China doesn't just provide supply chain anymore. They are also a huge market now because of its growing middle class. China has money to spend and US companies need to tap into that market.
"Choose to" tap into that market. No company "needs" to be in China.
Just like there are thousands of companies in Europe that do not do business in the United States, and thousands of companies in Brazil that do not do business in Russia.
For example, Apple being able to lock up all the supply of higher end chips and smaller companies not being able to compete.
The US is the world's largest market, by a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...
If Chinese consumer market growth continues as it has been, it may the biggest market for Apple. Hard to be the largest luxury goods company in the world without the largest luxury goods market...
OP is right. This gives China influence. Supply chain influence is a minor thing, relative to "I'm your biggest customer" influence.
I guess that's why I like the "chooses to" framing because it highlights that leaders of companies can choose to not pursue markets or go with higher priced suppliers if they can make the argument as to how it might help them in the long term.
Edit: typo
A lot of investors and pension funds are starting to add more criteria to their investments than just a profit.
From the point of view of any particular company the choice you're talking about may well exist, especially where the company is founder-led. But that doesn't mean the outcome you're hoping for can be achieved on a purely voluntary basis.
It may work in exceptional cases though, Apple being one of them.
That said, I think there is a decent amount of determinism at play here. It's like the "why are all politicians such politicians?" problem. The companies with an interest in entering the Chinese market will, mostly, do it. It's predictable. Predictable isn't determinism, but it's en route.
For a more poetic take, I'll paraphrase leonard cohen on "do you believe in free will?":
I think free will exists, but I think it's over-rated. Mostly, we act because we are compelled to.
Russia GDP: ~1.7 trillion
Iran GDP: ~0.45 trillion
North Korea GDP: ~0.028 trillion
Meanwhile, China GDP: ~14.34 trillion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
There is however a huge problem with sanctions: you need to have a realistic plan for what you want to accomplish with your sanctions, or else it does little more than adding some friction to trade.
That means that if you want to actually change the behaviour of a nation using sanctions, you need to have modest goals, an acceptance of compromise, and a readiness to let the other side come out looking like a respectable partner. These are basically things the US cannot muster in the relationship with Iran and North Korea, and the American violation of the JCPOA has significantly eroded US ability to persuade other countries to impose their own sanction.
For China and Russia, the US alone cannot impose any important amount of sanctions and have them be upheld by third parties, the USA trying to block all imports from China would just mean the rest of the world needs to switch to using Yuan or Euros because that volume of trade simply cannot be replaced.
It's just a matter of time before more sanctions arrive. Because dictatorships are short-sighted and incapable of change. So let's say China tries to prod Taiwan with some military approach and fails. Or escalation of border war with India or Vietnam or Japan. Or increasing purchases or Iranian goods.
When there's a mini-war started by China in Asia, you will see a full worldwide sanction on China.
It depends on your definition of "successful."
You can have a successful movie and not distribute it in China. It won't make the absolute maximum number of dollars possible on planet Earth, but it can still be a successful movie.
The business success or failure of a movie is entirely determined by how much money it makes. To maximize that success (or even to be considered a success), you must publish in China.
Even without your movement of goalposts, a movie can still be successful without being in China.
The most successful movies in history were released, and massively profitable, before China's market opened to the rest of the world.
To maximize that success (or even to be considered a success), you must publish in China.
This is simply false. There are plenty of successful businesses, movies, video games, and other enterprises that never touch China. I hate to break it to you, but China is a non-factor for the vast majority of businesses on the planet.