Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
China United States

Chinese Electronics Firm Anker Starts Raising Prices on Amazon (reuters.com) 188

Posted by msmash from the aftermath dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: 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. U.S. import tariffs on Chinese products now stand at 145%. Beijing on Friday raised its tariff on U.S. goods to 125%, as a trade war between the world's top two economies intensifies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Electronics Firm Anker Starts Raising Prices on Amazon More

Chinese Electronics Firm Anker Starts Raising Prices on Amazon

Comments Filter:

  • Are you sure? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

    Trump has stated numerous times that we don’t pay tariffs but the other country does. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/0... [cnn.com] Not one republican had enough of a backbone to speak up and correct orange jesus. That or they’re simply that dumb and skipped high school history and civics.

    • This will be a roughly $5 trillion tax increase on the public.

      • Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dru Nemeton ( 4964417 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @12:42PM (#65297929)
        The current estimate as of today (2025-04-11) is that Pumpkin Spice Palpatine's trade war will cost the average person an extra $4,400/year [cnbc.com]. And that's assuming he doesn't do anything else...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Matches the tax cuts for the uberwealthy pretty well, then.

      • Oh are only the wealthy considered part of the public now?
        • Oh are only the wealthy considered part of the public now?

          Yes. If you're not part of the 1%, you're a nobody. Look at what the Russian asset did the other day. Brought in people in the 1% and bragged about how much money [yahoo.com] they made in one day [newrepublic.com] when he manipulated the markets.

          And this was on top of his friends and family who were tipped off prior to him making a public announcement. And guess what, the SEC, which right now has ONLY 3 Republicans, is working to kill off a trade-tracking system which

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        This will be a roughly $5 trillion tax increase on the public.

        As a reminder, that $5T "tax increase" will cycle right around and get deposited in the gov't accounts as tariff income.

        Oh, if only there was a way to avoid tariffs on imported Chinese goods!?!? Like, I don't know, not buy Chinese goods?

        (I suspect China will cave before the US, as a consuming nation we can explore other sources for goods, China, as a producer nation needs buyers, and losing the American market hurt China quickly.)

      • Can't really put a dollar amount on it.
        Demand will drop through the floor, so the amount collected will also drop like a rock.

    • Trump has stated numerous times that we don't pay tariffs but the other country does.

      According to https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/r... [ustr.gov]

      The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, phi, is 0.25.

      I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%.

      According to the banner on that website, this is straight from the executive office of the president, so this is what Trump's people put in writing.

      From that same website:

      Weighted by imports, the average across deficit countries is 45 percent, and the average across the entire globe is 41 percent.

      And the Trum

      • Does it say how you stop the foreign supplier from raising their price to cover that 75%?

        • Does it say how you stop the foreign supplier from raising their price to cover that 75%?

          No, the 25% is an assumption made by Trump's team and published in writing on that website of how much of the tariff the foreign supplier will pass through to the customer. I don't know which orifice they pulled that assumption out of, but if you read the information they published, it's a critical parameter in the equation they used to calculate the percentages that they're inaccurately calling "reciprocal tariffs".

          The supplier could raise their prices by anywhere from 0% to 100% (or I suppose even more or

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Actually they did, when they mentioned price elasticity. They were saying if the price goes up too much people will do without rather than buy.
          I think that's probably pretty correct. Which is going to be bad for all the vendors, whether in this country or not. But the ones outside can find other markets. The one's inside will have to lump it.

          • So if people can't afford a ladle or a strainer, people will use their hands?

            • Carve one from wood? There is a dude on YouTube who does all that with just a Swiss army knife.

              • So are companies going to reduce the work week to 24 hours so that people have the time to procure blocks of carving wood and carve themselves kitchen utensils? Seems like you want to live like in Little House on the Prairie.

              • Carve one from wood? There is a dude on YouTube who does all that with just a Swiss army knife.

                Chuck Norris does it with just his fingernails and teeth, then finishes it off with a stern glance.

          • What is says is correct. It's an accurate description of the economic impact of the tariff due to price elasticity.

            However, OP's description of that as: "I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%." is beyond misleading- it's just wrong.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        That is not what that means.

        The elasticity in that formula refers to consumer behaviour. The elasticity of 4 is an assumption that, in the face of tariffs, consumers will either redirect 75% of their purchases to American suppliers or do without.

        • Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Informative)

          by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @02:30PM (#65298259) Journal

          Which, of course, assumes there actually ARE domestic suppliers for that good.

          In many cases, there are not. This is where the whole insane pile of garbage tips over and splashes noxious wet garbage all over the place.

          • Which, of course, assumes there actually ARE domestic suppliers for that good.
            In many cases, there are not.

            Easy examples in the U.S. of there are not: coffee, vanilla, bananas, iPhones :-)

            (At least not in nearly sufficient quantities, like Kona coffee from Hawaii.)

      • Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @01:55PM (#65298145) Journal

        > I'd go with what they put in writing.

        Which is a shame 'cause what they're putting in writing is wrong. So wrong that even a conservative think tank felt compelled to write at least two articles explaining why it's not only wrong but stupid;

        https://www.aei.org/economics/... [aei.org]

        https://www.aei.org/economics/... [aei.org]

        And there's a pile of other independent explainers/analysis that all basically point to the same errors. Turns out it's just a bunch of nonsense they threw together and doesn't actually mean anything, is not based on anything, and they still fucked up their own calculations. The best people...
        =Smidge=

      • According to https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/r... [ustr.gov]

        The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, phi, is 0.25.

        I.e the US consumer will pay 25% of the tariff and the foreign supplier will pay 75%.

        According to the banner on that website, this is straight from the executive office of the president, so this is what Trump's people put in writing.

        And that's just wish-casting from the White House. Most economists say that phi is pretty much equal to 1. So, the "Liberation Day" tariffs were four times as high as they would have been with a correct value of phi. And that's not even addressing the other parts of the equation shown in the page you linked.

        Folks, the White House is trying to bribe us with our own money. We are the ones paying the tariffs, not the foreign exporters.

      • Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @02:30PM (#65298261) Homepage

        You can't quote a single number for every product that is imported.
        It depends how important the customer thinks the product is to them, and what alternatives or substitutes are available.
        Also whether the seller has alternative markets they can sell into.

        Also, if all the other alternatives are subject to the same tariff, that changes the dynamics somewhat.

        There is also the simple fact that 75% of a 145% tariff on Chinese goods is 108.75%, and no Chinese manufacturer is going to pay you to take goods off their hands.

      • Is that the same team who applied tariffs to uninhibited islands? And has nearly the identical numbers as ChatGPT?

      • No. That is not what that means at fucking all.

        The foreign supplier does not pay a penny.
        The estimated *impact* on teh foreign supplier is higher, due to the elasticity of the price caused by the tariff.
        Very, very, different. Particularly if you care about the impact on the importer, which is they simply lose business since the elasticity goes both directions.

    • Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @12:42PM (#65297927)

      The unconditional, irrational, reality-denying, almost religious devotion of some people to Trump may seem inexplicable to most, but remember: A drowning man will desperatly latch on to anything, even a boat anchor.

      A large proportion of the US population is made of disillusioned people who feel that they have nothing left to loose (boy, they have no idea just how much more they have left to lose). So they cling desperatly to anyone that represents even a chance, no matter how slim, of improving their condition.

      Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom. Trump voters are the problem. They are the product of 250 years of a "meritocracy" based on social darwinism that, yes, at some point, produced the richest, most powerfull, and most culturally dominant nation in the world, but at the price of leaving behind more and more of its population, of creating more and more inequalities, more and more desparate people who are left with no future, no hope, until they finaly became the majority. And then, through the magic of Democracy, we got progressively worse leaders, culminating with Trump.

      This is what must be addressed. Because, when Trump is gone, people are just going to vote for the next psychopath in line.

      • Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @01:30PM (#65298071)

        who feel that they have nothing left to loose

        And this is one of the biggest problems. Put aside the comical insult that is implied this is literally "a first world problem". Most of the USA has a *LOT* to loose, and they are simply privileged and sheltered enough to not comprehend this fact.

        • Good thing they don't have anything to lose. Who knows what they have to loose!

          • A lot of people with nothing to lose are going to be awful upset when the goverment can't keep up with support checks or terrorist attacks.

      • "Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom."

        There are a number of cases where the symptoms can kill.

        Trump will only kill you is not a compelling statement in his defense, nor a compelling argument that we should focus elsewhere.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mitreya ( 579078 )

        Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom.

        Yes.

        Trump voters are the problem.

        No. Or maybe yes, but this is an impractical attitude. Democrats have tried running the "Vote for the non-Trump option" and this did not work. So even if true, this statement is a losing strategy on its own.

        through the magic of Democracy, we got progressively worse leaders, culminating with Trump.

        You say that like we only had one candidate in the last election. There were two (major) candidates on the ballot, both of whom got there through the magic of Democracy.

      • The unconditional, irrational, reality-denying, almost religious devotion of some people to Trump.

        Things like "unconditional, irrational, reality-denying" almost always go with things like "religious devotion" ...

        A drowning man will desperately latch on to anything, even a boat anchor.

        [Insert graphic of Trump, his tariffs, and the stock/bond markets] :-)

    • they do but the cost is passed on to the consumer, so in the end the consumer pays it, tariffs are theft, Dumbass Donald Trump is stealing money from everyone that buys imported goods

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Targon ( 17348 )

        Since golf balls are probably being made in other countries, can't we say that Trump is hitting himself in the balls with these stupid tariffs?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        I think the tariffs are high enough to essential cut off trade. The questions are:
        1) Will he keep them?
        2) What are the loopholes?
        3) How badly will the dollar collapse?

        Point 3 may be bad enough that the tariffs will soon become irrelevant. It depends on whether we just get a bad recession, or whether we get a full-scale depression, and how bad of one. I can't imaging any foreign investors being committed enough to make a serious investment in the US, and in fact I suspect most multi-nationals are plannin

      • And also US produced goods with imported components or raw materials.

    • Trump has stated numerous times that we don’t pay tariffs but the other country does. ... That or they’re simply that dumb and skipped high school history and civics.

      The question is whether people will continue to buy the products at the higher price, or if they will have to lower the prices to continue to make sales. And it's not one way or the other, but a more complicated function. That determines whether the consumer or the producer pays the cost of the tariffs.

      Not high school civics, but certainly college econ-101.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        You left our "the producer finds another market that's more profitable".

      • No, the question is how many countries have to sell to the US and cannot instead sell to all the other countries until trump's term is over.
  • Only the largest companies (*cough* Apple *cough*) can afford to hold the line on prices for devices manufactured in China and sold to US consumers for the time being until the tariff numbers settle (days, weeks, months?), and then the prices will adjusted accordingly as the tax (tariffs are a tax) is applied. That Anker is not willing/able to lose money is not surprising, and other smaller companies are starting to do the same (even as the tariff numbers keep changing, which mean more adjustments are lik

    • Apple cut a deal with Trumps first administration. Apple move mgf of some small device from china, not iPhones. It's speculated that this time they may offer up Air Pods or some similar product, Trump will proclaim victory.

      • Apple cut a deal with Trumps first administration. Apple move mgf of some small device from china, not iPhones. It's speculated that this time they may offer up Air Pods or some similar product, Trump will proclaim victory.

        More likely iPods, not AirPods.

  • Forcing the public to stop buying junk that ends up in landfills; Poor get less poor too saving their cash or not blowing up their debt.

    • Re:Good, less junk in landfills (Score:4, Informative)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @12:30PM (#65297895) Homepage Journal

      Forcing the public to stop buying junk that ends up in landfills;

      I dunno if I'd term Anker products as 'Junk' that ends up on landfills.

      From my experience they are some of the best portable batteries and cables I've bought....they seem to perform well for me and are long lasting.

    • I have Anker USB cables going on six years now with no signs of wear.

    • Anker is generally known for high quality product among Chinese companies. If you're landfilling these you're doing something very very wrong.

    • So Republicans are now in favor of a centrally planned economy? Because what you're describing is a centrally planned economy, and that sounds a hell of a lot like Communism.

      • And not the cool kind of Communism. The kind where idiots are installed for their loyalty and dissents are deported to a remote gulag without trial. And not just regular harmless idiots either, the kind that kill millions with famine by promoting easily disprove theories on agriculture.

    • Forcing the public to stop buying junk that ends up in landfills; Poor get less poor too saving their cash or not blowing up their debt

      You are calling Anker "junk that ends up in landfills"? You are out of your f***ing mind.

  • waters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Friday April 11, 2025 @12:43PM (#65297933)

    This is Anker testing the waters. The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs. If competitors don't follow suit, they will cut back on the price increases.

    • The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs.

      The stuff you're currently shipping from Amazon is already in the country and not subject to tariffs. Tariffs are paid on import, not on sale. There's a reason it arrives overnight. When that stock is up, you're going to have a bad time. The only thing Anker is testing here is if they can eat the cut in profits from the actual tax.

      Competitors will definitely follow suit. These aren't fancy iPhones with insane profit margins. Virtually everyone is currently investigating just how much they can raise prices t

      • Ehhh I may have misread your post. But my point about competitors stands.

      • The stuff they are currently shipping from Amazon didn't pay those tariffs.

        The stuff you're currently shipping from Amazon is already in the country and not subject to tariffs.

        There are a couple of ways to price a product you are selling. The cost you originally purchased it at, or the cost to replace it in stock. Both methods are generally considered acceptable (as long as you are somewhat consistent). When product costs are relatively stable the two methods are essentially equivalent, but not so much when costs change rapidly or when the stock may sit on the shelf for long periods of time. A number of vendors run a very lean stock/warehouse supply, so they may need to adjus

      • It's value-based pricing, not cost-based. They anticipate everybody will rise prices so they want to reap some extra cash riding on public's panic.

    • Not saying they aren't testing the waters, but raising the prices immediately gives them some time to buffer profit until they have to raise them the full amount to cover the tariff costs. It lets them ease into bad a bit slower so people don't scream as much - frog in warming water and all that.

  • If Anker thinks they only have price to now worry about, they’re wrong.

    Used to be a pretty big fan of their cables since they provided more options. I’ve never had so many cables go bad so quickly within the last 2 years. Cable ends coming apart after 3 uses. Cables simply failing that are still in perfect condition. And now the lifetime warranty replacement process has turned into an interrogation with them, with Anker assuming my charging cable laying on a nighstand must have been stressed

    • Horseshit. Not only do their cables still work fine when you don't use them to lasso a bull, but having just gone through their warranty process it was one of the easiest and most trivial I have ever experienced. They didn't even ask for any proof that my thing was broken, they just said "have you tried this"? Sent me a list of 3 obvious "turn it off and on again" kind of things, and when I said yeah they just blindly sent another one.

    • My TB3 dock and all its cables, as well as my big fat fucking Anker battery brick (one with the cool display and like 90Wh battery or something, and its 200W USB-PD cables) are still working fine.

      Not calling you a liar, but it's pretty hard to imagine. Anker has been one of the few Chinese brands that I haven't been burned by.

  • Some 127 Anker products have seen an average increase of 18% since Thursday last week

    Can confirm. An Anker charger I bought around five weeks ago now costs 30% more.

  • Shouldn't the prices be doubled?

  • This is the falling sky I was warned about?

    • The goods you're buying now are already in the country. Wait until the next shipment arrives and then start tracking prices. Are we still not calling this a tax?

  • Perhaps this will achieve what Amazon has been unable to control and end the proliferation of cheezy low quality Chinese knock-offs of almost every category of product sold on Amazon.com.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close