, Apple’s global tax practices remain a fair target. But criticising every constructive move on that basis alone risks undermining the very kind of behaviour governments should encourage: strategic reinvestment, not financial engineering.
It should always go without saying that there are ways to go about this that don't involve policies that hurt both consumers and small companies alike. The CHIPS act was one example, and the benefits were arguably more evenly distributed (vs. a set of investments that probably disproportionately help the existing market leader). This administration went out of their way to dismantle that. No conversation about this should leave that out.
> Critics may argue Apple is acting in self-interest. So be it.
Neither this administration nor Apple seem to really care much about this. This matters for the reasons above: it doesn't make this deal particularly resilient. Both parties got what they wanted immediately: Apple got to avoid an unexpected roadblock (and perhaps gained an advantage over other companies), and Trump gets to look like he got this great deal. So what's to keep it around? This is why aligning actual long term incentives matters, vs. this short term nonsense. A congressional bill for example at minimum has constituents who will benefit or punish the representative at the polls. But we don't even need to get that technical, if neither party cares or believes in this at all, then it is of course set up to default fail. This is not a trivial undertaking we are talking about. It's not just a matter of getting the right parties to invest. You are asking to dramatically change a set of pipelines that have been established over the course of decades and regularly receive equivalent amounts of investment. If you actually want this to happen, you should care about how it happens, and you should realize it matters if this is made up entirely of cynical players with no real demonstrable upside in the end result.
[dead]
Wish everyone in America could read this even keeled comment. Great stuff from Apple
This is neither accountability nor public policy, it’s bullying by a weak man who wants desperately to be seen as strong, who changes his mind on a whim, and who rarely follows through.
Ahahahahaha. HA HA HAAAaaaa.
Even if they do actually follow through with it, it'll only be "assembly".
Also people calling for tariffs do not understand them, nor do they understand that; yes, China manufactures a shitload of iPhones, and Chinese companies make a small profit on doing so - a deal with Apple is very lucrative. But the majority of the profit made from selling an iPhone goes to Apple, aka an AMERICAN company. For iPhones sold ALL over the world.
Waaaa, I have to import my iPhone from China to America; the profits are still going back to America, perhaps every country that iPhones are sold in needs to put a tariff on nonlocally made products from a nonlocal company to match the absolute stupidity of Trump's logic.
I guess you didn't read the article.
TSMC is building factories in America, and Apple is the biggest customer so far. It's a similar situation for rare earth magnets. So, not just "assembly".
As to tariffs in general, you should learn about something called the "trade deficit". The other countries, such as China, already had tariffs on American products, America is simply reciprocating. If tariffs are so stupid, why do so many countries use them I wonder?
One beneficial side effect of tariffs is bringing strategic manufacturing onshore, such as...semiconductor manufacturing.
Like it or not, the US economy will grow explosively as a result of the current economic policies, after an adjustment period.
How does this square with the Indian tariffs? Are they going to entirely abandon all of their efforts to shift to India from China and pivot to America instead? Or is this in addition to those efforts as a plea for the current administration to drop India’s tariffs?
Either way, India seems like it has once again miscalculated who to side with on the world stage. Russian oil may be cheap, but Russia hasn’t been a reliable ally to any country in the past 30 years, and now India looks set to lose significant investments from the US.
Only items sold in America may need to be made in America?
So India/ China can supply other markets?
Apple was investing heavily in Indian manufacturing to move off of Chinese manufacturing (allegedly, of course). India is free to supply other markets but that's not what we're talking about here.
This seems like a good thing.
I would be curious to understand better if gay is the trigger for Apple. Is it because when they assess the various geopolitical dynamics that they conclude that this is the best thing for the company? Or did they get strong incentives (whether carrots or sticks) and that is why they’re doing it.
Forced compliance never generates the follow-through or results of authentic strategy.
Carrot on a stick.
Apple has been directly threatened with tariffs by Trump. Currently they are exempt from the India tariffs.
The capex commitment in the US is a transactional agreement to ensure that these exceptions are kept.
Aren’t those one in the same?
Unless Apple cuts its margin it means their products will become more expensive.
They need to grow their margin to grow their P/E, so I can tell you what they aren't doing voluntarily.
Plenty of other ways to grow P/E ratio without increasing margin and of course, they don't really need to increase their P/E ratio.