Due to extreme demand and limited official stores, scalpers backed by triads created a massive arbitrage opportunity. They controlled distribution, buying iPhones in bulk and selling them at huge markups. This shadow economy became so profitable that, on a per-unit basis, these groups were making more money than Apple itself.
Related Insights
After facing political attacks, Apple realized its retail sales were not its main leverage with Beijing. Its real power was its massive, multi-billion dollar investment in training hundreds of local suppliers. This positioned Apple as the single largest contributor to China's high-end electronics capabilities, a key government priority.
Apple's system of serializing every component to the motherboard wasn't just for quality control. It was a direct response to a massive fraud scheme in China where organized groups would hollow out new iPhones, sell the valuable parts, and then use the broken shells to claim brand new replacements under warranty.
To prevent its suppliers from going bankrupt if contracts were cut, Apple mandated that no supplier could be more than 50% dependent on its business. This forced highly-trained manufacturers to find other customers, directly enabling the rise of sophisticated Chinese smartphone brands like Huawei and Xiaomi.
The absence of Home Depot's popular giant Santa decoration is not a simple inventory issue but a direct result of the US-China trade war. This illustrates how high-level geopolitics creates specific product shortages and fuels high-markup secondary markets on platforms like eBay.
China offers a hyper-concentrated manufacturing ecosystem where suppliers are neighbors, supported by world-class infrastructure. This dramatically speeds up prototyping and production, turning complex international logistics into a simple "walk down the street."
Apple's deep reliance on China is not just about cost but a 25-year investment in a manufacturing ecosystem that can produce complex products at immense scale and quality. Replicating this unique combination in India or elsewhere is considered fanciful.
Starbucks' limited-edition items, like a "bearista" cup selling for $500 on eBay, create massive hype through engineered scarcity. This strategy shows that for certain brands, limited-run physical goods can be a more potent marketing tool than the core product itself, fostering a collector's frenzy and a lucrative secondary market.
Apple wasn't a visionary in offshoring; it was a laggard. Its move to China was driven by the inability to manufacture the radically different iMac, a product designed to save the company. This desperation forced it to abandon its long-held control over manufacturing and partner with Asian suppliers.
The common practice of offshoring manufacturing, exemplified by Apple, creates a critical flaw by severing the feedback loop between designers and producers. This leads to suboptimal product design and simultaneously transfers advanced manufacturing skills and capabilities to other nations, like China.
To mitigate its own risk, Apple's "50% rule" required suppliers to find other customers. This policy forced them to share advanced manufacturing processes co-developed with Apple, directly enabling the rise of Chinese smartphone rivals like Xiaomi and Huawei.