Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

How Apple stockpiled iPhones to avoid tariffs and keep prices low for a while

In order to protect its customers from high import fees, Apple shipped an impressive amount of products, including iPhone, to the US from over seas, with very little notice. Here's how it did it.

Big Tech is projected to be one of the industries hit hardest by the Trump Administration's newly instated tariff plan. Apple alone is projected to take a $33 billion hit, a number much higher than anyone — including Apple — would have expected.

Apple may not have anticipated getting hit as hard as it did, but that doesn't mean it sat idle. In fact, some quick thinking may have bought it a little more time.

In the last week of March, Apple shipped five flights worth of Apple products in three days to the US, in hopes of stocking its warehouses. Any other year, this would have been a slow shipping season for Apple as it started to wind down the current-year products, and start manufacturing the September releases.

"The reserves that arrived at lower duty will temporarily insulate the company from the higher prices that it will need to pay for new shipments under the revised tax rates," a source told The Times of India.

Watch the Latest from AppleInsider TV

The products came from both China and India. Allegedly, Apple's US warehouses are stocked for several months ahead.

On April 2, or "Liberation Day" as President Trump called it, a new assortment of "reciprocal" tariffs was applied against every foreign country in the Apple supply chain. While there's a minimum 10% tariff on all goods entering the United States, imports from China were hit with a 54% tariff.

And, a Monday announcement by the president threatened another 50% application, should China not back down. That would bring tariffs to 104%.

While the Trump administration says that tariffs are paid by the country that the goods are exported from, that's not the case. Instead the importing company pays the tariffs, and they then, in turn, generally pass that cost to the consumer.

That hike is set to devastate the consumer goods market, driving up prices for the end consumer. The iPhone 17 Pro is already predicted to cost more than $2000 because of it.

But the next-generation iPhones aren't the only thing that could see price increases. If Apple's stockpile were to dry up, the iPhone 16, which currently retails for $799, has been predicted to jump to more than $1140, which is more than the price of the current iPhone 16 Pro.

20 Comments

lukevaxhacker 21 Years · 114 comments

Very simple in concept: return production to the U.S., although hasn't been done for years. Remember the Fremont plant…

0 Likes · 13 Dislikes
blastdoor 16 Years · 3757 comments

Apple should provide transparency about the impact of tariffs on prices by breaking out the tariff cost on receipts, kind of like how the effects of a sales tax are presented. 

If companies do that, it will clarify for customers the effects of Trump's tariffs. That might make it harder for Republicans to toe the line. 

9 Likes · 0 Dislikes
hagar 17 Years · 136 comments

blastdoor said:
Apple should provide transparency about the impact of tariffs on prices by breaking out the tariff cost on receipts, kind of like how the effects of a sales tax are presented. 

If companies do that, it will clarify for customers the effects of Trump's tariffs. That might make it harder for Republicans to toe the line. 

Exactly: keep the iPhone at 999 dollars + 200 dollars Trump Tax. That way it's obvious Apple doesn't raise prices and who is to blame for this circus. 

9 Likes · 0 Dislikes
jfabula1 3 Years · 219 comments

Very simple in concept: return production to the U.S., although hasn't been done for years. Remember the Fremont plant…

It’s funny, anti-tariffs are all complaining and crying about high prices, dude open your brains, America had been ripped off for a long long time and we keep borrowing..we’re sinking fast. If Apple has to raise prices so be it. Will still gonna buy them.

1 Like · 14 Dislikes
Xed 5 Years · 3117 comments

Very simple in concept: return production to the U.S., although hasn't been done for years. Remember the Fremont plant…

Simple to write doesn't mean it's simple to do, and if you actually thought about your comment for a minute you'd realize that if you were to try to produce and assemble every part of an iPhone from only within the United Staes and its territories you'd find that not only would it, likely be impossible without major changes, but also cost prohibitive.

For example, where are getting the rare metals that go into producing the internal components? All from recycle? I can tell you that the US doesn't have vast amounts the way that other countries do. How about the alkali-aluminosilicate glass? I think Wisconsin is the only decent source of low-iron silica in the US, but I don't know how much they have compared to other locations around the world, what the comparative quality is, or how much it costs compared to other sources. How about lithium for the batteries? A google search tells me that the Albemarle Silver Peak mine in Clayton Valley, Nevada, is the only currently operating lithium mine in the United States. Is that enough for all the batteries that Apple uses for all their products? What about every other company that wishes to sell in the US?

Here's the most recent conflict mineral's report from Apple to the SEC...

https://s203.q4cdn.com/367071867/files/doc_downloads/2024/04/Apple-Conflict-Minerals-Report.pdf

What about tantalum? I see that "mining for tantalum in the United States has not occurred since 1959." Is that not a problem? Does the US  have an inexhaustible stockpile of tantalum right now? How about tin? Google says that stopped in 1993? Can that start back up with reasonable results? How about tungsten? No active mining today, but google does suggest that "s

ignificant tungsten deposits occur in [12 states]" so why isn't the US currently mining it? The reason is cost, but is that a minor cost or high cost to get that up and running again? BTW, that was had from a single page on that PDF (above).

https://s203.q4cdn.com/367071867/files/doc_downloads/2024/04/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf

When you look at this supplier list (above) how do you recreate all of that in the US?  Even the camera is a component that isn't even Apple's IP. I believe that's still being provided by Sony. So even if you get all the components shipped to the US and pay American workers $25+ an hour to do final assembly you're still looking at massive assembly costs and tariffs that make the notion of your "very simple concept" a more costly and complex endeavor than simply using the current partners.

Finally, we may bel living in an Orwellian 1984, but it's not longer the year 1984 when Apple's Fremont plant started. Jobs tried it but it still wasn't the correct move 40 years ago with the small number of computers Apple was producing with nearly all US component and materials sourcing. Don't believe me? How about a former Apple engineer who worked there?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/business/apple-california-manufacturing-history.html

11 Likes · 0 Dislikes