Apple said to manufacture all iPhone 17 models in India
. is stepping up its
iPhone production in India
, moving assembly of all upcoming
iPhone 17 models
to five local factories, including two that have just started operations, Bloomberg has reported citing sources.
This marks the first time that every new iPhone variation, including the premium Pro versions, will be manufactured in India from the start.
The move is part of Apple's broader strategy to reduce its dependence on China for US-bound shipments and cushion itself against tariff risks.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
The company has already shifted a large share of iPhone output for the American market from China to India.
Two of the newest facilities,
Tata Group
's plant at Hosur in Tamil Nadu and
Foxconn
's hub near Bengaluru airport, are central to this expansion, as per Bloomberg. Tata, which has emerged as Apple's fastest-rising partner, is expected to handle nearly half of India's iPhone production within two years, according to people familiar with the plans.
Live Events
The shift has already boosted India's export numbers. Between April and July this year, iPhones worth $7.5 billion were shipped from India, compared with $17 billion for the entire previous fiscal year.
Apple is navigating an uncertain
US trade environment
as the Trump administration pushes ahead with steep
tariffs on Chinese goods
. While smartphones like the iPhone have so far been shielded from blanket tariffs, Trump has repeatedly attacked American companies for relying on China.
In one of his recent outbursts, the president said, 'If Apple wants to make iPhones for Americans, they should be making them in America, not in China, not in India.'
Despite the rhetoric, Apple has said it expects a $1.1 billion hit from tariffs in the current period, underscoring why it is diversifying production out of China. The US has emerged as Apple's biggest export destination from India. From 53% of shipments in H1 2024, the US share rose to 78% by June 2025, Canalys said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
'Road to peace in Ukraine runs through India': New US logic to defend tariffs and sanctions
US President Donald Trump's trade representative, Peter Navarro, said that the Trump administration is unlikely to extend the August 27 deadline to impose penalty tariffs on India, insisting that 'the road to peace in the Ukraine war goes through India' India has labelled tariffs levied by the US on goods from the country "unjustified" and "unreasonable". File image/Reuters US President Donald Trump's White House doubled down on its decision to impose nearly 50 per cent tariffs on India, insisting that the 'road to peace (in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war) runs through India'. Last month, the US imposed heavy duties on Indian goods, accusing it of fueling the ongoing war by purchasing oil from Russia. While speaking to the reporters on Thursday, US President's trade counsellor Peter Navarro, said he doesn't expect Trump to extend the timeline on doubling tariffs on India, which will hit the market on August 27, The Times of India reported. Navarro went on to accuse New Delhi of profiteering from transactions with Moscow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I love India. Look, [President Narendra] Modi is a great leader. But please, please India, like, look at what your role here is in the global economy and good here. It's like, what you're doing right now is not creating peace, it's perpetuating the war,' Navarro said in the presser. 'They don't need oil — it's a refining profiteering scheme,' he added. Navarro claimed that India is 'using the money that they get from us when they sell us stuff' to buy Russian oil, which is then processed by refiners, and 'they make a bunch of money there.' He maintained that Russians eventually use the money to build more arms and kill Ukrainians, and in light of this, the American taxpayers have been providing more military aid to the Ukrainians to sustain themselves in the war. 'So that's insane, and President Trump sees that chessboard beautifully. And you guys need to write about that,' he told the media in Washington, DC. However, many American political commentators have repeatedly called out the fallacy of the White House not acting on China's larger purchase of Russian oil and the past American encouragement of India buying Russian oil to keep down global oil prices. Navarro himself once implicitly conceded to the line of thinking, arguing that Washington cannot do the same with China because Beijing has leverage on Washington, DC.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India's foreign policy agility must be backed by unity and reform at home
The recent to-and-fro in India-Russia-China diplomacy and their impending summits could be viewed, arguably, against the backdrop of New Delhi's recent discomforts with US President Donald Trump. In what has been a particularly active week for Indian foreign policy, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in New Delhi for the 24th round of boundary talks, after which External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar travelled to Moscow to co-chair the 26th session of the India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission. In less than two weeks, PM Modi will meet with President Xi Jinping at the SCO, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to visit India later this year. While these engagements are independent of the Trump disruptions, in the face of tensions with Washington, they have acquired a new dimension. India's immediate concern with respect to Russia is Trump's threat of secondary tariffs on cheap oil purchases. With the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska offering little clarity on the Ukraine war, the US has doubled down on the tariff threat: The US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, this week accused India of profiteering from Russian oil, while Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, wrote an op-ed bluntly titled 'India's oil lobby is funding Putin's war machine — that has to stop'. India can only hope that the US and Russia reach a deal over Ukraine and that Trump rolls back the additional 25 per cent tariff threat. Whatever direction this issue takes, however, going ahead, the larger lesson is that New Delhi must pursue independent relations with the 'great powers', and foreign policy agility must be shored up by unity and long-overdue economic reform at home. India's engagement with China has accelerated since the formal conclusion of the disengagement process nearly a year ago. During Wang's visit to Delhi, the two sides agreed to restart direct flights and border trade, and to establish new mechanisms on border management. Significantly, Beijing's official handout urged India and China to 'demonstrate their responsibility as major powers'. Yet it would be naive to believe that China will not continue to view relations with India through a zero-sum competitive lens. The border dispute remains unresolved, and while disengagement has taken place, the de-escalation that Jaishankar reiterated in his talks with Wang (who visited Islamabad right after New Delhi) still hasn't begun. Beijing appears to see merit in keeping up the pressure along the border. China's defence capacity has grown formidable, while India continues to run a trade deficit of over $100 billion with it, amid tensions with its largest export market, the US. This makes it all the more vital for India to step up domestic economic reform, enhance its technological capabilities, modernise the defence sector — India successfully test-fired Agni-5 on Wednesday — and strengthen security partnerships with its Asian partners. Only by moving towards narrowing the gap with China can New Delhi build enough leverage with Beijing.
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
A New York appeals court has thrown out President Donald Trump's massive financial penalty while narrowly upholding a Judge's finding that he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The Thursday's (August 21, 2025) ruling spares Mr. Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Mr. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory' in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' the Republican wrote. James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' The ruling came seven months after Mr. Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five Judges in the state's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Mr. Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive'. A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Mr. Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, have brought the total to $527 million with interest. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award' to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. They called the penalty 'an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution'. Both were appointed by Democratic governors. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Mr. Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Donald Trump Jr celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr wrote: 'I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter.' The five-Judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Mr. Trump and his co-defendants, the Judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect. While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the Judges weighing Mr. Trump's case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some Judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two Judges wrote that they felt James' lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Mr. Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Mr. Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Judge Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' Mr. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. The Republican leader has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Mr. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Mr. Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defence also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Mr. Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Mr. Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Mr. Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Mr. Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Mr. Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Mr. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
