Tim Cook, chief executive officer of Apple Inc., speaks during a “First Tool-In” ceremony at the TSMC facility under construction in Phoenix, Arizona, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2022.
Caitlin O’Hara | Bloomberg | Getty Images
When President Barack Obama asked the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs about making an iPhone in the U.S., Jobs didn’t mince words.
The president of the U.S. and the CEO of Apple have changed, but the ambition of a “Made in the USA” iPhone remains.
Defending its “reciprocal tariffs,” the White House this week said President Donald Trump believes the U.S. has the workforce and the resources to build iPhones in the U.S. Apple CEO Tim Cook nor anybody else at the tech company has come out to back that claim, but analysts who follow Apple say the idea of an American-made iPhone is impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.
As it’s largely a theoretical exercise, there’s a broad range of guesses as to how much an all-American iPhone might cost.
Bank of America Securities analyst Wamsi Mohan said in a Thursday note that the iPhone 16 Pro, which is currently priced at $1,199, could increase 25% based on labor costs alone. That would make it a roughly $1,500 device.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives pegged $3,500 as the U.S. iPhone’s price shortly after last week’s tariff announcement, estimating that Apple would need to spend $30 billion over three years to move 10% of its supply chain to the U.S.
At the moment, Apple makes more than 80% of its products in China. Those products now receive a 145% tax when they’re imported into the U.S. after Trump’s tariffs went into effect this week.
Experts say that a “Made in the USA” iPhone would face serious challenges, ranging from finding and paying a U.S. workforce to tariff costs that Apple would incur importing parts to the U.S. for final assembly.
There’s broad agreement among analysts and industry watchers that it’s not likely to happen. Wall Street has doubted for years that Apple would do an American iPhone. “I don’t think that’s a thing,” Needham’s Laura Martin quipped on CNBC this week.
“It’s just not a reality that on the time frame of imposing tariffs that this is going to shift manufacturing here. It’s pie in the sky,” said Jeff Fieldhack, research director at Counterpoint Research.
A man checks an iPhone 16 Pro as the new iPhone 16 series smartphones go on sale at an Apple store in Beijing, China September 20, 2024.
Florence Lo | Reuters
Apple designs its products in California, but they are made by contract manufacturers, such as Foxconn, the company’s top supplier.
Even if Apple spent heavily to get Foxconn or another partner to agree to build some iPhones in the U.S, it would take years to construct the plants and install the machinery, and there’s no guarantee that U.S. trade policy might not change yet again in a way to make the factory less useful.
The biggest issue with Uncle Sam’s iPhone is that the U.S. doesn’t have the same workforce as China – though the massive number of workers needed to build iPhones is one of the attractions for the Trump administration.
“The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on CBS on Sunday.
Foxconn builds iPhones and other Apple products in massive campuses that include dorms and shuttles. Workers often travel from nearby regions to work at the plant for short periods, and employment surges seasonally in the summer before new iPhones come out in the fall. The well-oiled system helps Apple pump out more than 200 million iPhones per year.
Additionally, Foxconn over the years has come under scrutiny for worker conditions many times, including in 2011 when the company installed nets around some of its buildings after a rash of worker suicides. Oversight groups have said that Foxconn’s work is grueling and that workers are pressured into working overtime.
Despite working conditions, Foxconn hired 50,000 additional workers at its biggest factory in Henan to build enough iPhones ahead of the latest models’ September launch, Chinese media reported last fall.
But Chinese workers get paid far less than American workers. The hourly wage during the iPhone 16 surge was 26 yuan, or $3.63, with a signing bonus of 7,500 yuan, or about $1,000, according to the South China Morning Post. For comparison, the minimum wage in California is $16.50 per hour.
Bank of America Securities’ Mohan estimated on Thursday that the labor cost for assembling and testing an iPhone in the U.S. would come in at $200 per iPhone, up from $40 in China.
Apple CEO Cook has also said that another issue is that American workers don’t have the right skills. In a 2017 interview, Cook said there aren’t enough tooling engineers in the U.S. Those engineers work on and configure the machines that take the sophisticated designs from Apple, which come in the form of computer files, and transform them into physical objects.
“The reason is because of the quantity of skill in one location, and the type of skill it is,” Cook said when asked at a conference why Apple does so much production in China.
A meeting of tooling engineers in China could fill “multiple football fields,” but in the U.S., it would be hard to fill one, Cook said.
The most recent effort to have Foxconn move significant production to the U.S. was a failure.
Trump announced a $10 billion investment from Foxconn to build plants in Wisconsin in 2017. Apple was never officially attached to Foxconn’s Wisconsin location, but that didn’t stop Trump from claiming Apple would build three “big beautiful plants” in the U.S.
Foxconn changed plans several times for what the Wisconsin plant would produce, but it eventually settled on making face masks during the pandemic – nothing electronics related. The Foxconn Wisconsin plant was pitched as delivering 13,000 jobs, but it only created 1,454 jobs.
During the pandemic, plans for the plant were abandoned, and most of the facility remains unbuilt.
Apple worked with Foxconn in 2011 to expand iPhone production to Brazil to avoid large import duties in that country. The plant is still operational today, and will produce iPhone 16 models to help Apple get around U.S. tariffs, according to recent Brazilian media reports.
But even after the $12 billion factory was operational, most components were still imported from Asia, and in 2015, four years after the plant was announced, the iPhones made in Brazil retailed for twice the price of iPhones made in China, according to Reuters.
However, recent efforts by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Apple’s main chip manufacturer, have been successful. TSMC now makes small quantities of cutting-edge chips at a new factory in Arizona, and Apple’s a committed customer.
Apple CEO Tim Cook escorts President Donald Trump as he tours Apple’s Mac Pro manufacturing plant with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin looking on in Austin, Texas, November 20, 2019.
Tom Brenner | Reuters
Even if iPhones could be assembled in America, much of what goes into an iPhone comes from countries around the world, all of which have received tariffs.
The vast majority of parts in an iPhone are made in Asia. The processor is manufactured by TSMC in Taiwan, the display is produced by South Korean companies like LG or Samsung, and the majority of the other components are made in China.
Apple would face tariffs on most of those parts, according to Mohan of Bank of America Securities, unless it could secure waivers for individual parts. Semiconductors, which are among the most valuable parts inside an iPhone, are exempt from tariffs at the moment.
Trump on Wednesday put a 90-day pause on most of his tariffs, but if the pause comes to an end, a Yankee-made iPhone 16 Pro Max could increase in price by 91% thanks to tariffs and increased labor costs, Mohan wrote.
“While it may be possible to move final assembly to the U.S., moving the entire iPhone supply chain would be a much bigger undertaking and would likely take many years, if even possible,” Mohan wrote.
Though Jobs shut down the idea of an America iPhone flat out with Obama, Cook hasn’t taken the same unvarnished approach.
Instead, Cook has led Apple’s strategy to engage with Trump, including attending his inauguration in January. Apple also announced that it will spend $500 billion within the U.S., including on some AI server production in Houston. Trump regularly cites the investment with approval.
During the first Trump administration, Cook’s strategy worked.
Although Trump talked about stars-and-stripes iPhones and Apple building plants in the U.S., the tech company was able to secure temporary exemptions for many of its products made in China. That meant Apple didn’t have to pay tariffs on important devices like the iPhone.
The charm offensive during Trump’s first term culminated in the fall of 2019 when Apple extended its commitment to assembling the $3,000 Mac Pro in a Flex factory outside Austin, Texas. Trump toured the factory with Cook.
Before Apple commits to a red, white and blue iPhone, it may produce some lower-volume products or accessories in the U.S. to charm Trump, Wall Street analysts say.
“Given we now know that the Trump administration is willing to negotiate, we wouldn’t be surprised to see Apple commit to some small-volume production in the US (HomePod? AirTags?), similar to its September 2019 commitment to manufacture the new Mac Pro in Austin, TX, to try and win an exemption,” Morgan Stanley analyst Erik Woodring wrote in a Thursday note.
Money keeps flowing into artificial intelligence companies but out of AI stocks.
In what looks like — once again — a scenario of the left hand scratching the right, Microsoft and Nvidia will be investing a combined $15 billion into Anthropic, while the OpenAI competitor has committed to buying compute power from its two newest stakeholders. At this point, it seems as if a big proportion of AI news can be summarized as: “Company X invests in Company Y, and Company Y will buy things from Company X.”
Okay, that’s unfair. There are a lot of developments in the AI world that are not about investments but, well, development. Google unveiled the third version of Gemini, its AI model, which Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google’s AI unit DeepMind, said “will be “trading cliché and flattery for genuine insight.” (But I still want an AI chatbot to compliment me on my curiosity when I ask how to cut a pear, so I’m not sure if that’s a pro for me.)
Investors, however, still appear skeptical about AI. Major names such as Nvidia, Amazon and Microsoft tumbled Tuesday stateside, giving the S&P 500 its fourth straight session in the red — the longest decline since August.
And if Nvidia — “the top company within the top industry within the top sector,” as CFRA’s chief investment strategist Sam Stovall puts it — fails to satisfy investors’ expectations when it reports earnings Wednesday, we might be seeing the S&P 500’s slide extend.
Anthropic signs deal with Microsoft and Nvidia. Microsoft announced Tuesday it will invest up to $5 billion in the startup, while Nvidia will put in up to $10 billion. That puts Anthropic’s valuation around $350 billion, according to a source.
Google announces its latest AI model Gemini 3. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said Tuesday it will require “less prompting” for desired answers. The update comes eight months after Google introduced Gemini 2.5, and will be rolled out in the coming weeks.
[PRO] Potentially resilient stocks amid AI slump. There are some global stocks and non-equity assets that could weather the turbulence in U.S. tech names happening recently, strategists told CNBC.
Miffed over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments related to Taiwan, China on Friday advised its citizens against travelling to the country. Japanese tourism-exposed stocks fell in the aftermath of that warning, while experts caution the impact could be more severe over a longer duration.
Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute, said tensions between the two Asian powers could result in a 1.79 trillion yen drop in Japan’s GDP over the course of one year — a 0.29% decline in the country’s GDP.
Every weekday, the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer releases the Homestretch — an actionable afternoon update, just in time for the last hour of trading on Wall Street. Markets: Stocks continued their recent declines Tuesday as megacap tech lagged on worries about valuations within the artificial intelligence trade. The S & P 500 was on track for its worst losing streak since August as it closed in on its fourth consecutive session of losses. Club stocks Amazon and Microsoft weighed on the market, shedding 4% and 2.7%, respectively, in the afternoon. Club holding Nvidia ‘s 1.5% drop didn’t help sentiment either, going into its highly anticipated earnings report Wednesday evening. The Club also had a busy day of trades. We bought more Home Depot on its post-earnings decline , and sold half of our Disney stake following a disappointing quarter last week. Later in the session, we booked some big profits in Eli Lilly , while adding to our Nike position. The Club also initiated a position in Procter & Gamble , a consumer powerhouse behind household brands like Tide, Crest, and Gillette. Done deal : Salesforce closed its $8.3 billion acquisition of AI-powered data management company Informatica ahead of schedule. The companies had been targeting early next year for completion. “The market didn’t really care for this deal when it was announced in May,” Jeff Marks, director of portfolio analysis for the Club, said Tuesday afternoon, recalling Salesforce shares sinking on reports of the deal and the subsequent announcement a few days later. Marks added that the early completion of the purchase is a “good sign of confidence in the integration that Salesforce expects the deal to be accretive to non-GAAP operating margin and non-GAAP earnings per share one year faster than originally believed.” Despite these positive developments, Marks said Salesforce is still a “show me” story. Salesforce has yet to convince investors that AI doesn’t threaten the software giant’s core business, which operates using a seat-based model. The stock lost more than 1.5% in Tuesday’s trading. Big win: Meta Platforms got a big win Tuesday afternoon in an important antitrust case against the Federal Trade Commission. A federal judge ruled that the FTC did not prove its claims that Meta holds a monopoly in social networking or that the company should not have been allowed to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp back in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The agency, which wanted those two units to be divested, argued that there are no major apps like Facebook and Instagram. The judge, however, said that there are plenty of competitors, citing TikTok and YouTube, and contended that the social media landscape has changed radically since those Meta acquisitions were made over a decade ago. Shares of Club name Meta turned positive late Tuesday. The favorable Meta ruling came 10 weeks after Alphabet’s Google avoided the harshest penalties in the antitrust case it lost last year. Good news: iPhone sales in China surged in October, taking Apple’s dominance in the country’s smartphone market to one in every four phones sold, according to the latest data from Counterpoint Research . Apple last achieved this milestone in 2022. Overall, sales for Apple’s flagship device in China jumped 37% last month from the year prior. Analysts at Counterpoint pointed to solid demand for the iPhone 17, in particular, for the market share gains. All three iPhone 17 variants have outperformed iPhone 16 models in sales, according to Counterpoint, posting mid-to-high double-digit percentage growth from year-earlier levels. The base model of the iPhone 17 continued to grow at the fastest rate. Apple shares were up slightly on Tuesday. Jim Cramer has pounded the table on the new iPhones since the September launch. He previously described its debut as “gigantic” and argued that Apple’s newest devices are “more of a bargain” than past versions. The Club maintains its long-held “own it, don’t trade it” thesis on Apple stock. Up next: Club holding TJX will report quarterly earnings Wednesday morning, along with other retailers like Target and Lowe’s . Then, Nvidia and Palo Alto Networks , both Club names, will release their results after Wednesday’s market close. Investors will also get the minutes from the October Fed meeting at 2 p.m. ET on Wednesday. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears at the Meta Connect event in Menlo Park, California, on Sept. 25, 2024.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Meta won its high-profile antitrust case against the Federal Trade Commission, which had accused the company of holding a monopoly in social networking.
In a memorandum opinion released Tuesday, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,said the FTC failed to prove its argument. The case, initially filed by the FTC five years ago, centered on Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
“Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now,” Boasbergsaid in the filing. “The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so. A judgment so stating shall issue this day.”
Boasberg dismissed the case in 2021, saying the agency didn’t have enough evidence to prove “Facebook holds market power.” In August of that year, the FTC filed an amended complaint with more details about the company’s user numbers and metrics relative to competitors like Snapchat, the now-defunct Google+ social network and Myspace.
After reviewing the amendments, Boasberg in 2022 ruled that the case could proceed, saying the FTC had presented more details than before.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former operating chief Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and other current and former Meta executives all testified in the trial, which began in April.
Meta shares were little changed on Tuesday. The stock is up about 2% for the year, badly underperforming broader indexes and most of its megacap tech peers.
“The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition,” the company said in a statement. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”
The FTC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling comes a little over two months after Googleavoided the harshest possible penalty from an antitrust case it lost last year. While Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta decided the company would not be forced to sell its Chrome browser, bucking the Department of Justice’s request. Google was, however, ordered to loosen its hold on search data.
In the Meta case, the FTC claimed the company shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014, and the agency called for those units to be divested. The commission also alleged that there were no major alternatives for apps like Facebook and Instagram that people use to communicate with friends and family in a online, social space.
However, a major challenge for the FTC, according to the judge, was in proving that Meta is breaking antitrust law today, not years ago when the primary use of social networks was very different and based on sharing other kinds of content.
“To win the permanent injunction that it seeks here, the FTC must prove a current or imminent legal violation,” he wrote.
Boasberg ultimately sided with Meta’s argument that the technology industry has evolved since the early days of Facebook, and the company now faces a wide variety of competitors like TikTok.
“While each of Meta’s empirical showings can be quibbled with, they all tell a consistent story: people treat TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram, and the amount of competitive overlap is economically important,” Boasberg wrote. “Against that unmistakable pattern, the FTC offers no empirical evidence of substitution whatsoever.”
Big changes in social
Much of Judge Boasberg’s conclusion was built on the transformation that’s taken place in the social media market in recent years and Meta’s changing position within it. User trends have moved heavily in the direction of video, where TikTok and YouTube have massive user bases and huge network effects.
“The most-used part of Meta’s apps is thus indistinguishable from the offerings on TikTok and YouTube,” Boasberg wrote.
Boasberg explained that there was enough evidence to show “that consumers are reallocating massive amounts of time from Meta’s apps” to those services and others, which has “forced Meta to invest gobs of cash to keep up.”
“Meta is not a monopolist insulated from competition,” he wrote. “The Court finds the evidence favoring Meta on this issue both credible and convincing.”
Boasberg also cited various documents and testimony from “industry insiders” that show how other tech companies like TikTok and YouTube viewed Meta as serious competition.
“TikTok and YouTube tracked Meta’s products as competitive threats,” Boasberg wrote.