>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.
That's an entirely different case, and absolutely an extraordinary one. The prohibited thing there is transmitting on an aviation band without fulfilling the requirements to do so; that prohibition would apply just as much whether you hand-built a transmitter yourself, or bought a domestically produced one, or imported one.
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.
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.
Indonesia sits very pretty between USA's interests against China, look at the Malacca Strait and check USA's plans for containment of China in case of a war.
> 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.
It's quite aggravating you have to resort to a neoimperialist rhetoric, hope you don't feel too bad when other nations start hating your country.
The USA probably needs Indonesia much more than Indonesia needs the US, if you start pushing countries around don't act surprise when they switch allegiance.
Sorry, I really don't care about being "neoimperialist." I'm sure that's a bad word to you but I'm all about protecting US interests abroad and asserting global dominance and power. You'll find that at least half the country agrees with me.
Indonesia wields zero power over the US, it's patently absurd that you think the US depends on them. The US could, however, easily economically cripple Indonesia.
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.
We actually don't know what happened exactly because this is all just news articles, but having lived in SE Asia and a decent understanding of the culture... my point is that I could see it actually working out this way:
1. Indo: pay us a bunch of money
2. Apple: how much?
3. Indo: $X millions.
4. Apple: ok... pays them.
5. Indo: We actually want more and if you don't pay us, we will make it illegal
to carry an iphone and we will start arresting people.
6. Apple: screw you, thats a human rights violation and we won't stand for that.
One article on bloomberg [0] said there was only about 9,000 iphones that have been brought into the country so far and mostly hand carried. Apple has paid out $95m. The math isn't adding up.
It is lovely to see US people creating cute stories about their own companies in place of depicting the true reality of their corruption. Apple used (and probably still uses) children to assemble their iphones but some random on the internet think they stand for human rights. Amazing.
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.
But ICBMs don't do anything besides launch nukes. The parent comment has a point - China can "harass" the United States with their materiel across thousands of miles of seawater, but America generally doesn't care. There is no Chinese threat to American airspace when both countries are thousands of miles away from each other. The Pacific ocean itself is so large that preemptive long-range shipping attacks are considered to be technologically impossible too.
And I'll even go a further step to argue that China copied the United States' nuclear scheme to be deterrent rather than aggressive. Their ICBMs are clustered in uninhabited lands in the northwest of the country, forcing potential aggressors to either nuke China's nukes or strike fast enough that China can't respond. The goal of China's nuclear program, it would seem, is not to enable a panoply of tactical effects like the US or USSR, but just to remind the world not to attack their soil.
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.
> If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen
Include there any action against Israel for killing thousands of children and starving millions, and against the US for supplying these weapons. Prosecutors in the international war crimes court asked for Netaniahoo to be arrested for crimes against humanity.
So, the United States can invade Iraq, completely fuck Lybia, promote brutal dictatorships across latin america that tortured and killed thousands because of some vague idea that this is required to satisfy US security concerns in countries thousands of miles across the globe.
But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup in Ukraine because its government was not interested on severing ties with Russia, after the US and NATO trained and provided the Ukrainian army and hinted at NATO expansion, after the US admitted that Minsky accords, Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns and they should just accept American encroachment, the subversion of their internal politics via american financed NGOs (just like they do in a fucking lot of countries).
I find it amazing that most people still believe USG bullshit. The same fucking government that had no qualms on fucking their citizens with projects like MK Ultra, the same fucking government that was caught spying on its own citizens and jailed the whistleblower who brought this to their attention. A government that via its think tanks never made a secret of their intentions on regime change in Russia to enable the pillage of its natural resources: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns
And Russia's "security concerns" had nothing to do with current conflict. That's the language of the bully, and you're eating it up.
That, and the other word salad you've been dropping here ("American encroachment", "subversion via NGOs") suggests you've been reading from some highly propagandized sources.
It is a mirror of the language used by the US who claims that anything happening in the other side of the world is a national security threat. So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
Which is basically like saying "the world is amoral, so everything is justified".
So forget "justified". The point is that it's obviously deceptive, manipulative language.
And so when we hear it being used on us -- it's time to start thinking about who is doing the manipulation, and why.
More to the point, the whole argument being made here is completely absurd, from the very get-go: "The US did X bad, Y bad. We don't like that. So therefore when Russia does Z bad, we should start treating it with empathy in regard to its security concerns, and all the awful things that the US did to not provoke it, thereby actually causing it to do Z".
The US-based system is the modern version of a religion. They promote their interests based on abstract "values", so you have to believe in these values to be a good person (whatever they're promoting as good), and believe that the US gov is the leader in pursuing these values, just like the Catholic Church proclaimed during the middle ages. If you accept these illogical premisses, other governments are necessarily against democracy and freedom, and therefore have no reason to exist and need to be destroyed from within or from outside if needed. To be clear, the main problem in Western ideology is not the values themselves, but the idea that they're the best and other countries that don't support them need to be conquered or destroyed. It is barbarism by other means.
taking this morally relativistic position to its logical conclusion, should the preeminent military power intervene with force to stop a country genociding its own people within its own borders, for example? how about intervening without force to stop the institutionalized subservience of women, through political meddling?
> 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.
> 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.
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
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.
It also... Just isn't an actual answer. It's just a link to an unsourced Quora "answer" that seems to be a best guess, as well as a response that talks about the Indian process.
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.
If 5% of population (14M people) can afford an iPhone, it's already bigger than a lot of potential markets around the world. I'm sure they do a much more thorough analysis at Apple though.
.. You should travel to Indonesia. Almost nobody has Apple products, the majority of people such as gig workers (GoJek) earn less than $10 per day. GoJek riders earn more than average, labour is incredibly cheap in Indonesia.
vivo and similar low-cost Android phones for the Indian market are popular.
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.
That's an entirely different case, and absolutely an extraordinary one. The prohibited thing there is transmitting on an aviation band without fulfilling the requirements to do so; that prohibition would apply just as much whether you hand-built a transmitter yourself, or bought a domestically produced one, or imported one.
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]
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.
This 'random third world country' is the largest Muslim country in the world and has a population of 278 million people.
With barely any economic or social power and bringing virtually nothing to the table. It would be trivial to assert dominance over them.
Indonesia sits very pretty between USA's interests against China, look at the Malacca Strait and check USA's plans for containment of China in case of a war.
> 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.
It's quite aggravating you have to resort to a neoimperialist rhetoric, hope you don't feel too bad when other nations start hating your country.
The USA probably needs Indonesia much more than Indonesia needs the US, if you start pushing countries around don't act surprise when they switch allegiance.
Sorry, I really don't care about being "neoimperialist." I'm sure that's a bad word to you but I'm all about protecting US interests abroad and asserting global dominance and power. You'll find that at least half the country agrees with me.
Indonesia wields zero power over the US, it's patently absurd that you think the US depends on them. The US could, however, easily economically cripple Indonesia.
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).
We actually don't know what happened exactly because this is all just news articles, but having lived in SE Asia and a decent understanding of the culture... my point is that I could see it actually working out this way:
One article on bloomberg [0] said there was only about 9,000 iphones that have been brought into the country so far and mostly hand carried. Apple has paid out $95m. The math isn't adding up.[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-28/indonesia...
It is lovely to see US people creating cute stories about their own companies in place of depicting the true reality of their corruption. Apple used (and probably still uses) children to assemble their iphones but some random on the internet think they stand for human rights. Amazing.
I am not saying Indonesia is being either fair or right, but from the bloomberg you posted:
> "Rivals Samsung, Xiaomi have set up local factories to comply"
Looks like the policy might work for Indonesia.
Disclaimer: only read the first paragraph. The bloomberg is paywalled
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.
Weren't egregious tariffs what allowed the USA to develop its own industry, instead of being smothered by the much bigger British industries ?
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.
Well, it's true in the sense that a direct military attack in unimaginable either way because of nuclear weapons.
Before them, Great Powers didn't shy from directly attacking each other !
But ICBMs don't do anything besides launch nukes. The parent comment has a point - China can "harass" the United States with their materiel across thousands of miles of seawater, but America generally doesn't care. There is no Chinese threat to American airspace when both countries are thousands of miles away from each other. The Pacific ocean itself is so large that preemptive long-range shipping attacks are considered to be technologically impossible too.
And I'll even go a further step to argue that China copied the United States' nuclear scheme to be deterrent rather than aggressive. Their ICBMs are clustered in uninhabited lands in the northwest of the country, forcing potential aggressors to either nuke China's nukes or strike fast enough that China can't respond. The goal of China's nuclear program, it would seem, is not to enable a panoply of tactical effects like the US or USSR, but just to remind the world not to attack their soil.
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.
> If something has to be approved by the UN it will never happen
Include there any action against Israel for killing thousands of children and starving millions, and against the US for supplying these weapons. Prosecutors in the international war crimes court asked for Netaniahoo to be arrested for crimes against humanity.
So, the United States can invade Iraq, completely fuck Lybia, promote brutal dictatorships across latin america that tortured and killed thousands because of some vague idea that this is required to satisfy US security concerns in countries thousands of miles across the globe.
But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup in Ukraine because its government was not interested on severing ties with Russia, after the US and NATO trained and provided the Ukrainian army and hinted at NATO expansion, after the US admitted that Minsky accords, Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns and they should just accept American encroachment, the subversion of their internal politics via american financed NGOs (just like they do in a fucking lot of countries).
I find it amazing that most people still believe USG bullshit. The same fucking government that had no qualms on fucking their citizens with projects like MK Ultra, the same fucking government that was caught spying on its own citizens and jailed the whistleblower who brought this to their attention. A government that via its think tanks never made a secret of their intentions on regime change in Russia to enable the pillage of its natural resources: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup
Except there was no "coup", but unfortunately you've been led to believe that there was one.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689807, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317
Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns
And Russia's "security concerns" had nothing to do with current conflict. That's the language of the bully, and you're eating it up.
That, and the other word salad you've been dropping here ("American encroachment", "subversion via NGOs") suggests you've been reading from some highly propagandized sources.
> That's the language of the bully
It is a mirror of the language used by the US who claims that anything happening in the other side of the world is a national security threat. So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
Which is basically like saying "the world is amoral, so everything is justified".
So forget "justified". The point is that it's obviously deceptive, manipulative language.
And so when we hear it being used on us -- it's time to start thinking about who is doing the manipulation, and why.
More to the point, the whole argument being made here is completely absurd, from the very get-go: "The US did X bad, Y bad. We don't like that. So therefore when Russia does Z bad, we should start treating it with empathy in regard to its security concerns, and all the awful things that the US did to not provoke it, thereby actually causing it to do Z".
No, it is not justified. It is part of how the world works. They deal with the same crap coming from the USA, they will do it too. Just deal with it.
No, it is not justified.
You just said it was, in the plainest possible language.
The US-based system is the modern version of a religion. They promote their interests based on abstract "values", so you have to believe in these values to be a good person (whatever they're promoting as good), and believe that the US gov is the leader in pursuing these values, just like the Catholic Church proclaimed during the middle ages. If you accept these illogical premisses, other governments are necessarily against democracy and freedom, and therefore have no reason to exist and need to be destroyed from within or from outside if needed. To be clear, the main problem in Western ideology is not the values themselves, but the idea that they're the best and other countries that don't support them need to be conquered or destroyed. It is barbarism by other means.
taking this morally relativistic position to its logical conclusion, should the preeminent military power intervene with force to stop a country genociding its own people within its own borders, for example? how about intervening without force to stop the institutionalized subservience of women, through political meddling?
I wonder why that is? the UN is poorly structured but the largest use of Security Council vetos is by the US.
Tiktok huawei...so many more
So the government said you can't use your Huawei phone even in private anymore? When?
> 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.
It's legal for citizens to own and use Cuban cigars, and Cuba is not going to invest its way into getting cigars into the US.
> 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...
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.
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.
It also... Just isn't an actual answer. It's just a link to an unsourced Quora "answer" that seems to be a best guess, as well as a response that talks about the Indian process.
Sure, just seems weird at this point to do the effort of finding a source but not just saying what it is
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.
It's a phone that costs about 4x the gross monthly wage of an average Indonesian.
About in line for an American to buy a new car.
If 5% of population (14M people) can afford an iPhone, it's already bigger than a lot of potential markets around the world. I'm sure they do a much more thorough analysis at Apple though.
.. You should travel to Indonesia. Almost nobody has Apple products, the majority of people such as gig workers (GoJek) earn less than $10 per day. GoJek riders earn more than average, labour is incredibly cheap in Indonesia.
vivo and similar low-cost Android phones for the Indian market are popular.
Yeah what's a banana cost, like $10?
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?