US Lawmakers Tell Apple, Google To Be Ready To Remove TikTok From App Stores on January 19 (reuters.com) 103
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives committee on China told Apple and Google's parent Alphabet to prepare to remove TikTok from U.S. app stores on January 19, following a federal appeals court decision upholding legislation requiring Chinese-based ByteDance to divest the platform or face a ban.
Apple should be worried... (Score:1, Interesting)
China may retaliate by hobbling Apple. I think the US of A is shortsighted here.
If I were China, I'd force Apple to use HarmonOS if it still wants to be in China.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China may retaliate by hobbling Apple. I think the US of A is shortsighted here.
If I were China, I'd force Apple to use HarmonOS if it still wants to be in China.
Shortsighted "here"? Just wait until China doesn't actually pay those extra Trump tariffs on things made in China, like (some) Apple products ... 10% at the moment (down from 60%).
(Fact: Importers pay tariffs, not exporters, and they usually pass those expenses onto consumers.)
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:4, Informative)
Shortsighted "here"? Just wait until China doesn't actually pay those extra Trump tariffs on things made in China, like (some) Apple products ... 10% at the moment (down from 60%).
(Fact: Importers pay tariffs, not exporters, and they usually pass those expenses onto consumers.)
Yes, the theory being that by making the import more expensive, you'll be incentivized to purchase domestically produced equivalent instead. It may or may not be effective, but no one is claiming that the exporter pays the tariff.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:4, Informative)
Trump says they do literally all the time. Many of his supporters are shocked when they learn it's not true. I'm shocked they were shocked -- as that guy is (almost literally) always wrong or lying about almost everything.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing about mercantilism: it makes sense. Except it's wrong.
Americans as a whole don't stay even in your analogy. They waste resources on already inefficient production which has even less incentive to improve because its main competition is hobbled. Meanwhile, foreign produces have more pressure to improve.
History, even the fairly recent kind, is littered with populist politicians introducing very popular protectionist policies that quickly turned into disasters. What your example describes is called import substitution, and it doesn't have a glowing record. In the US case it's even worse because the production the US seems to be trying to recapture is the kind that helps developing countries but leads them into the middle income trap.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose it will be a couple decades before the idea of supply chain resiliency makes it into *some* undergraduate econ courses or even MBA programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There can be value in investing in domestic infrastructure. Tariffs with other trade and non-trade barriers can encourage that investment.
Recall that folks are discussing tariffs on Chinese imports *because* China started to figure out supply chain resiliency a couple decades ago in ways that made the rest of the world uncompetitive in green energy and related manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read the comment I replied to eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of businesses in China, both foreign and domestic. If you piss off the government they might shut you down, which is SO different from the US, right? And no American government would ever offer tax breaks to businesses, no sireee! That would be unfair and anticapitalistic!
Yes, Trump's tariff threats have nothing to do with econmics. I imagine of any recent president he is probably most aware of the value of international trade. They're political: 1) voters hate anything called a tax, but they
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> Trump does not say the exporter pays for the tariffs
"Trump has falsely, and repeatedly, claimed that China – not US importers – pay the tariff."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>> they are saying that the other countries will suffer
No they aren't.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
China's business will go down and US business will go up.
Only if the products are equal... which they are not.
Anything we lose on the tariff you gain in wages for Americans when looking at it as a whole.
Lol, omg, ROFLMAO. Dude! All 'free' money goes to the owner class. Wage slaves will never see a penny of that money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you are just clueless here.
China spend over a trillion US dollars to ensure China's currency didn't get too weak. China is intentionally keeping it stronger. If it was based on markets it would be much weaker than "the manipulated" rate we have now.
China is more competitive because it has a far lower cost of living. Everything is cheaper, land wages, food. China has much bigger economies of scale and much more competition keeping margins low.
Re: (Score:1)
China isn't just massively better or even any cheaper at producing goods, it simply has less regulation around material mining and it manipulates its currency so that it stays weak relative to the dollar.
That is completely wrong.
Basically every high tech, and that includes stealth fighters, from China is better than anything on the world. Faster developed/build, easier produced, and less than half the price. Environmental regulations are the same as in Germany. The currency is not manipulated. It is pegge
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure how your misinformation gets reported as informative but no Trump does not say the exporter pays for the tariffs and no his supporters are not usually shocked. The countries will 'pay' in the sense that they will lose business to American producers. Imagine you import something for $50 cost and it sells for $150. America just gave $50 to the foreign country. Now instead buy it in America for $150, now Americans as a whole stay even. If America has the natural resources to produce, the country just remained wealthier due to buying American and saved $50, they could even sell it for more at $200 and still be just as wealthy as buying it foreign. This is what he is trying to encourage although its more likely he will use it as a point to discourage them from continuing to tariff or ban our goods. China and others replicate American services and will not let American companies compete there. Try buying an American product in those other countries like, they have already tariffed us for this exact reason.
Trump REPEATEDLY says China, Mexico, Canada, etc. will pay. And he repeatedly says we will not, at every single rally.
https://truthsocial.com/@realD... [truthsocial.com]
Following your mental gymnastics, you're suggesting that American business will EAT the difference. THEY will pay for the tariffs??
Your example -
$50 to produce in China, sell for $150 = $100 profit.
${youleftthispartout} to produce in America, sell for $150 = $profit???
It won't stay even, because it won't cost $50 to produce here you fucking twat.
A) Your assum
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump has literally said time and time again, that China will pay the tariffs, not US consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how your misinformation gets reported as informative but no Trump does not say the exporter pays for the tariffs and no his supporters are not usually shocked.
Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure?
Both trump and Vance have said repeatedly that China pays the tariffs. After Kamala Harris referred to his tariff plans as a 'Trump tax', trump responded by saying that it's not a tax on the middle class, it's a tax on another country. And he doubled down on that by saying it's not going to be a cost to consumers, it's a cost to another country. That's a FAR CRY from what you're claiming here:
The countries will 'pay' in the sense that they will lose business to American producers.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shortsighted "here"? Just wait until China doesn't actually pay those extra Trump tariffs on things made in China, like (some) Apple products ... 10% at the moment (down from 60%).
(Fact: Importers pay tariffs, not exporters, and they usually pass those expenses onto consumers.)
Yes, the theory being that by making the import more expensive, you'll be incentivized to purchase domestically produced equivalent instead. It may or may not be effective, but no one is claiming that the exporter pays the tariff.
You didn't learn a thing from covid did you? You can't waive a wand and start making goods or a brand new supply chain. Do you honestly think that every part of a car made in the US comes from the US?
Re: (Score:3)
If the US adopts a policy of import tariffs, depending on how big the tariffs are, some manufacturing will shift back to the US based on whether it's more economical for the manufacture
Re: (Score:2)
The US didn't lose all its manufacturing all at once.....and it won't get it back all at once.
There will likely be a bit of a "pain period" in the interim.....and frankly, I'm willing to put up with it if it brings the US back to more self reliance....and middle class manufacturing jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
and middle class manufacturing jobs.
You are living in fantasyland if you think companies will ever pay "middle class" wages for Americans to assemble iPhones and various other consumer goods. That work is gone and it's never coming back. At least, not until the entire process can be automated and the factories will only employ a handful of "middle class" workers to babysit the robots.
Re: (Score:1)
At least, not until the entire process can be automated and the factories will only employ a handful of "middle class" workers to babysit the robots.
That is actually how it is done in China and Taiwan (and now in Thailand).
And the "workers" are quite upper middle class.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:5, Informative)
Would you like to try again [cnn.com]?
"She is a liar. She makes up crap ... am going to put tariffs on other countries coming into our country, and that has nothing to do with taxes to us. That is a tax on another country," Trump said.
Re:Apple should be worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually trump has repeatedly made claims that 'china will pay' for flooding the US with their stuff.
Considering the average IQ of a trump supporter is equivalent to a 5th grader.. most of those followers will be lead to believe China will pay for it
If you follow any amount of interviews with diehard magas or trumpers, they are really REALLY confused when it gets explained that the US Customer is paying for the tariff.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually trump has repeatedly made claims that 'china will pay' for flooding the US with their stuff.
And by "flooding" does he mean that 70-80% of all goods bought by then sold at Walmart, where a LOT of his supporters shop? Sounds like he doesn't actually understand retail.
Google: percent sold walmart from china [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry! I should be more thoughtful about our nations 5th graders. They are the savior of our country for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, he was talking about five graders in the USA, I assume?
Re: (Score:2)
IQ (Score:2)
IQ is calibrated for age so the average IQ of 5th graders will be 100 just as it is for the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
Shortsighted "here"? Just wait until China doesn't actually pay those extra Trump tariffs on things made in China, like (some) Apple products ... 10% at the moment (down from 60%).
(Fact: Importers pay tariffs, not exporters, and they usually pass those expenses onto consumers.)
Yes, the theory being that by making the import more expensive, you'll be incentivized to purchase domestically produced equivalent instead. It may or may not be effective, but no one is claiming that the exporter pays the tariff.
Look, I understand that Trump supporters not only avoid the news because bias or whatever, but they don't watch his rallies or interviews either, and I understand the unsurprising psychological reasons for that. That's not an excuse for lying about what he and his future administration repeatedly does claim. We know.
This is from the WSJ, it's right-leaning, owned by the same good folks that own Fox News. Personally, I disagree with a lot of their editorial decisions, and the opinion section is total garbage
Re: (Score:2)
Item costs $50 from chinese supplier.
Walmart pays chinese supplier $50. Walmart puts it on shelves for $60.
Here comes a 10% tariff. Chinese supplier won't just eat the cost, so they raise their price to $55.
Walmart now pays $55 to supplier, and puts it on shelf for $65, as walmart wont eat the cost either.
Thus, The consumer bears the cost of all tariffs.
Re: (Score:1)
That is not how it works.
Walmart pays chinese supplier $50. Walmart puts it on shelves for $60.
Here comes a 10% tariff. Chinese supplier won't just eat the cost, no they do not raise their price to $55. (Why would they?)
Walmart now pays still $50 to supplier, and an $5 import tariff and puts it on shelf for $65, as walmart wont eat the cost either.
Thus, The consumer bears the cost of all tariffs.
Correct. However the Chinese exporter is completely unaffected by it.
Re: (Score:2)
We had this stupidity after Brexit in the UK. Turns out we don't grow bananas in the UK...
We had half empty supermarkets for a while, until they learned how to cover the gaps by spreading stuff out. To this day you still can't get a lot of stuff, from fruit to cat litter, and when you can it's more expensive.
Declaring sanctions on yourself doesn't work. People don't buy more British stuff, they buy less stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether importers pass the cost of tariffs to customers and end users depends on the market. If it is a buyer's market, the importer might demand that the seller lower their price to offset the tariff, for example; or if the importer has an adequate profit margin, they might choose to eat the cost of the tariff. If you notice that some things that cost 30c in China retail for $10 in the US, the latter is not out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)
That I think is often overlooked. If I'm making 300% profit on an item....I'd like to keep making 300% profit; but if I know I can continue to corner the market by giving some of that up and maintaining a lower price than competitors, then that's good too. At some point the competitors go away and you drive prices back up to 600% profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
China may retaliate by hobbling Apple. I think the US of A is shortsighted here.
If I were China, I'd force Apple to use HarmonOS if it still wants to be in China.
may, they will. In reality, not Magat fantasy land, any country that gets threatened by the future US govt will retaliate in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
China may retaliate by hobbling Apple. I think the US of A is shortsighted here.
If I were China, I'd force Apple to use HarmonOS if it still wants to be in China.
Apple? Why Apple? Apple has no more pull in the White House than any other piss normal US megacorp. There is, however, one particular US mega-capitalist that has a lot of pull in the next White House. See, if I were China I would give serious thought to shutting down Telsa's Gigafactory in Shanghai along with all of their other operations in China and then cut them off from Chinese battery manufacturers, or at least threaten to do it. It's not as if Chinese car companies stand to loose much from that, they'
Re: Reductio ad Hitlerium (Score:3)
What a truly bizarre comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why we absolutely need to be able to sideload. Not that I imagine anyone who wants to use TikTok is going to be able to figure out things like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It already exists. https://pine64.org/devices/pin... [pine64.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The TikTok ban passed with bipartisan support. Can't put this on the Republicans - this is both parties collectively saying it's just dandy to deplatform the entire country.
You'd think with all the whining that came out of Republicans over getting deplatformed from pre-Musk Twitter that they'd at least have seen the troubling free speech ramifications of a ban, but never underestimate the Republicans' ability to be a bunch of hypocrites. And the Democrats? They're firmly in the "it's rotting the minds of
Very Interesing Date (Score:2)
Re:Very Interesing Date (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if there's anything happening the next day that lawmakers wanted it to happen on the 19th so that if it turns out to be unpopular, it won't be as closely associated with them.
The Trump administration might try to quash this. Trump was for banning TikTok, and actually tried to do so during his first term. Then he got to be "friends" with mega-donor Jeff Yass, who has an estimated net worth just shy of $50 billion with much of that tied up in TikTok, and Trump changed his mind. See where I'm going with this...
Trump’s cozy relationship with billionaire mega donor Jeff Yass could be key in helping TikTok avoid a U.S. ban [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration might try to quash this.
Do or do not, there is no try. If he wants to: all trump has to do is make an executive pronouncement declining to enforce the ban, and it's quashed.
The US constitution gives the president absolute control over the executive, and due to the separation of powers the lawmakers themselves and the courts have zero power to enforce federal laws of the US against Tiktok without the action of the President's administration (executive branch of government).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uh, no. Actually any TWO of the branches of government can override the third, that how our government is set up... Or supposed to work, that's why it was so important to the republicans to control the legislature, because with the republicans in control of the executive and the legislature, they can do whatever they like.
And control the judiciary, especially SCOTUS ...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder what the voters will think (presuming they are capable of rational thought) when Trump, et al, takes away all their cash and benefits and gives them all to corporations he and his buddies are all heavily invested in ?
They'll think nothing at all, because he will blame Biden, just like he blamed Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
yep. we live in very 'interesting' times. I wonder what the voters will think (presuming they are capable of rational thought) when Trump, et al, takes away all their cash and benefits and gives them all to corporations he and his buddies are all heavily invested in ? They'll think nothing at all, because he will blame Biden, just like he blamed Obama.
And/or the money to all the billionaires in his administration -- at least 9 (proposed) so far with a combined net worth of at least $382.2 billion:
All the President’s Billionaires: The Extraordinary Wealth in Trump’s Proposed Administration [usnews.com] (article includes itemized descriptions):
So far Trump’s billionaire nods include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former professional wrestling mogul Linda McMahon, Wall Street executive Howard Lutnick, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, money manager Scott Bessent, entrepreneur Jared Isaacman, real estate tycoon Steven Witkoff and investment banker Warren Stephens.
The total net worth of the billionaires in the Trump administration, as of Dec. 10 equals at least $382.2 billion – which is more than the GDP of 172 different countries. Since Musk, Ramaswamy, Witkoff, Isaacman and Stephens won’t be part of Trump’s Cabinet, excluding them brings the net worth of Trump’s Cabinet to at least $11.8 billion, assuming all nominees are approved in the Senate.
By comparison, President Joe Biden’s Cabinet total net worth was about $118 million, and Trump’s first Cabinet total net worth was about $6.2 billion. Prior to Trump, former President Barrack Obama’s Cabinet net worth was about $2.8 billion in his second term, according to Forbes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
uh, no. Actually any TWO of the branches of government can override the third
False. Actually: it's any one branch of the government can halt or block exercise of power by the other two branches. Two branches can only override a choice to exercise power by third, and not a refusal to enact government power. And the Executive branch is truly the branch of government that has the most power when it comes to their authority to decline to exercise power. For example: suppose a foreign power invades a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
President impeached and a replacement takes over
Doesn't happen. De facto; Andrew Jackson already proved the president can ignore congress and court orders against them under the right conditions, and even ordered to have federal Judges jailed over ruling against them or ordered them to do things. The Judges were jailed, and there were no impeachment grounds for the president.
1. Congress never successfully impeached a president, and 2. Congress only has power of impeachment over high crimes and misd
Re:Very Interesing Date (Score:4, Insightful)
If TikTok suddenly took a jump towards the right wing the bans would disappear overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even more simple than that.
If TikTok too a sudden jump OUT of direct access, control and influence of the Chinese government....the bans would disappear.
Re: (Score:1)
TikTok is not under the control of the Chinese government.
And the influence can not be removed. It is law that chairmen appointed by the government has to be members of the boards of big companies. And being member of the board, does not really equal to influence. For example my majourity share holder in my company: has no influence at all. As he has shares with no voting right.
The only thing he can do is running to authorities and pointing out where I broke a law relevant to operating a stock/shares compan
Re: (Score:2)
Chi-coms can and do what they wish with TikTok...they'd be stupid not to....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Trump, political megadonors, or even TikTok for that matter (I personally don't use it), but if Trump manages to overturn the ban then he's at least making the right call. The "land of the free" shouldn't be playing nanny with my apps.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess was that the two parties were colluding, with the Democrats getting to appear hard on China, and the Republicans getting to blame the Democrats for the removal of a favorite toy.
Ha ha ha (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're a convenience culture now. Some of the target audience members find *opening a web browser to type a URI and load a website* to be inconvenient and annoying. Folks will also be able to use the TikTok app by *changing their app store region*, or *jailbreaking their phone*, and other methods which have instructions online.
Asking users who have trained for years on TikTok to develop a 10 second attention span to do a modicum of work for their dopamine micro-doses means that they'll find other easier ways
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like every social media site has rolled out "short form video" now, some are pushing it quite aggressively. Where that icon for the TikTok app is, there are 4 other icons surrounding it that do the same thing. When TikTok disappears, the major adjustment they'll have to make is about a quarter-inch shift on the initial tap. Then they can tap their brains away just like before.
Re: (Score:1)
The first distributions, like slackware 0.9x, where on roughly 20 1.4MB floppy disks. I think 1.4MB was on Macs only and PCs had a 1.1MB format?
You downloaded usually with some random number between 2400 baud to 19,600 baud.
In countries outside of the USA, a local dial up modem line costed money.
Setting up a Linux box, took some effort. Even if you had the option to go into the university and just copy 20 floppies. Took like 12 hours to read the 20 floppies and install them. Basically every thing was a clev
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that both major smartphone OS vendors have measures already in place to ban apps at the OS level (short of jailbreaking/rooting, you're not getting around it), I'd call it more frightening than hilarious.
Wait a second (Score:2)
And how does that affect https://tiktok.com? (Score:1)
As if kids are to stupid to use a web browser ...
EU (Score:2)
Considering recent elections interference [euronews.com], EU may follow soon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Lawn darts and assault rifles can be tools for expressing speech and artistry.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is a foreign owned and manipulated platform it is not a form of speech.
People have many MANY options of platforms with which to express themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
People have many MANY options of platforms with which to express themselves.
One platform is not necessarily equivalent to another. Why are you posting here on Slashdot when there are many other platforms you could be expressing yourself on? Hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
True...very true, they are not "speech" ..they are platforms.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't different. The 1A is very clear on this, but our government is accurately described as a "backsliding democracy".