By John Gruber
WorkOS: Scalable, secure authentication, trusted by OpenAI, Cursor, Perplexity, and Vercel.
My thanks to WorkOS for sponsoring last week at DF. Modern authentication should be seamless and secure. WorkOS makes it easy to integrate features like MFA, SSO, and RBAC. Whether you’re replacing passwords, stopping fraud, or adding enterprise auth, WorkOS can help you build frictionless auth that scales.
New features they launched just last month include:
Future-proof your authentication stack with the identity layer trusted by OpenAI, Cursor, Perplexity, and Vercel.
Bill Maher personifies the difference between a liberal (which he is) and a leftist (which he isn’t). But he’s been a stridently vocal critic of Trump since long before Trump even ran for president. Maher was the first person on television to correctly predict that Trump, if he lost the 2020 election, would attempt to remain in office. Maher and Trump, however, are mutual friends with Kid Rock, and Rock arranged for Trump to invite Maher to the White House for a private dinner. UFC chief and Meta board member Dana White was also there. A decade ago even imagining this guest list for a White House dinner would have been a warning that you ought to lay off the drugs. Today, this is normal.
On this clip from his show this weekend, Maher reports on the dinner. What it was like. What Trump was like. Turns out, in private, Trump turns it off. He was normal. Or, well, normal for Donald Trump. He wasn’t what we see in public. I find that fascinating. Not exculpatory. Just interesting. Is he “They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats!” crazy 24 hours a day, or just when the cameras are on?
Some on the left are absolutely losing their shit over Maher for this. I don’t get it. This is the single most interesting report on Trump I’ve seen in years because it’s real. Maher didn’t come out of the dinner brainwashed. He’s not now saying Trump is doing a good job. He’s not now saying things are in any way OK. He spent his whole monologue before this report rightfully skewering Trump’s humiliating weeklong tariffs tantrum. After the report, Maher interviewed total nutjob Steve Bannon and literally shoved a copy of the Constitution in Bannon’s face when Bannon started blathering about Trump running for a third term in 2028. From Maher’s preface to his report:
“Oh my god Bill, are you going to say something nice about him? What I’m going to do is report exactly what happened. You decide what you think about it. And if that’s not enough pure Trump hate for you I don’t give a fuck.”
Crackerjack essay by Chuck Wendig:
Maybe it’s like turbulence on an airplane, you think. Just a bumpy unpleasant awful experience you gotta get through. But when turbulence hits it’s not because the pilot is a guy who doesn’t “know planes,” when turbulence hits they don’t disappear the ninth row people out the airlock because they “look different” and are “probably causing the problem.” Planes don’t have airlocks, do they? Whatever. My brain is spray cheese.
Vanity Fair published an excerpt from Chris Whipple’s new book on the final years of Joe Biden’s presidency, under the headline “Did Aides Cover Up His Mental State — or Was It Group Delusion?” (News+ link):
The president’s wobbly state should have been a flashing warning light. At his first meeting with Biden, Ron Klain, his former White House chief of staff, who was in charge of debate prep, was startled. He’d never seen Biden so exhausted and out of it. He seemed unaware of what was happening in his own campaign. The president appeared obsessed with foreign policy and uninterested in his second-term plans. During one prep session in Aspen Lodge, the presidential cabin, Biden suddenly got up, walked out to the pool, collapsed on a lounge chair, and fell sound asleep. Yet his advisers were undaunted. With unintended irony, one of them explained their strategy to me: “An early debate would quiet fears that the president was infirm.”
Jiminy.
Jamelle Bouie, writing at The New York Times (gift link):
There is a hypothetical president with a hypothetically similar agenda who could answer these questions. This actual president cannot. He did not reason himself into his preoccupation with tariffs and can neither reason nor speak coherently about them. There is no grand plan or strategic vision, no matter what his advisers claim — only the impulsive actions of a mad king, untethered from any responsibility to the nation or its people. For as much as the president’s apologists would like us to believe otherwise, Trump’s tariffs are not a policy as we traditionally understand it. What they are is an instantiation of his psyche: a concrete expression of his zero-sum worldview. [...]
You could even say that this need to dominate — this overwhelming drive to show mastery — is constitutive of Trump’s self. There must be a loser, or else there is no Trump. [...] The upshot of this understanding of Trump’s personality is that there is no point at which he can be satisfied. He will always want more: more supplicants to obey his next command, more displays of his power and authority and more opportunities to trample over those who don’t belong in his America.
There’s no point to this other than a vain attempt to get every other country in the world to come begging to Donald Trump for mercy. Which isn’t going to happen.
Warren Buffett’s annual shareholders letters are always a must-read. The honesty, clarity, and striking humility of his prose stands out in a world where corporate communications — from companies of any size — tend to be bland and obfuscating. This year’s letter, published back in February, is no exception. Two sections stood out to me. First, in a section titled “Mistakes — Yes, We Make Them at Berkshire”:
Sometimes I’ve made mistakes in assessing the future economics of a business I’ve purchased for Berkshire — each a case of capital allocation gone wrong. That happens with both judgments about marketable equities — we view these as partial ownership of businesses — and the 100% acquisitions of companies.
At other times, I’ve made mistakes when assessing the abilities or fidelity of the managers Berkshire is hiring. The fidelity disappointments can hurt beyond their financial impact, a pain that can approach that of a failed marriage.
A decent batting average in personnel decisions is all that can be hoped for. The cardinal sin is delaying the correction of mistakes or what Charlie Munger called “thumb-sucking.” Problems, he would tell me, cannot be wished away. They require action, however uncomfortable that may be.
During the 2019-23 period, I have used the words “mistake” or “error” 16 times in my letters to you. Many other huge companies have never used either word over that span. Amazon, I should acknowledge, made some brutally candid observations in its 2021 letter. Elsewhere, it has generally been happy talk and pictures.
I have also been a director of large public companies at which “mistake” or “wrong” were forbidden words at board meetings or analyst calls. That taboo, implying managerial perfection, always made me nervous (though, at times, there could be legal issues that make limited discussion advisable. We live in a very litigious society.)
At 94, it won’t be long before Greg Abel replaces me as CEO and will be writing the annual letters. Greg shares the Berkshire creed that a “report” is what a Berkshire CEO annually owes to owners. And he also understands that if you start fooling your shareholders, you will soon believe your own baloney and be fooling yourself as well.
As the great physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Second is an entire section, not complaining, but instead proudly declaring, that last year Berkshire set the record for the highest single-year corporate income tax payment in United States history:
Huge numbers can be hard to visualize. Let me recast the $26.8 billion that we paid last year.
If Berkshire had sent the Treasury a $1 million check every 20 minutes throughout all of 2024 — visualize 366 days and nights because 2024 was a leap year — we still would have owed the federal government a significant sum at yearend. Indeed, it would be well into January before the Treasury would tell us that we could take a short breather, get some sleep, and prepare for our 2025 tax payments. [...]
Berkshire’s activities now impact all corners of our country. And we are not finished. Companies die for many reasons but, unlike the fate of humans, old age itself is not lethal. Berkshire today is far more youthful than it was in 1965.
However, as Charlie and I have always acknowledged, Berkshire would not have achieved its results in any locale except America whereas America would have been every bit the success it has been if Berkshire had never existed.
So thank you, Uncle Sam. Someday your nieces and nephews at Berkshire hope to send you even larger payments than we did in 2024. Spend it wisely. Take care of the many who, for no fault of their own, get the short straws in life. They deserve better. And never forget that we need you to maintain a stable currency and that result requires both wisdom and vigilance on your part.
Again, that was written back in February. Prescient as always.
Auzinea Bacon, CNN:
Electronics imported to the United States will be exempt from President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, according to a US Customs and Border Protection notice posted late Friday. Smartphones, computer monitors and various electronic parts are among the exempted products. The exemption applies to products entering the United States or removed from warehouses as early as April 5, according to the notice.
The move comes after the Trump administration imposed a minimum tariff rate of 145% on Chinese goods imported to the United States. The tariffs would have a major impact on tech giants like Apple, which make iPhones and other products in China.
Roughly 90% of Apple’s iPhone production and assembly is based in China, according to Wedbush Securities’ estimates. Analysts at Wedbush on Saturday called the tariff exclusion, “the best news possible for tech investors.”
Here’s Commerce Secretary Emily Litella making the announcement on Weekend Update.
Reuters:
China’s Anker, one of Amazon’s largest sellers offering products from power banks to phone cases, has raised prices on a fifth of its products on the U.S. platform since Thursday, in a sign that tariffs on Chinese goods are being passed on to U.S. shoppers.
Some 127 Anker products have seen an average increase of 18% since Thursday last week, with the majority of those occurring after Monday, April 7, when U.S. President Donald Trump added an extra 50% import duty on Chinese goods, according to data from e-commerce services provider SmartScout.
Tariffs driving up consumer prices is as sure a thing as rain making you wet. But it’s worth pointing to the evidence as it comes in, because unlike rain’s wetness, the “emperor sure does have clothes” MAGA contingent is trying to argue that tariffs don’t have this obvious effect.
Financial Times reporter John Burn-Murdoch has a summary on Bluesky of his co-bylined report for the Financial Times:
Visitors from western Europe who stayed at least one night in the US fell by 17 per cent in March from a year ago, according to the International Trade Administration. Travel from some countries — including Ireland, Norway and Germany — fell by more than 20 per cent, an FT analysis of ITA data showed.
The trend poses a threat to the US tourism industry, which accounts for 2.5 per cent of the country’s GDP. Some airlines and hotel groups have warned of waning demand for transatlantic travel and a “bad buzz” about visiting the US. The total number of overseas visitors travelling to the US dropped by 12 per cent year-on-year in March, the steepest decline since March 2021 when the travel sector was reeling from pandemic restrictions, according to the ITA data.
Well, I’m sure it will turn around when the April figures come out, after Trump’s tariff madness and the news that Secretary of State Marco Rubio — supposedly one of the few sane voices in the 2.0 Trump kakistocracy — has signed a two-page argument that noncitizens can be deported for their beliefs, a.k.a. thought crimes.
“In just two months [Trump] has destroyed the reputation of the US, shown one way by diminished travel from the EU to the US,” said Paul English, co-founder of travel website Kayak. “This is not only one more terrible blow to the US economy, it also represents reputation damage that could take generations to repair.”
We need more clearheaded statements like this from business leaders. Just state the truth plainly. The only side English took with this statement is the side of the truth.
Reuters:
“The U.S. side’s imposition of excessively high tariffs on China seriously violates international economic and trade rules, runs counter to basic economic principles and common sense, and is simply an act of unilateral bullying and coercion,” China’s Finance Ministry said in a statement. [...]
“Even if the U.S. continues to impose even higher tariffs, it would no longer have any economic significance and would go down as a joke in the history of world economics,” the Finance Ministry’s statement added.
“If the U.S. continues to play a numbers game with tariffs, China will not respond,” it added. However it left the door open for Beijing to turn to other types of retaliation, reiterating that China would fight the U.S. to the end.
None of this is funny at the moment, but Trump has beclowned himself with these impulsive nonsensical tariffs. No matter how this ends up, he will go down in history looking like a fool for this. In terms of history, what will be remembered in decades to come, he’d have far less embarrassed himself by shitting his pants in public. He came into office less than three months ago with the US economy being the strongest in the world, by far. Everything that’s happened since has been the direct result of his mad-king magical-thinking nonsense and the Republican party’s refusal to stand up to him.
If Joe Biden had imposed these exact same tariff policies a year ago, for the exact same stated reasons, Republicans would have impeached him and called for his immediate ouster through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — and their actions, for once, would have been justified. These tariff policies are nuts and are endangering the United States’s economic supremacy while simultaneously hurting the entire world economy. No one in their right mind would do this, and the President of the United States needs to be a person in their right mind.
Democrats and all other Trump opponents should immediately begin calling into question Trump’s mental fitness for office. This whole tariff saga is proof that he’s nuts. Just keep repeating that. He’s always been a little nutty but now he’s gone off the deep end. Don’t forget to reiterate that Trump’s father was suffering from severe dementia when he was Trump’s age. Throw Biden under the bus: remind people that we just saw what happens when a mentally enfeebled 80-year-old* serves as President, and that under Trump it’s far worse. Biden was sleepy but steady; Trump is agitated and erratic. That’s far worse.
Hammer the points — all true, all obvious — endlessly: Trump is too old; these tariffs are proof that he’s lost his mind; he’s hurting America badly; dementia runs in his family. Hammer it.
* Keep calling him “80”; make his sycophants correct you that he’s “only” turning 79 in June.
Blockbuster report by Wayne Ma for The Information (paywalled and pricey, alas):
But an equally important factor was the conflicting personalities within Apple, according to multiple people who worked in the AI and software engineering groups. More than half a dozen former Apple employees who worked in the AI and machine-learning group led by Giannandrea — known as AI/ML for short — told The Information that poor leadership is to blame for its problems with execution. They singled out Walker as lacking both ambition and an appetite for taking risks on designing future versions of the voice assistant.
Among engineers inside Apple, the AI group’s relaxed culture and struggles with execution have even earned it an uncharitable nickname, a play on its initials: AIMLess.
Ouch. Ma names names, and the report is full of scoops:
One Siri leader often criticized by colleagues was Walker, who joined Apple in 2013 and became responsible for its daily operations at the end of 2022. In the eyes of his critics, Walker was unwilling to take big risks on Siri and focused on metrics that didn’t move the needle much on its performance, rather than having a grand vision for overhauling the voice assistant.
For instance, he often celebrated small wins such as reducing by minute percentages the delay between when someone asked Siri a question and when it responded, former Apple engineers said. Another pet Walker project was removing the “hey” from the “hey Siri” voice command used to invoke the assistant, which took more than two years to accomplish, they said.
What Ma describes is a scenario where Walker missed the fact that the whole forest sucked and didn’t work, while focusing on one or two nice trees. Faster response times are a win, no question — but a small win, only at the margin. Faster wrong or useless (or even just mediocre) answers are, I guess, better than slower wrong/useless answers, but the overall result is a loss. Fast helpful answers are the goal, obviously, but slow helpful answers are infinitely better than fast useless ones. (I’m not even sure eliminating the requirement to use the verbal “hey” prefix was a win at all. It’s purely anecdotal and personal, but I think I get more unwanted invocations now than I did when “Hey Siri” was the required prompt. Like when I’m talking to someone and start a sentence with “Seriously …” Siri will kick in on one of my devices with a “Sorry, I didn’t catch that.”)
One last nugget:
Other resentments also built up. Some in the software engineering group were annoyed by the higher pay and faster promotions their colleagues in the AI group were receiving. And they were bitter that some engineers in the AI group seemed to be able to take longer vacations and leave early on Fridays, while they faced more-punishing work schedules.
Distrust between the two groups got so bad that earlier this year one of Giannandrea’s deputies asked engineers to extensively document the development of a joint project so that if it failed, Federighi’s group couldn’t scapegoat the AI team.
It didn’t help the relations between the groups when Federighi began amassing his own team of hundreds of machine-learning engineers that goes by the name Intelligent Systems and is run by one of Federighi’s top deputies, Sebastien Marineau-Mes.
Hundreds of engineers for a machine learning team outside Apple’s AI/ML division sounds like the definition of dysfunction. I really doubt Federighi has also assembled a large team of silicon engineers outside Johny Srouji’s division, because Srouji’s team is not merely functional, but rightly regarded as one the highest-functioning engineering divisions in any field in the world.
I wish I could share a gift link to Ma’s report, but The Information’s gift links for subscribers only work for up to three people. The best I can do is point to Hartley Charlton’s summary for MacRumors.
Ben Thompson:
The problem with these tariffs is that their scale and indiscriminate nature will have the effect of destroying demand and destroying the capability to develop alternative supply. I suppose if the only goal is to hurt China then shooting yourself in the foot, such that you no longer need to buy shoes for stumps, is a strategy you could choose, but that does nothing to help with what should be the primary motivation: shoring up the U.S. national security base.
Those national security concerns are real. The final stage of disruption is when the entity that started on the bottom is uniquely equipped to deliver what is necessary for a new paradigm, and that is exactly what happened with electronics generally and drones specifically. Moreover, this capability is only going to grow more important with the rise of AI, which will be substantiated in the physical world through robotics. And, of course, robots will be the key to building other robots; if the U.S. wants to be competitive in the future, and not be dependent on China, it really does need to make changes — just not these ones.
Chance Miller, writing at 9to5Mac:
Ahead of that, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said today that Trump firmly believes that Apple can move iPhone manufacturing to the United States. In response to a question from Maggie Haberman of The New York Times about the types of jobs Trump hopes to create in the U.S. with these tariffs, Leavitt said:
“The president wants to increase manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America, but he’s also looking at advanced technologies. He’s also looking at AI and emerging fields that are growing around the world that the United States needs to be a leader in as well. There’s an array of diverse jobs. More traditional manufacturing jobs, and also jobs in advanced technologies. The president is looking at all of those. He wants them to come back home.”
Haberman followed up with a question about iPhone manufacturing specifically, asking whether Trump thinks this is “the kind of technology” that could move to the United States. Leavitt responded:
“[Trump] believes we have the labor, we have the workforce, we have the resources to do it. As you know, Apple has invested $500 billion here in the United States. So, if Apple didn’t think the United States could do it, they probably wouldn’t have put up that big chunk of change.”
Leavitt is referencing Apple’s announcement from February, when it said it would “spend more than $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years.” Apple’s commitment, however, made zero reference to iPhone assembly in the United States. The press release focused on R&D in the U.S., chip production in Arizona, AI server manufacturing in Houston, Apple TV+ production, and an academy in Michigan.
Also worth reading today is this story from 404 Media, which outlines exactly why an iPhone made in the U.S. is “pure fantasy.”
Another way to think about it is that the iPhone — the iPhone as we know it — can’t really be made anywhere else but China. Apple doesn’t publicly state how many iPhones are made in which countries — shocker that they’d be secretive about that — but estimates peg annual production as being 85–90 percent in China, 10 percent in India, and the remainder in Brazil and Vietnam. Wages aren’t even close to the biggest reason for this. Ultimately the biggest unique factor to the Chinese supply chain is scale. Foxconn’s iPhone factories in China aren’t mere buildings and aren’t really even campuses — they’re more like entire cities unto themselves.
We can joke about US-made iPhones costing $9,000 but the jokes miss the point. If the world were such that all iPhones sold to Americans were made in America, there’s no plausible scenario where iPhone ownership would be commonplace. Let’s estimate that Apple sells 50 million iPhones per year in the US. Apple couldn’t manufacture 50 million iPhones per year in the US at any cost. No amount of money could be thrown at the problem and make it happen that 50 million new iPhones are made in the US in the near future. Apple could make some iPhones here, but not many. And however many they might make would be built using components (displays, chips) that would have to be imported anyway.
Even if Apple were to dramatically raise the price of an iPhone, and even if, somehow, demand for iPhones didn’t drop in the face of dramatically higher prices, Apple simply couldn’t make tens of millions of iPhones here in the US. But of course demand would drop precipitously in the face of higher prices. And a gray market would instantly rise. Because even if Apple, magically, were able to build tens of millions of iPhones in the US, they’d still be building hundreds of millions of them in China — and those Chinese-assembled ones would cost less. I’m imagining an entire cottage industry of bootleggers running Chinese-made iPhones from Canada into the US, and instead of buying iPhones from an Apple Store, people will buy them from the backs of U-Haul trucks. (Gray market bootlegging is inevitable with these tariffs, for every sort of product. If something is cheaper in Canada than it is in the US, someone’s going to smuggle it across the border.)
There simply is no scenario where 50 million Americans per year buy an iPhone for prices they’d be willing to pay without most of them being manufactured by the Chinese supply chain Apple has built.
Jen Simmons, writing on the WebKit blog, “Better Typography With text-wrap pretty”:
For over 30 years, the web had only one technique for determining where to wrap text.
The browser starts with the first line of text, and lays out each word or syllable, one after another until it runs out of room. As soon as it has no more space to fit another word/syllable, it wraps to the next line (if wrapping is allowed). Then it starts on the next line, fitting all the content it can… then when it runs out of room, it wraps… and starts working on the next line.
It’s always thinking about only one line at a time. It wraps whenever it needs, after it’s fit the maximum amount of content on the previous line. If hyphenation is turned on, it will hyphenate whatever word is last on the line, at whatever point leaves as much of the word on the previous line as possible. Nothing else is taken into consideration — which is why text on the web has bad rag, rivers, short last lines, and hyphenation that makes no sense.
This is not required by the fact that text is laid out by a computer. For decades, software like Adobe InDesign and LaTeX has evaluated multiple lines of text at a time as they decide where to end one line and begin the next. It’s just that the web didn’t use a multiline algorithm. Until now.
We are excited to bring this capability to the web for the first time, in Safari Technology Preview 216.
I’ve turned this on here at Daring Fireball, at least as an experiment. (Look at me, fast adopter of novel CSS features.) I have mixed feelings about the results. Here are saved PDFs showing the rendering of my “How Many New iPhones Can Fit on a Freight Plane?” article from earlier today: first with traditional text-wrap: auto
line wrapping, and second with WebKit’s new text-wrap: pretty
in STP 216. Looking at each paragraph by itself, there’s no question this new layout algorithm is, well, prettier. The problem I see is going from one paragraph to another. Within a paragraph, WebKit’s new pretty
wrapping definitely makes lines a more uniform width. But in some cases it so narrows an entire paragraph that it makes going from one paragraph to the next jarring. Line-to-line the new algorithm looks better, but paragraph-to-paragraph I think it looks worse.
One specific example, from my longest recent article. First, with the old text-wrap: auto
:
Here’s that same list with the new text-wrap: pretty
in STP 216:
With the new text-wrap: pretty
, the entire paragraph for the first list item is noticeably wider than the subsequent ones (and noticeably wider than the one preceding the list). To me, there’s so much disparity between paragraph widths that it’s distracting, even though each paragraph, taken on its own, looks better. But you don’t take paragraphs on their own when reading.
I suspect (informed by toying with Simmons’s fun interactive demo page using STP 216) that this initial WebKit text-wrap: pretty
layout algorithm works better with wider column widths than are currently specified on Daring Fireball. When there’s a little more width to play with, there seems to be less back-and-forth change from paragraph to paragraph.
So, for my purposes, this might be yet another improvement that will need to wait for the long-promised-but-who-knows-when-it-might-actually-happen-but-I-swear-I-think-about-it-quite-a-bit-and-a-few-years-ago-even-had-something-in-motion-but-then-let-the-project-drop layout modernization here. But, even with a nice responsive design, column widths on phones are inherently narrow, so I think this algorithm ought to be tweaked to render more consistent paragraph widths in narrow-ish columns.
But I think it’s a good start, and I couldn’t be happier that the WebKit team is even tackling the problem at all. As Simmons notes, line-wrapping layout in web browsers has, until now, been very crude — and the web has been around a long time. ★
This sounds like one of those puzzles job interviewers often ask, but there’s a practical relevance at the moment: What’s a ballpark estimate for how many iPhones Apple might have hustled to ship into the US on those five freight planes ahead of the new tariffs? Ryan Jones tackled it in a post on X:
A whopping 12 days of sales. At most.
Math:
• B747 Freighter carries 300,000 lbs
• boxed iPhone is 0.9 lbs
= 350K iPhones per plane
I like Jones’s ballpark math here. Let’s not worry about volume, just weight. If we’re wrong about the volume, it can only mean fewer new-in-box iPhones can fit per plane. There’s no way to (safely) exceed the weight limit of a plane.
Jones also estimates that Apple sells about 150,000 new iPhones in the US per day, at least in the typical April–June quarter — which I concur is a good ballpark figure.1 So each plane can carry a little over two days’ worth of US domestic iPhones. That means if the Times of India is correct that Apple “transported five planes full of iPhones and other products from India to the US in just three days during the final week of March”, those five planes combined carried, at the most, about 12 days’ worth of new US iPhones.
Now that’s just from India. And those are just the five planes the Times of India heard about. It seems safe to presume Apple might have hustled even more planes out of China and Vietnam. But again, at most, each plane full of Apple products carries about two days’ worth of products. We did our napkin math using iPhones, but “1 full plane = 2 days of inventory” can’t be far off the mark, no matter what the mix of product is in each plane’s cargo hold.
350,000 iPhones packed onto a single plane is a lot of iPhones. Sending a few million units across a dozen (or more!) planes is, quite literally, tons of iPhones. But Apple sells about 50 tons of new iPhones in the US alone every day. We all know that Apple’s iPhone business is huge. But when you start to consider it in practical terms like this it’s just staggering.
There’s no way Apple can “beat” these Trump tariffs by having shipped products ahead of their taking effect. Could they hedge against two or three weeks of tumult? Maybe a month, tops? Yes, and it seems like maybe that’s what they did. But no matter how many planes they filled — or how many container ships they might have had the foresight to send a month or two ago — there are very practical limits to inventory, too. Apple’s warehouses are likely designed with one or two weeks of inventory in mind. You can’t just rent random warehouse space to hold billions of dollars worth of iPhones.
From Adam Lashinsky’s 2008 profile of Tim Cook for Fortune:
Almost from the time he showed up at Apple, Cook knew he had to pull the company out of manufacturing. He closed factories and warehouses around the world and instead established relationships with contract manufacturers. As a result, Apple’s inventory, measured by the amount of time it sat on the company’s balance sheet, quickly fell from months to days. Inventory, Cook has said, is “fundamentally evil,” and he has been known to observe that it declines in value by 1% to 2% a week in normal times, faster in tough times like the present.
“You kind of want to manage it like you’re in the dairy business,” he has said. “If it gets past its freshness date, you have a problem.”
Apple’s entire supply chain is rightly heralded as genius, a triumph of everything from component sourcing to assembly to transport. But the entire operation is premised on the continuous free flow of packaged products out of China. Apple never holds much inventory, of anything, anywhere in the world. ★
If anything, Apple’s sales might be higher than usual right now. With consumers worried that Apple (and everyone else) might raise prices in response to Trump’s tariffs at any moment, demand is surely up to some extent. I know two friends who’ve already purchased new MacBooks, now, for kids who aren’t going off to college until September. ↩︎
President Trump, in a post on Truth Social, which is apparently how the world’s financial markets now run:
Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
The entire stock market jumped on Trump’s announcement, with the S&P 500 up 8% as I type this. Apple is up 9%, Meta 13%, Nvidia 16%, and Tesla 19%. I’m not sure why though. All Trump seems to have done is switch from waging a trade war against the entire world to a trade war against China. And the 10% tariffs Trump now claims we’re applying to imports from the rest of world are themselves economic nonsense — they only look low compared to the nonsensical rates Trump announced a week ago. We’re at the whims of a mad king. Trying to report this as having any sort of logic in a traditional economic sense is folly. It’s like trying to make scientific sense out of the biblical fable of Noah’s Ark.
Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:
According to senior Indian officials cited in the report, Apple flew five planes full of iPhones and other products from India and China “in just three days during the final week of March.”
“Factories in India and China and other key locations had been shipping products to the US in anticipation of the higher tariffs,” one source to The Times of India said.
Apple currently assembles the entire iPhone 15 and iPhone 16 lineups in India as well as China. A 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the United States kicked in on Saturday. On April 9, the tariffs that Trump has falsely labeled as “reciprocal” will kick in. This will raise the tariff rate on imports from China to 54% and imports from India to 27%.
By stockpiling as much inventory as possible in the United States, Apple can delay the impact of the tariffs. It’s unclear just how much inventory Apple has on hand in the US right now, but if there’s one thing I know, it’s to never doubt Tim Cook’s supply chain prowess.
My sincere thanks to The Ole Independence Hall Hooligans for sponsoring this past week at DF to promote democracy. That’s it. A real sponsorship, real money, raised by a group of readers who simply wanted the ad space on DF to promote, as they described it, “the enduring and aspirational project that is democracy.”
In their sponsored RSS entry to start the week, they quoted the preamble to the US Constitution. I’ll go a decade earlier, and quote from the Declaration of Independence:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. [...]
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. [...]
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Sounds like someone in the news today (and yesterday, and alas, surely again tomorrow). There is no greater threat to democracy itself than a delusional mad king, whether he wears a crown or a ridiculous ugly red cap. Take action and make your voice heard now — democracy in action is democracy’s only defense.
David Remnick, in a fine short piece for The New Yorker on Signalgate:
This is an Administration that does not have to slip on a Signal banana peel to reveal its deepest-held prejudices and its painful incapacities. You get the sense that we would learn little if we were privy to a twenty-four-hour-a-day live stream of its every private utterance. Part of what was so appalling about Trump and Vance’s recent meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky was not just their penchant for channelling the world view and negotiating points of Vladimir Putin but their comfort in expressing them, barking them, at the Ukrainian President in front of reporters in the Oval Office.
Stupidity and ignorance as a governing style. That’s it. They are exactly who they claim they are, and in private speak how they do in public. There is no secret plan.
These idiots do not believe polluting the atmosphere with carbon emissions has caused calamitous damage to our climate, despite the fact that experts, decades ago, almost universally predicted it would. Few issues in science had as much expert consensus.
These idiots think vaccines — one of the great breakthroughs in the history of science and medicine — are a bigger health risk than the diseases they immunize against. Now there are unvaccinated American kids dying from measles, a disease that was effectively wiped out in the modern world by the time I was born.
These idiots think the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Now they’re bringing the same sort of idiocy, unbound by critical thinking, history, or anything recognized as economic expertise, to trade policy.
Terrific photos and summary coverage from The Guardian. Additional coverage from The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. Update: The Atlantic has a great collection of photos from dozens of cities.
There’s something so bizarrely asymmetrical about Trump’s political support. We saw large scale protests like today’s starting in 2017 too, and in this 2.0 administration, they’re only going to get bigger. Today’s protests were coast-to-coast, in cities large and small. Hundreds of thousands — correction, millions — of people. Huge crowd in Philadelphia. Over 100,000 in Boston. But there were never any protests at all against the Biden administration. Trump’s support has been just wide enough to win, twice, but it’s so thin. His first inauguration was so conspicuously sparsely attended they held the second one indoors. Support for democracy runs deep.
Joanna Stern, Adrienne Tong, and Nicole Nguyen, writing for The Wall Street Journal (News+):
Take a look at this iPhone 16 Pro. Your cost, for the 256GB version, is $1,100. The cost of all the hardware inside — aka the bill of materials — was about $550 to Apple when the phone was introduced, says Wayne Lam, research analyst at TechInsights, which breaks down major products. Throw in assembly and testing and Apple’s cost rises to around $580. Even when you account for Apple’s advertising budget and all the included services — iMessage, iCloud, etc. — there’s still a healthy profit margin.
Now factor in the newly announced tariff for goods from China, which currently totals 54%. The cost rises to around $850. That profit margin would shrink dramatically if Apple didn’t up the price. And you don’t become a trillion-dollar gadget company by charging for things at cost.
Also worth a look is today’s front page of the WSJ print edition. At least they picked a flattering photo of Trump.
Dan Moren, writing at Six Colors:
In his piece, Gruber particularly calls out the trashcan Mac Pro sticking at $2999 throughout its existence, but I think an even more striking example is the iMac. Introduced in 1998 at a base price of $1299, today’s infinitely more powerful iMac M4 starts at … $1299.
Granted, with inflation, those prices would be a little different. In researching the details, I came across this great piece from PerfectRec charting the iMac’s price history over the years, including adjusting for inflation. Impressively, while the iMac’s base price has dipped as low as $1099 in all that time, it’s never gone over $1299.
What a great example. And bringing inflation into the mix is a key factor I neglected to make yesterday. Moore’s Law makes computers very strange manufactured goods. A Honda Civic LX cost about $15,000 in 1998, but now costs about $25,000. BMW 3-series sedans went from around $30,000 to $45,000. But the iMac still starts at $1,299.
Pricing stability is a way that Apple keeps these two forces — Moore’s Law and inflation — in balance.
Barbara Moens and Henry Foy, reporting from Brussels for the Financial Times last Friday, March 28:
The EU is set to impose minimal fines on Apple and Facebook owner Meta next week under its Digital Markets Act, as Brussels seeks to avoid escalating tensions with US President Donald Trump.
According to people familiar with the decisions, the iPhone maker is expected to be fined and ordered to revise its App Store rules, following an investigation into whether they prevent app developers from sending consumers to offers outside its platform. Regulators will also close another investigation into Apple, which was focused on the company’s design of its web browser choice screen without any further sanctions.
Meta will also be fined and ordered to change its “pay or consent” model which forces users to either consent to data tracking or pay a subscription fee for an ad-free experience of its products.
The FT is usually the go-to source for leaked news from the European Commission. But “next week” came and went with no announcements made. Maybe the FT just had a bad source, or maybe there was some sort of unforeseen delay? Or maybe the EC looked at the chaos unleashed by Trump this week and figured these fines could wait another week. Or maybe they’re just recalculating the fines post-trade-war.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, yesterday:
Thanks to Microsoft for 50 years of being awesome to developers! Some years the software was great. Some years the software sucked. Every year the company and its ecosystem has stood with and supported developers.
I pity the man who doesn’t have enough fingers to count the number of game stores available on Xbox.
Tom Warren, reporting for The Verge:
Microsoft held a special 50th anniversary event at its headquarters earlier today. During Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman’s presentation, a Microsoft employee interrupted the event to protest the use of Microsoft’s technologies in Israel’s war against Hamas. A second employee interrupted the event later on, while CEO Satya Nadella, co-founder Bill Gates, and former CEO Steve Ballmer were discussing 50 years of Microsoft.
The only opinionated public takes I’ve seen on these two protestors are from political extremes: a small number of people cheering them on, and another small number of people angrily decrying them as terrorist sympathizers. I suspect most people, though, have a take closer to my own, but are unwilling to espouse it lest they risk the ire of the two aforementioned political extremes. I’ll try.
There’s a time and a place for everything, and Microsoft’s own 50th anniversary celebration was not the time or place for two insufferable self-involved showboats to make the event about them. Because that’s what this was. It was about them, personally. Not about Gaza or Israel.
The place for righteous protests is in public, in the streets — exactly as they are happening across the United States today.
Of course Microsoft conducts business in Israel and with the Israeli government. They’re Microsoft — the entire point of the company (and thus the core point of the 50th anniversary celebration) is that their software is ubiquitous. Ranked by GDP, Israeli’s economy is 29th in the world. If Microsoft employees really want to make the case that the company should sever all ties to Israel, go ahead, but performance stunts at public celebrations are not the way. Why do they even work for Microsoft if they’re not happy to celebrate the company’s own 50th anniversary? Why did Microsoft hire people who seemingly despise the very company they work for?
I don’t know if you’ve heard but there’s a lot of horrible shit going on around the world right now. Should Microsoft sever all ties to Republican-led states that have made women’s reproductive healthcare illegal? (A woman in Georgia was just arrested after suffering a miscarriage.) Should Microsoft sever all ties to the U.S. federal government, which is now led by a mad tyrant who, in plain sight, attempted to overthrow an election he lost, and now claims (shocking no one) to be considering running for a third term that even a child could understand to be plainly unconstitutional? How much Microsoft software does ICE use? Or DOGE?
Where do such protests — all in the name of just causes — stop?
In the midst of all this madness and chaos — much of it already horrific, more of it suggestive of foreboding horrors to come — we need more than ever to savor, to appreciate, what’s still good about the world. Microsoft is a great American company. What a remarkable gift of good luck, good health, brilliant strategy, successful execution, steady leadership, and the right circumstances (e.g. Bill Gates’s precocious age — 19! — at the company’s founding) that the company has had only three CEOs in its half-century history and all three were available to join each other on stage to celebrate this anniversary, and the company’s still-bright future.
What a shitty thing to do it was to try to spoil this.
Susan Glasser, writing for The New Yorker, “Donald Trump’s Ego Melts the Global Economy”:
In this new political moment of the unthinkable made manifest, the sheer power rush for Trump should also not be underestimated. Imagine his joy as he sat down to sign an executive order decreeing the new tariffs on the basis of sweeping powers he may or may not legally possess to declare a “national economic emergency” — here was Trump transforming the world with a single flourish of his Sharpie pen. “It’s such an honor to be finally able to do this,” he said. At what other moment in modern times has a single man wielded so much unaccountable power over such a large swath of the world economy? There are whole businesses devoted to risk analysis for corporations; this is a situation in which Trump himself is the risk and the crisis being analyzed is one that he created. Talk about an ego trip.
Glasser links to Garry Kasparov, on X, responding to Wall Street’s collective surprise that Trump did what he’s been saying he would do re: tariff policy:
As I’ve said for years about Putin, and which applies to other autocratic personalities like Trump: “Dictators always lie about what they’ve done, but are often quite plain about what they want to do.” “Trump would never...” is the new “Putin would never...”
Such people do and take whatever they can, unless they are stopped. That they don’t always succeed does not mean they were not sincere in their ambitions and won’t keep trying to fulfill them. Trump has only been emboldened by the sycophantic GOP this time around.
Even more apt, “Deep Throat” explaining the central truth of the Watergate scandal to Bob Woodward in the Alan-Pakula-directed / William-Goldman-written film adaptation of All the President’s Men:
“Forget the myths the media has created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.”
CNBC:
President Donald Trump on Friday extended a deadline requiring China-based ByteDance to sell the U.S. operations of TikTok or face an effective ban in the country, marking the second time he has taken such action.
Trump, on Truth Social, which is by far the most popular social network in the world:
My Administration has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress. The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days. We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!). This proves that Tariffs are the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security! We do not want TikTok to “go dark.” We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Those are the remarks of the most powerful man in the world.
Keep in mind, too, that there is no mechanism in the law for the president to issue any such extension. What he’s saying is what he said the last time: he’s instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi not to enforce the law, and pinky-swearing that U.S. companies that are breaking the law to keep TikTok available (Akamai, Oracle, Google, Apple) won’t be held responsible for it. It’s just a complete abdication of the rule of law.
Not a peep from Republican Tom Cotton, who, on the cusp of Trump taking office again, was crowing about the PAFACA Act coming into effect to shut TikTok down in the US.
From that same Reuters report by Akash Sriram that I just wrote about, speculating that iPhone prices might rise dramatically under Trump’s tariffs:
However, other analysts noted that iPhone sales have been floundering in the company’s major markets, as Apple Intelligence, a suite of features that helps summarize notifications, rewrite emails and give users access to ChatGPT, has failed to enthuse buyers.
Merriam-Webster defines flounder thus:
: to struggle to move or obtain footing : thrash about wildly
Here’s Jason Snell’s chart of iPhone sales through their most recent quarterly report — a record-breaking quarter for the company overall — covering the last three calendar months of 2024:
It’s certainly up for debate whether Apple Intelligence is an effective marketing driver for iPhone sales. I mean that with no snark. Maybe Apple Intelligence is driving iPhone sales. I don’t know why people have purchased new iPhones in the last six months. Neither do you, and neither do the “other analysts” (conveniently unnamed) cited by Reuters. But what we do know, because Apple reports the revenue numbers, is that iPhone sales have been remarkably flat, year-over-year, for the last 13 quarters.
Akash Sriram, reporting for Reuters under the headline “A $2,300 Apple iPhone? Trump Tariffs Could Make That Happen.”:
Most iPhones are still made in China, which was hit with a 54% tariff. If those levies persist, Apple has a tough choice: absorb the extra expense or pass it on to customers.
Shares of the company closed down 9.3% on Thursday, hitting their worst day since March 2020.
Apple shares dropped another 7.3% percent today. Apple alone has lost 16.6% of its value in the last 48 hours; the S&P 500 dropped 10%.
The cheapest iPhone 16 model was launched in the U.S. with a sticker price of $799, but could cost as much as $1,142, per calculations based on projections from analysts at Rosenblatt Securities, who say the cost could rise by 43% — if Apple is able to pass that on to consumers. A more expensive iPhone 16 Pro Max, with a 6.9-inch display and 1 terabyte of storage, which currently retails at $1599, could cost nearly $2300 if a 43% increase were to pass to consumers.
It’s under-remarked upon, but Apple, to a point of almost obstinance, considers pricing part of the brand for its products. They tend not to raise or lower prices with the ebbs and flows of the world economy or even the obvious constraints of simple supply and demand. Throughout the entire COVID crisis, I don’t recall them changing their prices for anything.
As an extreme example, consider the trashcan Mac Pro. It was introduced at WWDC 2013 and shipped in December that year with a starting price of $2,999. It then went over three years without an update — and still cost $2,999. Then in April 2017 Apple held that highly unusual small roundtable meeting — invitees were just Matthew Panzarino, Lance Ulanoff, Ina Fried, John Paczkowski, and yours truly — to discuss “completely rethinking the Mac Pro”. They issued small speed bumps to the trashcan Mac Pro that day, but didn’t ship the actual completely-rethought Mac Pro until WWDC 2019. The starting price never changed from $2,999, even when demand for the trashcan models had clearly dropped to near zero. The price was part of the brand. (The starting price for the 2019 Mac Pro: $5,999.)
Or consider today’s Mac Pro, with the M2 Ultra. It debuted alongside Mac Studio models that also came with the M2 Ultra at WWDC 2023 almost two years ago. M2 Ultra Mac Studios started at $3,999; Mac Pros at $6,999. Many observers, quite reasonably, questioned the $3,000 price difference when both computers offered the same chips. The 2023 Mac Pro, in some sense, is just a 2023 Mac Studio in a much bigger case with additional high-performance I/O options. But a month ago Apple debuted M3 Ultra Mac Studios, with an unchanged starting price of $3,999. The Mac Pro, still equipped with the older M2 Ultra, still starts at $6,999. Which means that for the time being, you’re not paying $3,000 extra for the same computer in a bigger case, but for a generation-older computer in a bigger case.
Presumably, M3 Ultra Mac Pros are coming soon, perhaps at WWDC. But until then, the pricing is undeniably weird when compared to the Mac Studio — and many people have thought the pricing was a bit weird compared to the Mac Studio when they were offered with the same M2-generation chips. But that’s how Apple likes to do pricing: they set a price when a product is announced, and that price never changes until a successor to that product is announced.
The erratic, illogical, nonsensical nature of Trump’s tariffs is bad for everyone. (Understatement.) But it’s particularly troublesome for a company that sees retail price stability as part of the branding for its products. Will Trump come to his senses (to some small degree), and declare a nonexistent victory next week and pull these tariffs from the board? Or stick to his guns and ride this global-economy-tanking insanity out? No one knows. Will he start granting exceptions? No one knows. So in addition to being nonsensical, the whole thing is entirely unpredictable, which is not at all compatible with the way Apple has set retail prices for decades.
My (bigly) guess is that Apple will inject its own predictability and stability into the mix, and keep its retail prices stable, for now, and take the tariff hit on its margins. But if these tariffs really stay in effect, even just for a few months, at current prices Apple would be breaking even at best, and likely losing money, on each iPhone it sells. ★
Mike Isaac, writing for The New York Times:
Apple, Dell, Oracle — which rely on hardware and global supply chains that are in the direct line of fire from tariffs — saw their shares go into free-fall. But there was another big tech company whose stock took a pummeling even though its core business has little to do with hardware: Meta. [...]
The effect of tariffs on Meta’s ad business is simple. Many of its small and medium-sized advertisers are from all across the world. President Trump’s tariffs will instantly make it more expensive for them to sell their products to customers in the United States. [...]
Last year, the company disclosed that 10 percent of its revenue in 2023 was from Chinese companies spending heavily on advertising across Facebook and Instagram, an ad blitz aimed at garnering a foothold in lucrative Western markets.
Much of that growth was fueled by the explosive expansion of the fast-fashion company Shein — which is based in Singapore but has a supply chain that is largely in China — and the e-commerce app Temu, a low-cost, Amazon-like company owned by the Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Pinduoduo. Temu was estimated to have spent $3 billion in marketing costs in 2023 alone, according to estimates from Bernstein Research.
When the stock market began crumbling after Trump’s announcement Wednesday, I didn’t get why Meta was being hit so hard. Meta makes devices, but unlike Apple, that’s just a side hustle. Meta isn’t a retailer like Amazon. But Meta is a huge advertising destination for retailers. It’s all interconnected.
Emma Roth, The Verge:
Nintendo is pushing back preorders for the Switch 2 due to concerns about Donald Trump’s newly announced tariffs. According to a statement sent to The Verge by Eddie Garcia on behalf of Nintendo, it says preorders will no longer begin on April 9th:
Pre-orders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions. Nintendo will update timing at a later date. The launch date of June 5, 2025 is unchanged.
Riots in the streets.
Allison McDaniel, writing for 9to5Mac back in 2022:
Apple Cash is a virtual debit card where you can send and receive money through iMessage. Stored in your Wallet, you can make secure and contactless payments with Apple Pay from your iPhone or Apple Watch. It’s also a way to receive daily cash back for those who use Apple Card. Previously a Discover card, your Apple Cash card is now Visa.
Spotted by user @Kanjo on Twitter, it’s easy to notice the card has a visible Visa logo in the bottom right corner. Before this change, there was no Discover logo on the card. While not everyone will like the addition of the logo, it’s going to be hard to forget it’s a Visa.
So Apple Card is a credit card, with Goldman Sachs as the bank and Mastercard as the network. Apple definitely needs a new banking partner, as Goldman is exiting the consumer banking business, and is rumored to be listening to offers from Visa and Amex to switch its network too.
Apple Cash is a debit card, which launched on the Discover network but switched to Visa three years ago — presumably with a nice kickback to Apple to get that Visa logo on the virtual cards in Wallet.
I observed yesterday that, in general, Visa and Mastercard credit cards are both accepted at the same locations. The most notable exception is Costco, which, as part of the deal to make its own credit card a Visa (after long partnering with Amex), only accepts Visa credit cards at its physical retail locations and gas stations. They accept “most PIN-based debit/ATM cards”, but for credit, only Visa.
Online, for reasons I don’t understand, Costco accepts Mastercard too (which they incorrectly style in camelcase — you’d think Costco, of all companies, would be sensitive to wrongly camelcased mid-name C’s). Also, in Canada’s Costcos, it’s reversed, with Mastercard being exclusive in-store but Visa being accepted online.
Another high-profile exception: The Olympics, which “proudly accepts only Visa for card and mobile payments, along with cash”.
Bill Gates, commemorating Microsoft’s 50th anniversary:
The story of how Microsoft came to be begins with, of all things, a magazine. The January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics featured an Altair 8800 on the cover. The Altair 8800, created by a small electronics company called MITS, was a groundbreaking personal computer kit that promised to bring computing power to hobbyists. When Paul and I saw that cover, we knew two things: the PC revolution was imminent, and we wanted to get in on the ground floor.
At the time, personal computers were practically non-existent. Paul and I knew that creating software that let people program the Altair could revolutionize the way people interacted with these machines. So, we reached out to Ed Roberts, the founder of MITS, and told him we had a version of the programming language BASIC for the chip that the Altair 8800 ran on.
There was just one problem: We didn’t.
It was time to get to work.
At the bottom Gates links to a printout of the original source code for the BASIC interpreter, in extensively commented assembly language. Amongst all of his other accomplishments, Bill Gates was one hell of a programmer.
Wonderfully detailed write-up of a perfect prop from Make3:
Repurposed Nagra Knobs & Switches — To ground the device in a tangible, vintage aesthetic, we salvaged original knobs and switches from a 1990s Nagra IV-D recorder, seamlessly integrating them into our design. These components not only provided an authentic look and feel but also remained fully functional, with:
- A power switch for system activation.
- A reading on/off switch to engage or disable the Woe display.
- A manual override switch to cycle through needle positions if wireless control failed.
When I watched this episode, I remember noticing how cool the device seemed. It turns out to be even cooler than I thought. So much effort into such a little thing. And the coolest thing is that, in a sense, the WoeMeter actually works as a handheld wireless prop.
Reusing those Nagra dials to add verisimilitude reminds me of how much of Star Wars came from reused pieces of old gadgetry, like two of the lightsabers (Luke’s and Vader’s) being made from 1940s-era Graflex camera flash guns.
Jason Snell, last month:
The new M4 MacBook Air is the Mac most people should buy. [...]
That’s why perhaps the most important change in the M4 MacBook Air is its base configuration, which starts at $999. When Apple introduced a winning new flat-with-rounded-corners Air design in 2022, it had to keep selling older models in order to get down under a thousand dollars. Three years later, Apple is finally able to sell a brand-new Air — with a generous 16GB of unified memory — at that important price.
So: No more quibbles about stepping back a generation or two to an older model with a lower price. Apple has done away with that strategy for the MacBook Air: The latest and greatest model is the one most people shopping for a Mac should buy, especially if they’re coming from an Intel model.
I’d put off linking to Snell’s review for a few weeks while thinking about writing my own, but I’ve got nothing to add. The M4 MacBook Air is utterly unsurprising, but only in the best possible way. It’s the MacBook Air everyone wanted Apple to make. The $999 base model is now exceedingly recommendable. It even brings back the most notable feature that was lost in the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon — the ability to drive two external displays and its own internal display. Just aces all around.
Following up on the previous item, here’s a WSJ report from October on Visa’s dominant position in the payments industry:
Visa, based in San Francisco, has built its network over more than 60 years — going back to clunky manual credit-card readers and carbon-paper copies of receipts. It accounts for around 60% of the total dollar amount of U.S. debit-card purchases and about 50% of U.S. credit-card purchases, according to the Nilson Report, a trade publication. Its closest competitor, Mastercard, accounts for around 22% and 23%, respectively. Visa’s profit totaled $17.3 billion in its 2023 fiscal year, after more than tripling in the last decade.
Amex accounts for about 19% of U.S. credit card transactions (and doesn’t support debit), and Discover is down around 3 or 4%. I really thought Visa and Mastercard had comparable market share, but it turns out Visa is far bigger, and it’s Mastercard and Amex that are around the same size.
AnnaMaria Andriotis, reporting for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):
The Apple card is up for grabs because Goldman Sachs, the bank behind it, is getting out of the consumer lending world. For months, big banks including JPMorgan Chase and Synchrony Financial have been vying to take over as issuer. What hasn’t been known is the equally fierce fight playing out between the networks to win Apple, with Visa and American Express trying to unseat Mastercard, according to people familiar with the matter.
Apple is expected to select a network for the card before it picks the bank to replace Goldman Sachs. Networks provide the plumbing that transmit information between the banks that issue consumers’ cards and the merchants’ banks.
Visa, the largest network, has made an aggressive pitch to win the card, including offering the kind of upfront payment to Apple that’s normally reserved for the biggest card programs, the people said. Visa offered a similar payment when Costco was selecting its network about a decade ago, The Wall Street Journal reported.
American Express is also in the mix, trying to become both the issuer and network of the Apple card, the people said. Goldman had approached Amex to gauge its interest in taking over the card in 2023, the Journal earlier reported.
I’ve always thought Visa and Mastercard were interchangeable. I can’t recall ever once in my life seeing an establishment where one of them was accepted but the other wasn’t, and they both seem to be accepted everywhere that accepts credit cards at all. If there’s a reason to prefer one over the other I’ve never heard it.
Amex is different because it’s accepted at fewer locations because they charge merchants a higher fee, which they get away with because they offer their customers superior service. I wrote back in 2023 that they share an affinity with Apple: both are built around the idea of offering a premium experience and charging higher prices for it.
But I already have a regular Amex card. One of the things I like about Apple Card being a Mastercard (or if they switched to Visa) is that it’s a card I can use anywhere that doesn’t accept Amex.
Mike Masnick has a great piece at TechDirt running down just how stupid everything about Trump’s tariff trade war is:
Whoever on the Council of Economic Advisers used this formula should turn in their econ degree, because this is not how anything works. Even if they then go on to publish another version of the formula that looks all sophisticated and shit.
Brendan Duke, on X, shows that the fancier version of their formula — which is fancy in the way that Vertu phones are “fancy” — is even stupider, because the two Greek letters they chose to glam it up just cancel each other out.
Back to Masnick:
This is what happens when you ask ChatGPT to “make my wrong econ math look more scientific.” The document even admits that they couldn’t figure out the actual tariff rates, so they “proxied” them with this formula instead. That’s a bit like saying you couldn’t find your house keys, so you proxied them with a banana.
The fundamental problem here isn’t just that the tariff numbers are wrong — though they absolutely are. It’s that the entire premise rests on treating trade deficits as if they were tariffs. They’re not the same thing. At all.
Let’s back up for a moment and talk about trade deficits, because Trump has been getting this wrong for longer than some of his supporters have been alive. His logic appears to be:
- “Deficit” sounds bad
- Therefore, trade deficits must be bad
- Therefore, countries with whom we have trade deficits must be cheating us
- Therefore, we should punish them with tariffs to “level the playing field”
This sounds like it must be an exaggeration for comic effect, but it’s not. That’s how Trump’s mind works. This is what Trump has been saying about trade deficits for decades. It’s like how he understands “asylum” to mean “insane asylum” and so when he talks about political asylum he starts talking about “the late great Hannibal Lecter”.
The Economist:
On economics Mr Trump’s assertions are flat-out nonsense. The president says tariffs are needed to close America’s trade deficit, which he sees as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. Yet as any of the president’s economists could have told him, this overall deficit arises because Americans choose to save less than their country invests — and, crucially, this long-running reality has not stopped its economy from outpacing the rest of the g7 for over three decades. There is no reason why his extra tariffs should eliminate the deficit. Insisting on balanced trade with every trading partner individually is bonkers — like suggesting that Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with each of the other 49 states, or asking a company to ensure that each of its suppliers is also a customer.
And Mr Trump’s grasp of the technicalities was pathetic. He suggested that the new tariffs were based on an assessment of a country’s tariffs against America, plus currency manipulation and other supposed distortions, such as value-added tax. But it looks as if officials set the tariffs using a formula that takes America’s bilateral trade deficit as a share of goods imported from each country and halves it — which is almost as random as taxing you on the number of vowels in your name.
There is no way to report on these tariffs in a way that is honest and accurate without describing them as bonkers and nonsensical. News publications that are trying to present them as rational, or describing them as “reciprocal” just because that’s the word the White House is using, are beclowning themselves.
CNBC:
- Markets plunged the day after President Donald Trump imposed a far-reaching “reciprocal tariff” policy, including a 10% baseline tariff on almost every country on earth.
- The plan slaps much steeper tariff rates on many countries, including 34% on China, 20% on the European Union, 46% on Vietnam and 32% on Taiwan.
- Economists and U.S. trade partners are raising questions about how the White House calculated the tariff rates it claimed other countries “charge” the United States.
Apple, in particular, is taking it on the chin, about 9.5% for the day. Amazon and Meta were both down 9%. Nike is down over 13%. From CNBC’s corresponding story on just how the White House computed the “tariff” rates it claims for various countries:
Many observers said the U.S. appeared to have divided the trade deficit by imports from a given country to arrive at tariff rates for individual countries.
Such methodology doesn’t necessarily align with the conventional approach for calculating tariffs and implies the U.S. would have looked at only the trade deficit in goods and ignored trade in services.
“Such methodology doesn’t necessarily align with the conventional approach” is an overlong euphemism for “The president literally doesn’t understand what tariffs are.” James Surowiecki was seemingly the first person to figure out the White House’s nonsensical formula:
Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us.
So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.
Don’t rack your brain trying to make sense out of the nonsensical.
Great roundup from The Verge:
While Nintendo told us very little in the official reveal of the console in January, now we know when the Switch 2 is coming and how much it will cost at launch: June 5th and $449.99. We also have more hardware details and specs to pore over, like a 1080p, 120Hz 7.9-inch LCD screen, Joy-Con controllers with mouse-like functions, 256GB of storage, and 4K output via the dock.
Nintendo also cleared up the mysteries about the system’s “C” button with details about new GameChat features and a camera accessory and confirmed that GameCube games are coming to Nintendo Switch Online, along with a dedicated controller.
Last but not least, Nintendo showed off a number of new games, like a Switch 2 edition of Metroid Prime 4: Beyond and the exclusive Switch 2 launch title Mario Kart World.
People are going to object to the pricing, but the world has changed (and inflated) since the original Switch debuted in 2017. What I love about all of these announcements is that they’re so focused on fun. Nintendo doesn’t just still have it, they’ve got it more than they ever have. Just wonderful news all around.
Stephen Battaglio, reporting for the LA Times:
MSNBC viewers have seen the last of Steve Kornacki’s big board.
The popular data maven has signed a deal with NBC that will expand his presence across the network’s news and sports divisions. But the new contract does not include working for MSNBC, which is being spun off into a new corporate entity formed by parent company Comcast.
They might as well just switch off the lights and lock the doors at MSNBC.
Jon Brodkin, reporting for Ars Technica, “France Fines Apple €150M for “Excessive” Pop-Ups That Let Users Reject Tracking”:
France’s competition regulator fined Apple €150 million, saying the iPhone maker went overboard in its implementation of pop-up messages that let users consent to or reject tracking that third-party applications use for targeted advertising.
The App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework used by Apple on iPhones and iPads since 2021 makes the use of third-party applications too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue, said a press release today by the Autorité de la concurrence (Competition Authority). The system harms “smaller publishers in particular since, unlike the main vertically integrated platforms, they depend to a large extent on third-party data collection to finance their business,” the agency said.
User consent obtained via the ATT framework “authorizes the application in question to collect user data for targeted advertising purposes,” the agency said. “If consent is given, the application can access the Identifier for Advertisers (‘IDFA’), the identifier by which each device can be tracked through its use of third-party applications and sites.” The French investigation was triggered by a complaint lodged by advertising industry associations.
Ben Lovejoy, correctly calling the decision “bizarre” at 9to5Mac:
Complaints were made in a number of countries — some arguing that it was unfair because Apple exempts its own apps (which are in reality subject to even tighter controls), others saying the loss of revenue forced developers to raise prices to compensate. [...]
Although expected, the decision is still inexplicable. ATT involves precisely one popup asking a simple yes/no question. Additionally, Apple lets users switch on a toggle (shown above) to block apps from even asking the question. It’s especially odd given that ATT is a privacy feature, and Europe has the strongest privacy laws in the world. The EU has also previously vindicated Apple’s introduction of ATT.
It’s not inexplicable or odd if you view the decision as coming from a perspective where government bureaucracy is viewed as an inherent good, and well-intentioned process is all that matters, not actual results. Read the Autorité de la Concurrence’s decision (which they helpfully do make available in English) and it’s pretty clear:
The Autorité found that the ATT framework imposed by Apple is not necessary, insofar as the consent obtained is not valid under the applicable laws, in particular the French Data Protection Act.
In practice, the fact that publishers that so wish cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations means that they must continue to use their own consent collection solutions, known as consent management platforms (“CMPs”). The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the iOS environment excessively complex, as observed by the French data protection authority (Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés — CNIL) in a 2022 opinion issued at the request of the Autorité.
It’s ostensibly “not necessary” because French and EU privacy laws are supposedly enough, and all that’s needed. And it’s unfair because now, under ATT, third-party surveillance advertisers who seek to track users across apps on iOS need to ask permission twice — first through the clear-as-a-bell “Ask App Not to Track” / “Allow Tracking” prompt required by Apple, and again through the byzantine but ultimately toothless permission requirements of France and the EU. ATT has had measurable effects because users understand it, and they prefer not to be tracked. EU and French privacy laws are largely ineffective because, in practice, they bury users with confusion. The bureaucratic hurdles they impose are to the benefit, not detriment, of the surveillance ad industry. That’s now proven out by industry groups — the ones ATT successfully tempered — successfully getting France’s regulators to penalize Apple. Users don’t know how to lobby government bureaucracies. What the Autorité de la Concurrence is saying, in so many words, is that two layers of consent is too much, and the only one that’s necessary is the one that advertising lobbying groups don’t object to, not the one they do (but which users understand and like).
It’s clear that only one of these two things — Apple’s ATT or French/EU privacy regulations — was actually effective at reducing tracking: ATT. No one claimed that French or EU privacy laws resulted in Meta losing a fortune because they had to adjust their kleptomaniacal thievery of users’ privacy. But by all accounts, including Meta’s own, ATT cost Meta billions. And yes, ATT hurt small businesses too — small businesses that were built upon surreptitious tracking that users had neither awareness of nor control over. It’s like a consortium of sketchy pawn shops complaining to the authorities after a popular retailer successfully cracked down on an organized shoplifting/pickpocketing ring, and the authorities then fining the retailer for the damage to the pawnbrokers’ business fencing stolen goods — and for exposing the police as ineffective.
App Tracking Transparency actually accomplished, in practice, via user-focused plain-language consent, what the EU’s privacy laws were intended to do but do not. This fine boils down to France declaring that Apple shouldn’t have actually done what the EU was pretending to do. They’re acting at the behest of the very developers and advertising companies who were (and still are) trying to conduct cross-app tracking that App Tracking Transparency successfully gave users some control over. ★