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?
estearum · 32m ago
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.
rayiner · 14m ago
> 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.
MaxPock · 7h ago
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
pjc50 · 3h ago
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.
benterix · 1h ago
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'.
presentation · 2h ago
Communism is a more specific term than that
bamboozled · 7h ago
Because it’s an authoritarian dictatorship that forces people to do things to achieve its goals ?
mayama · 6h ago
> 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.
sswezey · 4h ago
Do you have more information about this engineering culture of CPC?
Looking at the chart it seems like it's a relatively new phenomenon though.
rayiner · 52m ago
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.
mbs159 · 7h ago
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.
ulfw · 6h ago
What does this have to do with Apple or manufacturing investment pledges? Who is going hungry?
darthoctopus · 6h ago
that is the point --- precisely because the usual mechanisms of enforcement do not apply, there will be no accountability for Apple.
pjc50 · 3h ago
Accountability of what and to whom? Which law are they supposedly breaking?
nxobject · 2h ago
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?
rayiner · 49m ago
grep -C 5 “I’ll be a dictator on day one.”
estearum · 25m ago
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.
rayiner · 20m ago
> For anyone curious, the context here is that he said he'd be a dictator only on day one.
Yup, and all this needing to appease behavior is part of the shtick
Buttons840 · 2h ago
He doesn't pay enough attention to see past the headline though.
MaxPock · 1h ago
project management and accountability are communist ideals .
FranzFerdiNaN · 5h ago
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.
njovin · 10h ago
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.
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.
mbs159 · 7h ago
TSMC in Arizona flew in many people from Taiwan due to shortage in local labor
chrisco255 · 2h ago
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.
lokar · 9h ago
Does it matter? Even if nothing gets built both sides are getting what they want.
sgc · 9h ago
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.
pjc50 · 3h ago
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.
blitzar · 1h ago
> 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.
loeg · 9h ago
No large portion of the voting public is paying any attention to this.
lokar · 8h ago
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”
TheAlchemist · 7h ago
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.
loeg · 6h ago
This would also be true if people were just mindlessly dumping cash into S&P500 funds in their 401k.
TheAlchemist · 6h ago
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.
Copenjin · 7h ago
THIS. I think making promises and not actually delivering completely has been a very common strategy (not judging) for many companies for some time.
Arubis · 9h ago
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.
ericmcer · 8h ago
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.
rTX5CMRXIfFG · 6h ago
> 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.
murukesh_s · 8h ago
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..
seanmcdirmid · 8h ago
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.
jemmyw · 8h ago
I mean, it's not going to fix the cobalt mining problem.
bsder · 8h ago
> 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).
chrisco255 · 8h ago
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?
FranzFerdiNaN · 4h ago
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.
chrisco255 · 2h ago
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:
Instead we should just give it to brown people and pay them minimum wage or less than in other countries.
WarOnPrivacy · 8h ago
> 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.
tootie · 8h ago
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.
chrisco255 · 8h ago
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.
seanmcdirmid · 8h ago
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).
chrisco255 · 2h ago
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.
realusername · 7h ago
Either the American market will collapse or they will pay those fées anyways
ocdtrekkie · 6h ago
They only have to look like they're working on this for the next three and a half years.
atonse · 9h ago
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.
energy123 · 8h ago
Onshoring chip manufacturing - good
Onshoring assembly of consumer electronics despite low unemployment - bad
It's good the correct subset of manufacturing is being onshored.
typ · 7h ago
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.
palmotea · 7h ago
> 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).
energy123 · 7h ago
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.
aleph_minus_one · 3h ago
>
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. :-)
archagon · 3h ago
Related: “Apple made a 24k gold and glass statue for Donald Trump”
Only Apple could make a classy ornament for such a tacky gilded-baroque office...
LatteLazy · 4h ago
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.
Jyaif · 7h ago
Trump encouraging companies to move engineering outside of the US, and manufacturing inside of the US. Truly a genius.
cfyohyuityun · 7h ago
Cook gave Trump a custom gold trophy. Spineless ******.
myvoiceismypass · 6h ago
The video is so cringey and embarrassing too.
v5v3 · 7h ago
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
tastyface · 3h ago
So Apple is just straight up admitting, in front of the nation, that the current government blatantly operates on bribes.
v5v3 · 2h ago
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.
pcunite · 9h ago
Will be a good thing ™
nelox · 8h ago
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.
vineyardmike · 7h ago
> 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.
tacker2000 · 7h ago
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.
bryant · 7h ago
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.
blast · 7h ago
Your comments read like AI to me.
tolmasky · 7h ago
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.
wat10000 · 8h ago
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.
Flatcircle · 8h ago
Wish everyone in America could read this even keeled comment. Great stuff from Apple
jimbob45 · 8h ago
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.
v5v3 · 7h ago
Only items sold in America may need to be made in America?
So India/ China can supply other markets?
jimbob45 · 6h ago
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.
andsoitis · 13h ago
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.
browningstreet · 8h ago
Forced compliance never generates the follow-through or results of authentic strategy.
Fade_Dance · 9h ago
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.
al_borland · 12h ago
Aren’t those one in the same?
croes · 10h ago
Unless Apple cuts its margin it means their products will become more expensive.
onlyrealcuzzo · 9h ago
They need to grow their margin to grow their P/E, so I can tell you what they aren't doing voluntarily.
Aloisius · 9h ago
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.
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...
https://www.theverge.com/news/737757/apple-president-donald-...
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?
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.
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Still not correct.
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...
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...
I myself, $1T for 100 million jobs.
> 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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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
...it gifts authoritarian power to autocrats and fully guarantees more authoritarian behavior.
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.
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.
Onshoring assembly of consumer electronics despite low unemployment - bad
It's good the correct subset of manufacturing is being onshored.
Why? Especially considering military systems are looking increasingly like masses of consumer electronics (e.g. FPV drones).
Bring back slavery to the USA. :-)
https://www.theverge.com/news/737757/apple-president-donald-...
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.
It's not spineless, it's his job to act in the interests of the company
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.
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.
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...
There is no grand strategy here and I assure you after he is gone nobody will even know if this pledge was followed through.
> 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.
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.
So India/ China can supply other markets?
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.
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.