>The ban stems from Apple’s failure to fulfill its investment commitments in Indonesia. Reports indicate that the tech giant has invested approximately 1.48 trillion Rupiah (around $95 million) of the promised 1.71 trillion Rupiah, resulting in a shortfall of about 230 billion Rupiah ($14.75 million).
No, it's like missed payment, missed taxes and then being told to pay up. When a company promises to invest money in a country it's not from the bottom of their charitable hearts. It's because they get tons of benefits, preferences, cuts for that. If you don't invest after that you basically are going for a free ride. In fact this looks like least of a shake-down. Shake down was what was done in Brazil to X (and I actually loved that shakedown - that's a different story), shakedown is what India did to TikTok (again, it was needed), what US did to Huawei (and rightly so) etc.
Also you have generously not included parts of the article that clarifies things.
There's a huge difference between prohibiting the import and sale of a product (much more reasonable) and prohibiting the ownership and use of a product (much less reasonable).
I’d think that importing and using for example an aviation band transceiver is regulated in most countries, and prohibited unless both the device and the user fulfil certain requirements. As such, prohibiting the ownership and use of a device is nothing extraordinary.
Nah, see it’s just like the 30% cut of revenue Apple demands for the privilege of being in their App Store under the guise of it being for the greater good.
Indonesia just needs to take a page out of their playbook and make a statement along the lines of:
“Indonesia is committed to fostering a secure and equitable marketplace that upholds the highest standards for consumer protection and quality. By partnering with Apple through a certification program, we support the integrity of Apple’s products and ensure they align with our local regulatory standards, creating a trusted environment for our citizens. In exchange for this certification, their investment enables us to maintain rigorous oversight, build public safety infrastructure, and continue fostering an innovative ecosystem where global tech leaders like Apple can deliver safe, high-quality products to our market.”
You can be arrested for even owning the iPhone 16, and are encouraged to report people owning it - this is some real authoritarian loser energy.
No one is gonna want to invest in Indonesia if they keep doing shit like this.
Indonesia will relax real fast if the US imposes some harsh tariffs (which it should.) We let other countries rent seek from our companies way too much.
> You can be arrested for even owning the iPhone 16, and are encouraged to report people owning it - this is some real authoritarian loser energy.
Dramatic comments require dramatic sources. This is WILD conjecture and I'm almost certain you're relying on a bizarre interpretation of the Ministry's statement on these devices not being certified.
They are prohibiting the use, import, and sale of the product because it is not yet certified. This is exactly the same way it works in the US. If you import a product that is not FCC certified, it is illegal. You will be asked to stop using it, but to say you're subject to arrest is SpongeBob levels of hyperventilation. An arrest is reserved for things like communication jamming of airports, not for someone using an uncertified device.
I also love the contradiction here - Apple fans will say it's OK for Apple to prevent "illegal devices" from its iMessage network, but now here it's not OK for Indonesia's Ministry of Industry to prevent actual statutorily illegal IMEIs from wireless networks.
> We let other countries rent seek from our companies way too much
This is one of the most hilarious, out of touch statements I've ever heard.
Our companies are the rent-seekers.
When Chevron goes to South America and harvests oil, giving them only 10% of the revenue (despite it being their oil!) and then leaves hundreds of billions of US dollars in environmental damage, what do you call that?
That's 1 example. Our companies constantly go to poorer, more corrupt countires with the sole intention of exploitation. Whether that be borderline slave labor or stealing resources. Because those places are so poor, we often give them pennies on the dollar and call it a day. I mean, why the fuck not sell HIV infected medicine to Africa? (yes, real, and yes, knowingly).
And the best part? When those companies inevitably cause crimes against humanity, there's no recourse. The companies scatter like cockroaches in the light. Good luck suing them in US court. We'd sooner suck our own dicks than admit poisoning the Amazon is kind of bad.
Shake-down? The article is relatively light on details. However if Apple promised these payments and didn't go through with them it's a simple case of Apple not fulfilling their obligation.
Erm, the US, EU, China and others do this exact same thing. I guess it can be construed as a shakedown, but it's pretty normal globally.
The context you conveniently left out:
> Earlier this month, the minister had already indicated that the iPhone 16 could not be sold in the country due to the pending TKDN certification, which requires that 40 percent of a product’s content be sourced locally. This certification is crucial for Apple as it is linked to the company’s commitment to establish research and development facilities in Indonesia, known as the Apple Academy
What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest? This isn't just banning someone from selling, this is asking you to report your neighbor if you see them owning an iPhone.
There are many examples, but the most famous is TikTok. They had to either sell part of their company [to an American company] or be banned in the US. They didn't sell so now they're being banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...
Much more common than an outright ban is simply egregious tariffs. (Which didn't do anything to stave off foreign competition or increase local competition, but it did line our pockets)
That’s not what the US does. The US has bigger infrastructure, and typically more pull in the financial sphere. They’ll usually seize funds directly if they really need to, and they have, or pressure governments in numerous other ways.
Different ballgame altogether
The only real exceptions have been chips and electronics from China particularly regarding wireless infrastructure and computing.
The US has the pull to make foreing companies not sell their products to countries sanctioned by the US.
TSMC can't sell a lot of products to China, neither ASML.
You can't fly to Cuba directly from the US, neither can import their Cigars.
Venezuela, Iran and Russia along other's can't access their international reserves deposited in American Banks.
It is just a different scale and for completely different reasons. If anything, other countries are learning to play by the same playbook for their particular reasons.
> What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few. All of which are being considered for bans under the pretense that they're not domestic enough to trust and import.
Indonesia is right to take a strong approach here; Apple is a documented tax dodger in the EU and would have likely ignored lesser action.
Apple has invested $95M, and missing $14.75M. So they have reached 86% of the 40% target. Based on this logic, 34% of the iPhone 16 was sourced from Indonesia? Not trying to be snarky, I'm probably misunderstanding this.
Sidenote: this website is unreadable on a mobile browser due to popups, auto-playing videos, etc.
> a process that verifies that a mobile device complies with the technical specifications of a particular network operator. This certification is typically required before a device can be used on that network.
That is seemingly the only result for "IMEI certification" and is wholly unsourced and just seems to be a best guess based on the phrase. Is there an actual source, perhaps from the Indonesian authority that requires it that explains it? Because I certainly can't seem to find it.
On a side note, iPhone's seem to last quite a while. I still have a Xr and it runs the latest iOS quite well, so people might be good for a while if they stick with the 15.
Exactly, it's such a short-sighted way of thinking to consider the current share of revenue. Most of poor Asian countries will eventually get rich, and giving up those markets means giving up future profits. If you don't build brand recognition while the country is still poor, others will do it, and then you'll be fighting an uphill battle, especially considering how half of the value of having Apple hardware is the brand.
I’m on a 13 mini as I refuse to leave the smaller form factor. It’s still working AOK - at some point they’ll EOL it but I don’t notice any performance issues or anything
The traditional solution is to slap a big tax on imports cf Thailand and cars. Somehow I don’t see the governor of Bali instituting checks at DPS for this.
Sort of referenced above. TKDN in Indonesia requires a substantial part of the product to be sourced internally. I guess the way around this in the case of special goods is to invest in the country. Sounds effectively like a tariff but maybe not.
It's a protectionist trade scheme, like tariffs, but instead forces foreign business to actively invest in local business or R&D, to level up the country's production capability. It might not have its intended result, but it's no worse than the US's exorbitant trade tariffs, which were actually increased under Biden after Trump introduced them.
People always act shocked when developing countries act just as unscrupulously as the dominant powers. They learned from the best!
2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do. Collective punishment is terrible no matter who does it. And most tariffs are sanction-adjacent stupidity that largely leads to reprisal counter-tariffs and trade wars accomplishing nothing.
Well, radio is a shared medium, so governments typically require passing some sort of certification to allow radio devices to operate in their jurisdiction. Most governments are pretty lenient, pass a set of clearly defined emissions thresholds or compliance to communications protocols verivied by a third party, others may choose to add additional requirements.
The general exception to this are ham (amateur) radios, they usually have exemptions carved into frequency plans so they can run anything from fully original designs over kit builds to ready-to-operate stuff.
What I find surprising about this is that the amount is so little to Apple.
Their net operating cash flow is something like 120bn, and they've let their flagship product be banned in a country of 270 million people, and all the negative press, and the public perception of them, all just by not paying out 15m.
I can't believe this is deliberate, so I wonder what really happened?
Indonesia is big but is it a big market for Apple? I mean even western consumers are a bit miffed by $1k phones and average salary in Indonesia is ~$227/mo [1]. Is there enough buyers to sell $15m worth of iPhones, let alone make that much profit?
No, it's like missed payment, missed taxes and then being told to pay up. When a company promises to invest money in a country it's not from the bottom of their charitable hearts. It's because they get tons of benefits, preferences, cuts for that. If you don't invest after that you basically are going for a free ride. In fact this looks like least of a shake-down. Shake down was what was done in Brazil to X (and I actually loved that shakedown - that's a different story), shakedown is what India did to TikTok (again, it was needed), what US did to Huawei (and rightly so) etc.
Also you have generously not included parts of the article that clarifies things.
There's a huge difference between prohibiting the import and sale of a product (much more reasonable) and prohibiting the ownership and use of a product (much less reasonable).
I’d think that importing and using for example an aviation band transceiver is regulated in most countries, and prohibited unless both the device and the user fulfil certain requirements. As such, prohibiting the ownership and use of a device is nothing extraordinary.
I think they meant Apple is doing the shake-down.
Nah, see it’s just like the 30% cut of revenue Apple demands for the privilege of being in their App Store under the guise of it being for the greater good.
Indonesia just needs to take a page out of their playbook and make a statement along the lines of:
“Indonesia is committed to fostering a secure and equitable marketplace that upholds the highest standards for consumer protection and quality. By partnering with Apple through a certification program, we support the integrity of Apple’s products and ensure they align with our local regulatory standards, creating a trusted environment for our citizens. In exchange for this certification, their investment enables us to maintain rigorous oversight, build public safety infrastructure, and continue fostering an innovative ecosystem where global tech leaders like Apple can deliver safe, high-quality products to our market.”
You can be arrested for even owning the iPhone 16, and are encouraged to report people owning it - this is some real authoritarian loser energy.
No one is gonna want to invest in Indonesia if they keep doing shit like this.
Indonesia will relax real fast if the US imposes some harsh tariffs (which it should.) We let other countries rent seek from our companies way too much.
> You can be arrested for even owning the iPhone 16, and are encouraged to report people owning it - this is some real authoritarian loser energy.
Dramatic comments require dramatic sources. This is WILD conjecture and I'm almost certain you're relying on a bizarre interpretation of the Ministry's statement on these devices not being certified.
They are prohibiting the use, import, and sale of the product because it is not yet certified. This is exactly the same way it works in the US. If you import a product that is not FCC certified, it is illegal. You will be asked to stop using it, but to say you're subject to arrest is SpongeBob levels of hyperventilation. An arrest is reserved for things like communication jamming of airports, not for someone using an uncertified device.
I also love the contradiction here - Apple fans will say it's OK for Apple to prevent "illegal devices" from its iMessage network, but now here it's not OK for Indonesia's Ministry of Industry to prevent actual statutorily illegal IMEIs from wireless networks.
https://www-cnnindonesia-com.translate.goog/teknologi/202410...
> We let other countries rent seek from our companies way too much
This is one of the most hilarious, out of touch statements I've ever heard.
Our companies are the rent-seekers.
When Chevron goes to South America and harvests oil, giving them only 10% of the revenue (despite it being their oil!) and then leaves hundreds of billions of US dollars in environmental damage, what do you call that?
That's 1 example. Our companies constantly go to poorer, more corrupt countires with the sole intention of exploitation. Whether that be borderline slave labor or stealing resources. Because those places are so poor, we often give them pennies on the dollar and call it a day. I mean, why the fuck not sell HIV infected medicine to Africa? (yes, real, and yes, knowingly).
And the best part? When those companies inevitably cause crimes against humanity, there's no recourse. The companies scatter like cockroaches in the light. Good luck suing them in US court. We'd sooner suck our own dicks than admit poisoning the Amazon is kind of bad.
I wonder if this is on the heels of their move to BRICS?
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20241025_23/
Who needs western foreign investment when they can get it from China/India/etc.
[flagged]
Shake-down? The article is relatively light on details. However if Apple promised these payments and didn't go through with them it's a simple case of Apple not fulfilling their obligation.
It is a shake-down because they are threatening to go after regular people who should have the freedom to choose to own an iPhone 16.
Who knows. Maybe Apple refused to pay them after they made the threat. If Apple caves at that point, then they will be seen as giving in.
I mean they did commit to paying this tax, so I'm not sure if it's a "threat" as much as a promise kept (to ban use/sale of the devices).
Erm, the US, EU, China and others do this exact same thing. I guess it can be construed as a shakedown, but it's pretty normal globally.
The context you conveniently left out:
> Earlier this month, the minister had already indicated that the iPhone 16 could not be sold in the country due to the pending TKDN certification, which requires that 40 percent of a product’s content be sourced locally. This certification is crucial for Apple as it is linked to the company’s commitment to establish research and development facilities in Indonesia, known as the Apple Academy
What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest? This isn't just banning someone from selling, this is asking you to report your neighbor if you see them owning an iPhone.
There are many examples, but the most famous is TikTok. They had to either sell part of their company [to an American company] or be banned in the US. They didn't sell so now they're being banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...
Much more common than an outright ban is simply egregious tariffs. (Which didn't do anything to stave off foreign competition or increase local competition, but it did line our pockets)
That’s not what the US does. The US has bigger infrastructure, and typically more pull in the financial sphere. They’ll usually seize funds directly if they really need to, and they have, or pressure governments in numerous other ways.
Different ballgame altogether
The only real exceptions have been chips and electronics from China particularly regarding wireless infrastructure and computing.
TikTok also comes to mind
The US has the pull to make foreing companies not sell their products to countries sanctioned by the US.
TSMC can't sell a lot of products to China, neither ASML.
You can't fly to Cuba directly from the US, neither can import their Cigars.
Venezuela, Iran and Russia along other's can't access their international reserves deposited in American Banks.
It is just a different scale and for completely different reasons. If anything, other countries are learning to play by the same playbook for their particular reasons.
Tiktok huawei...so many more
> What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few. All of which are being considered for bans under the pretense that they're not domestic enough to trust and import.
Indonesia is right to take a strong approach here; Apple is a documented tax dodger in the EU and would have likely ignored lesser action.
Apple has invested $95M, and missing $14.75M. So they have reached 86% of the 40% target. Based on this logic, 34% of the iPhone 16 was sourced from Indonesia? Not trying to be snarky, I'm probably misunderstanding this.
Sidenote: this website is unreadable on a mobile browser due to popups, auto-playing videos, etc.
Use (and shipping via mail) is allowed according to this article, so one of the articles is wrong/outdated:
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/iphone-16-allowed-...
What is the "International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) certification"? I've heard of IMEI numbers, but not a "certification".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-IMEI-certification/answer/...
Can also just give the answer
> a process that verifies that a mobile device complies with the technical specifications of a particular network operator. This certification is typically required before a device can be used on that network.
Not really anyone's responsibility to deliver answers on a platter though.
That is seemingly the only result for "IMEI certification" and is wholly unsourced and just seems to be a best guess based on the phrase. Is there an actual source, perhaps from the Indonesian authority that requires it that explains it? Because I certainly can't seem to find it.
Is Indonesia even a big enough market for Apple to need to worry about losing it?
Looks like Asia Pacific in general is a very small portion of Apple's revenue. https://www.statista.com/statistics/382175/quarterly-revenue...
On a side note, iPhone's seem to last quite a while. I still have a Xr and it runs the latest iOS quite well, so people might be good for a while if they stick with the 15.
Indonesia is the 4th most populated country in the world.
Exactly, it's such a short-sighted way of thinking to consider the current share of revenue. Most of poor Asian countries will eventually get rich, and giving up those markets means giving up future profits. If you don't build brand recognition while the country is still poor, others will do it, and then you'll be fighting an uphill battle, especially considering how half of the value of having Apple hardware is the brand.
Population isn't the only factor. Do Indonesians buy a lot of Apple products?
That doesn’t mean the residents have the means to buy a premium product, however.
It's a phone, not a yacht.
I’m on a 13 mini as I refuse to leave the smaller form factor. It’s still working AOK - at some point they’ll EOL it but I don’t notice any performance issues or anything
A small reduction in projected *increase* in revenue threw the US corporations into layoffs - this would be a stock price disaster for Apple.
Still it’s the 4th largest country by population after China, India, and the US
The traditional solution is to slap a big tax on imports cf Thailand and cars. Somehow I don’t see the governor of Bali instituting checks at DPS for this.
Why does a certification require local investment?
Sort of referenced above. TKDN in Indonesia requires a substantial part of the product to be sourced internally. I guess the way around this in the case of special goods is to invest in the country. Sounds effectively like a tariff but maybe not.
It's a protectionist trade scheme, like tariffs, but instead forces foreign business to actively invest in local business or R&D, to level up the country's production capability. It might not have its intended result, but it's no worse than the US's exorbitant trade tariffs, which were actually increased under Biden after Trump introduced them.
People always act shocked when developing countries act just as unscrupulously as the dominant powers. They learned from the best!
2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do. Collective punishment is terrible no matter who does it. And most tariffs are sanction-adjacent stupidity that largely leads to reprisal counter-tariffs and trade wars accomplishing nothing.
Because the government decided it.
Well, radio is a shared medium, so governments typically require passing some sort of certification to allow radio devices to operate in their jurisdiction. Most governments are pretty lenient, pass a set of clearly defined emissions thresholds or compliance to communications protocols verivied by a third party, others may choose to add additional requirements.
The general exception to this are ham (amateur) radios, they usually have exemptions carved into frequency plans so they can run anything from fully original designs over kit builds to ready-to-operate stuff.
What I find surprising about this is that the amount is so little to Apple.
Their net operating cash flow is something like 120bn, and they've let their flagship product be banned in a country of 270 million people, and all the negative press, and the public perception of them, all just by not paying out 15m.
I can't believe this is deliberate, so I wonder what really happened?
After reading the article I think this reflect more negatively on the business environment of Indonesia than Apple.
Indonesia is big but is it a big market for Apple? I mean even western consumers are a bit miffed by $1k phones and average salary in Indonesia is ~$227/mo [1]. Is there enough buyers to sell $15m worth of iPhones, let alone make that much profit?
[1]: https://investinasia.id/blog/salary-in-indonesia/
Third world country mindset is a bit different. People making over $500/month will save over a year and buy $1500 phone.
People of the first world country making $4000/month be like $1500 phone is too expensive.
if they let a country extort them, others will follow
Is it political for Apple to forgo investment?