>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).
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.
Do you really think the US is incapable of asserting economic or policy pressure over some random third world country? These countries' economic health is practically completely at our whims. Look at Cuba.
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)
You are still leaving out that using TikTok still won't be illegal in the USA, it won't be blocked either, just that TikTok won't be able to do businesses in the US (i.e. sell ads), or having other companies do business with it (so no app on the iPhone).
It is not like the states are going to block TikTok with a GFW that doesn't exist. Of course, the inability for TikTok to make money in the USA is going to be a huge hit that the company probably can't get out of.
Are they proposing to arrest people who have TikTok on their phone and encouraging you snitch to the police of you see people using tiktok? what Indonesia is doing is on a completely different level.
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 fears Chinese military and economic capability. TikTok cannot invest its way out; there is a smell of conflict in the air. TikTok selling or leaving is the same as leaving or leaving.
“The US fears Chinese military capability” is one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages.
There’s a limit to how capable the leadership of a military can be without any real world experience aside from harassing the ships and aircraft of other nations with dangerous interception maneuvers.
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.
US sanctions are basically an illegal scheme. They're not supported by any kind of foreign law or treaty, unless such a sanction has been agreed by the UN. In general, the US just takes that out their own *ss and shove into other peoples throat. No wonder other countries are banding together to avoid these criminal practices altogether.
If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen. Especially any action against Russia.
The UN secretary-general was recently bowing to Putin at the BRICS get together. Putin has an ICC arrest warrant issued for the invasion of Ukraine. I believe the UN endorses the ICC, at least it used to.
> 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.
> 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.
Consumers can own all these things without fear of being reported. I work with an official DJI reseller and I automate DJI gear for government. What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
US is crazy rich and powerful Country that has plenty of tools to pressure companies to do what they want. Indonesia is a poor ass country that has to resort to cheap tricks like this one.
That's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing into the US.
USG is banning (only passed House) [1] DJI because Chinese law requires DJI to hand over data and USG is not a fan. This may be a bit like calling the kettle black because of various US laws but again it's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing.
I don’t understand why the US doesn’t have a data sovereignty law as a requisite for doing business here. If you sell to Americans the data needs to be specifically live only in US data centers and no where else, and access must be based on US soil.
A few Europeans countries have this, or something like it, if I recall correctly
> DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few.
In the US, if such a thing already is in the country, you can continue to use it as a private citizen or as a company (unless it involves anything government owned). And at least for now, you can buy any DJI drone you want in the US, there's more than enough firearms imports from places such as Germany or Austria [1], no one gives a fuck where your solar panels and batteries come from (other than import duties). Cars just as well, once the car is in the US you can drive utter junk on the streets as long as it is somewhat road legal in the state it is registered in.
This ban in Indonesia however affects everyone, no matter how or when they acquired their iPhones:
> Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita, the country’s Industry Minister, declared that any iPhone 16 found in the hands of consumers will be deemed illegal.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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 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.
MAGA math.
Do you really think the US is incapable of asserting economic or policy pressure over some random third world country? These countries' economic health is practically completely at our whims. Look at Cuba.
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.
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)
You are still leaving out that using TikTok still won't be illegal in the USA, it won't be blocked either, just that TikTok won't be able to do businesses in the US (i.e. sell ads), or having other companies do business with it (so no app on the iPhone).
It is not like the states are going to block TikTok with a GFW that doesn't exist. Of course, the inability for TikTok to make money in the USA is going to be a huge hit that the company probably can't get out of.
> but the most famous is TikTok
Are they proposing to arrest people who have TikTok on their phone and encouraging you snitch to the police of you see people using tiktok? what Indonesia is doing is on a completely different level.
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 fears Chinese military and economic capability. TikTok cannot invest its way out; there is a smell of conflict in the air. TikTok selling or leaving is the same as leaving or leaving.
“The US fears Chinese military capability” is one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages.
There’s a limit to how capable the leadership of a military can be without any real world experience aside from harassing the ships and aircraft of other nations with dangerous interception maneuvers.
Tiktok huawei...so many more
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.
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-iah-to-hav there are direct flights from USA to Cuba these days
US sanctions are basically an illegal scheme. They're not supported by any kind of foreign law or treaty, unless such a sanction has been agreed by the UN. In general, the US just takes that out their own *ss and shove into other peoples throat. No wonder other countries are banding together to avoid these criminal practices altogether.
If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen. Especially any action against Russia.
The UN secretary-general was recently bowing to Putin at the BRICS get together. Putin has an ICC arrest warrant issued for the invasion of Ukraine. I believe the UN endorses the ICC, at least it used to.
> 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.
> 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.
Consumers can own all these things without fear of being reported. I work with an official DJI reseller and I automate DJI gear for government. What is the leading example of the US banning consumers from owning a product unless you invest?
US is crazy rich and powerful Country that has plenty of tools to pressure companies to do what they want. Indonesia is a poor ass country that has to resort to cheap tricks like this one.
Cuban Cigars.
That's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing into the US.
USG is banning (only passed House) [1] DJI because Chinese law requires DJI to hand over data and USG is not a fan. This may be a bit like calling the kettle black because of various US laws but again it's not an example of the US banning a company for not investing.
[1]: https://www.commercialuavnews.com/us-house-approves-dji-dron...
I don’t understand why the US doesn’t have a data sovereignty law as a requisite for doing business here. If you sell to Americans the data needs to be specifically live only in US data centers and no where else, and access must be based on US soil.
A few Europeans countries have this, or something like it, if I recall correctly
Because this idea obviously is not on the interest of american business. We don't live in 1950 anymore where the US alone was half world's GDP.
This is not in the interests of certain countries, Israel being the main one.
> DJI, Chinese electric cars/phones, mass-produced solar and battery tech and firearms manufactured abroad to name a few.
In the US, if such a thing already is in the country, you can continue to use it as a private citizen or as a company (unless it involves anything government owned). And at least for now, you can buy any DJI drone you want in the US, there's more than enough firearms imports from places such as Germany or Austria [1], no one gives a fuck where your solar panels and batteries come from (other than import duties). Cars just as well, once the car is in the US you can drive utter junk on the streets as long as it is somewhat road legal in the state it is registered in.
This ban in Indonesia however affects everyone, no matter how or when they acquired their iPhones:
> Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita, the country’s Industry Minister, declared that any iPhone 16 found in the hands of consumers will be deemed illegal.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-weapons-firms-find-lucrative-ma...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah what's a banana cost, like $10?
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
Still it’s the 4th largest country by population after China, India, and the US
Is it political for Apple to forgo investment?
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!
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.