Why is it the more I read the EEVblog forum, my expectations of Apple keeps...

[bd139]

Walk in to an Apple store and get it sorted. Seriously we have a pile of Apple kit. If we have a problem we just run it down to the Apple Store and get it sorted. NEVER had a single problem.

How the fuck do you break a MacBook in half?

Bendy iPhones I'll give you; that was shit.

[BrianHG]

[bd139]

Only two years after that we got the iPad 

[Distelzombie]

How the fuck do you break a MacBook in half?

The mac books whose hinges deattached because glue and "unibody"-lies - did you not see the videos the ppl here provide?
I don't want to  , just saying.

[MT]

Evil Apple dont pay taxes!

[tooki]

Evil Apple dont pay taxes!

A few thoughts on tax breaks:

- Your claim (“Apple [doesn’t] pay taxes!”) is an outright lie. Apple is the US’s single largest taxpayer, having paid just below $16 billion in tax in 2017.
- You think only Apple uses tax loopholes where possible?? (Apple may have been historically really on the forefront of using every loophole, but they’re hardly alone.) Every international company does this.
- As a publicly traded company, Apple is required by law to safeguard shareholder value. By not availing themselves of every available loophole, they’d open themselves to shareholder lawsuits.
- You cannot blame a taxpayer (corporate or person) for using every tax break available to them. If you don’t think the loopholes are fair, then change the laws.

[Halcyon]

Spot on Tooki.

Even I take advantage of every single tax offset or deduction I possibly can to avoid paying more tax than I have to out of my personal income. You'd be silly not to do this if you're entitled to do so.

In the 2015-2016 financial year, there were over 730 large companies that paid no tax in Australia, included in the list:

Acer Computer Australia
Citrix Asia Pacific
Unisys
Canon Australia
Ingram Micro Holdings Australia
IBM Australia/NZ Holdings
Vodafone Hutchison Australia
Virgin Australia
The Walt Disney Company Australia
Sydney Airport Limited
Sharp Corporation of Australia
Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific
NEC Australia
Eaton Industries
NBN Co. Limited (the government-owned broadband network)
Ford Motor Company of Australia

...the list goes on.

One shouldn't single out Apple for doing so and to be honest, good on them for managing to get away with it legally.

[MT]

- Your claim (“Apple [doesn’t] pay taxes!”) is an outright lie.

I dont lie, i just listen to fake news as you do and from that draw conclusions.

http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/apple-bonuses-money-us-350-billion-taxes-trump/

Apple is the US’s single largest taxpayer, having paid just below $16 billion in tax in 2017.

For years and years they have kept money outside US as to successfully avoiding paying tax.

- You think only Apple uses tax loopholes where possible??

(Apple may have been historically really on the forefront of using every loophole, but they’re hardly alone.) Every international company does this.

So there you go, confession straight from horses mouth about Apples tax avoidance schemes, stop licking Tim's arse!

- As a publicly traded company, Apple is required by law to safeguard shareholder value. By not availing themselves of every available loophole, they’d open themselves to shareholder lawsuits.

  breaking the law...breaking the law.
http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/apple-bonuses-money-us-350-billion-taxes-trump/

- You cannot blame a taxpayer (corporate or person) for using every tax break available to them.

Yes you can particularly when the whole shit is rigged from the beginning, you profoundly just show how (or act) naive you are about things work on this planet.

Not to mention Switzerland one of the biggest tax haves on the planet no wonder USA and other states put your crocked government under enormous pressure past decade for just this Luxembourg, Panama Isle of Man some Caribbean and Switzerland is the crockiest countries on this planet you should all be shut down.

If you don’t think the loopholes are fair, then change the laws.

Said the man who him self sits in the center of a tax heaven , typical the Swiss sentiment, always right even proven wrong. Besides Swiss currency is overated like hell!

Apple only pays taxes if pressured to do so. Ireland was ordered to collect Apple back taxes for 2003-2014, putting Apple’s new tax bill at a steep €13 billion [$15.4 billion.] So why the hell based on your reasoning would Apple then agree to pay back taxes only when pressured if it's as Tom Crock says not by law required. Not only that Apple could have pay'd these in 2009, instead id their best to avoid paying taxes by holding money in tax havens.
https://gizmodo.com/apple-successfully-avoids-50-billion-in-american-taxes-1822189738

[tooki]

Sorry MT, I was going to address your replies, but when I got to “stop licking Tim Cook’s arse” I stopped. Your stupid reply doesn’t deserve a real response. You call me naive, but it’s you who doesn’t understand how things work. And your comments about the Ireland tax situation betray a profound lack of understanding of the situation. You haven’t “proven [me] wrong” as you claim, you’ve only proven yourself to be an idiot by claiming things that are untrue and then declaring victory when I state a fact.

By the way, I’m not going to address “Swiss sentiment” since I’m not actually Swiss. I just live here. You shouldn’t make assumptions based on nationality, anyway - never mind off a little flag on a forum, which says only where someone claims to live, nothing more.

[Mr. Scram]

I thought it was common knowledge that Apple is sitting on an unprecedented pile of money to avoid paying taxes. I hadn't read they lobbied for a deal to get the money to the US cheaper. I'm not sure how the US tax payer should feel about that. Apple certainly isn't the only company to get creative, but it is on a scale not often seen. Maybe never seen before.

Of course, it fits in a larger discussion about how the biggest and wealthiest companies manage to pay less than their fair share of taxes, while taking full advantage of the system paid for by taxes.

[tooki]

Yep. I actually think the entire concept of tax havens is a scam, and that corporations should be paying more tax overall. But it’s ridiculous to expect any company to simply ignore tax breaks that exist. That’s not breaking the law!!

That’s why I say: if we think the amount of tax owed is too small (as in, we think that morally, they should be paying more), then we should change the laws. It’s that simple.

[tooki]

P.S. What’s kinda interesting about Apple’s sorta pioneering uses of certain tax havens is that when they started doing it, they were big, but nowhere distantly near the size they are now. We are talking early 80s, when Apple was pretty much in its infancy, despite being a pioneer in its industry.

[Mr. Scram]

Yep. I actually think the entire concept of tax havens is a scam, and that corporations should be paying more tax overall. But it’s ridiculous to expect any company to simply ignore tax breaks that exist. That’s not breaking the law!!

That’s why I say: if we think the amount of tax owed is too small (as in, we think that morally, they should be paying more), then we should change the laws. It’s that simple.

The problem with that is that it's an international market with a patchwork of laws and rules. It's almost impossible to not have loopholes in a single country. It's absolutely impossible not to have them in the entire world. That's why a moral appeal isn't unfair or unjust. To expect these companies to behave as decent citizens would isn't too much to ask. Even the shareholders would agree, if the alternative is naming and shaming companies that abuse rules or even have them written to their advantage.

As one of the articles pointed out, the tax dodged by the lobbied for rule change is insane. There are close to two hundred countries with a smaller annual budget than the tax that was dodged. That's roughly $125 for each American citizen. That's beyond the realm of clever tricks. People should be upset.

"For context, this difference is more than double the annual cost of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which covers the health care costs of nine million children from low-income families. CHIP is currently in crisis, with Congress debating whether it will be included in a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown.

Maybe if we spent less on massive handouts to the wealthiest companies in the world, we’d have more to spend on sick children."

[tooki]

The problem with that is that it's an international market with a patchwork of laws and rules.

Yes, that’s a big challenge.

It's almost impossible to not have loopholes in a single country. It's absolutely impossible not to have them in the entire world.

I think it’s important to acknowledge what “loopholes” are: tax breaks created specifically to benefit certain players. “Loophole” makes them sound like accidents, but they’re not. They’re deliberate. This is why I think it’s important to call them “tax breaks”.

With that in mind, suddenly the problem is less daunting: it’s not about plugging accidental holes, it’s about removing holes that were made on purpose.

That's why a moral appeal isn't unfair or unjust. To expect these companies to behave as decent citizens would isn't too much to ask.

Correct. But the issue is how to define what is and isn’t “decent”. There’s no way to do this, other than by writing rules.

Even the shareholders would agree, if the alternative is naming and shaming companies that abuse rules or even have them written to their advantage.

Oh man... good luck with that. Most shares are held by investment funds and the like, and they absolutely do not care about anything but ROI.

As one of the articles pointed out, the tax dodged by the lobbied for rule change is insane.

It’s a compromise made among a sea of awful tax breaks that never should have been created in the first place.

There are close to two hundred countries with a smaller annual budget than the tax that was dodged.

Totally irrelevant.

That's roughly $125 for each American citizen. That's beyond the realm of clever tricks. People should be upset.

Are you kidding? $125/citizen is peanuts compared to all the other crap that gets subsidized.

And again, Apple has done nothing illegal. You may think it’s morally “wrong”, but it was fully legal. Don’t like it? Push lawmakers to change the law. (E.g. require all income to be repatriated immediately.)

[Distelzombie]

Could you not create a law that prohibits firms in foreign countries to employ someone in your own? This sounds like it would fix the issue.

[Mr. Scram]

Could you not create a law that prohibits firms in foreign countries to employ someone in your own? This sounds like it would fix the issue.

What would that achieve? It'd make your country very uninteresting on the international market. Of course, it's also easily dodged by having two companies owned by the same people exclusively trading with each other. You won't have any foreigners employed, though you operate as if you do for all other intents and purposes.

[glarsson]

Of course, it's also easily dodged by having two companies owned by the same people exclusively trading with each other. You won't have any foreigners employed, though you operate as if you do for all other intents and purposes.

This is how international companies work. The Apple Store employees in Sweden are employed by Apple Retail Sweden AB, a local company, not by Apple Inc. Should all income from the Swedish Apple Stores be repatriated (to the US) immediately without paying taxes in Sweden?

[Mr. Scram]

This is how international companies work. The Apple Store employees in Sweden are employed by Apple Retail Sweden AB, a local company, not by Apple Inc. Should all income from the Swedish Apple Stores be repatriated (to the US) immediately without paying taxes in Sweden?

The current problem is that taxes are paid, or not paid in the country where it's earned. It's diverted to some low tax country where it's held until some favourable deal is made. Meanwhile, smallest companies pay their regular and fair share. Citizens should expect as much.

I think this is why the EU started taxing sales in the place the buyer lives, rather than where the seller is registered. It's an absolute pain in the ass for smaller companies trading in many different countries, but it's apparently necessary.

[Halcyon]

Wow, this is a new one I haven't heard before. Just another example of Apple selling crappy quality components and screwing the customer.

USD$80 for a VESA mount, that's a flimsy piece of crap. And Apple claimed that even though it's sold by them, it's a third-party product and they won't offer warranty on it.

If that were in Australia, they would be hauled before a court (again). What the hell? Honestly, why do people keep buying this rubbish?!

[rsjsouza]

I saw that yesterday, and it got me thinking about the previously discussed argument of how Apple is put to higher standards when compared to other brands. The somewhat light tone of anger in this video and a few others gave me the impression the reverse is what could be true: how Apple is put to lower standards by their own customers.

The attempt to dodge responsibility and blame third party supply when selling a fully branded and expensive adapter with substandard components is the only topic more aggressively addressed.

However, the lack of competent technical support for their high end computing platform, associated with the lies and severe delays of its progress seemed to me somewhat watered down by the argument that not everyone buys it - if I have a manufacturer's assurance of repairability, I don't care how it will be done and by whom, just give me a realistic date and deliver.

The reaction to the physical condition of the repaired unit seemed also quite watered down (to me that would have triggered a massive s***storm), although after such terrible service I can't fully blame him for not pursuing this further.
 
Anyhow, that was my impression that may have been amplified by the all around incompetence that damaged a nice piece of kit.

[TerraHertz]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-27/1995-steve-jobs-explained-exactly-how-apple-will-fail
In 1995, Steve Jobs Explained Exactly How Apple Will Fail


Steve Jobs Interview - Product People should get promoted Over Sales Marketing People

Jobs was right about that. But that factor was only one element of what went wrong with Apple.
My start in computing was with an Apple II. At that time, and into the era of the early Macs I admired the company and had great hopes for it. Learning how Jobs treated Wozniac (who was my tech hero) taught me the future wasn't so bright after all. The path Apple took confirmed my concerns. There was much more to it than 'marketing droids taking over'. Apple had started out as a potential force for good, but became evil. Microsoft had been evil from the start. Quite depressing.

[Mr. Scram]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-27/1995-steve-jobs-explained-exactly-how-apple-will-fail
In 1995, Steve Jobs Explained Exactly How Apple Will Fail


Steve Jobs Interview - Product People should get promoted Over Sales Marketing People

Jobs was right about that. But that factor was only one element of what went wrong with Apple.
My start in computing was with an Apple II. At that time, and into the era of the early Macs I admired the company and had great hopes for it. Learning how Jobs treated Wozniac (who was my tech hero) taught me the future wasn't so bright after all. The path Apple took confirmed my concerns. There was much more to it than 'marketing droids taking over'. Apple had started out as a potential force for good, but became evil. Microsoft had been evil from the start. Quite depressing.

If I'm honest it seems that people thinking of companies in terms of good and evil are fairly naive, especially when they're publicly traded companies. Their morality is guided by their profits. Not even by choice, but law dictates they have to work with their shareholder's interests in mind.

[TerraHertz]

If I'm honest it seems that people thinking of companies in terms of good and evil are fairly naive, especially when they're publicly traded companies. Their morality is guided by their profits. Not even by choice, but law dictates they have to work with their shareholder's interests in mind.

Firstly, the concept of an immortal, soulless entity with no other permitted objective but to make profit for shareholders, is itself intrinsically evil. Do you think 'shareholder profit' is equivalent to some kind of greater good? Allowing 'corporate personhood' was one of the most awful historical mistakes, ever.

Secondly, it's naive to imagine that all corporations actually act solely in that superficial manner. Of course they don't. They act in whatever manner the top executives desire (motivated by their own ideological agenda and privately offered incentives) and can get away with within the limitations of minimal legal disclosure, lying as much as they can without being caught, and however far they can rig the accounting. Even if everything was above board (it usually isn't) there's a great deal of leeway for different 'moral styles' of operation.

It's even more naive (and actually morally severely negligent) to imagine that concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are not applicable to huge entities like multinational corporations. Whose actions affect the entire world's population, all nations, and the global ecosystem, now and extending far in to the future. In many ways corporate decisions affect the world more drastically than governments and ideologies.

[Mr. Scram]

Firstly, the concept of an immortal, soulless entity with no other permitted objective but to make profit for shareholders, is itself intrinsically evil. Do you think 'shareholder profit' is equivalent to some kind of greater good? Allowing 'corporate personhood' was one of the most awful historical mistakes, ever.

Secondly, it's naive to imagine that all corporations actually act solely in that superficial manner. Of course they don't. They act in whatever manner the top executives desire (motivated by their own ideological agenda and privately offered incentives) and can get away with within the limitations of minimal legal disclosure, lying as much as they can without being caught, and however far they can rig the accounting. Even if everything was above board (it usually isn't) there's a great deal of leeway for different 'moral styles' of operation.

It's even more naive (and actually morally severely negligent) to imagine that concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are not applicable to huge entities like multinational corporations. Whose actions affect the entire world's population, all nations, and the global ecosystem, now and extending far in to the future. In many ways corporate decisions affect the world more drastically than governments and ideologies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. You seem to understand there's a spectrum of ways businesses can operate, yet insist there's a black and white interpretation of that. What's good for one isn't good for another and that's anything but black and white.

Besides, you seem to have a bone to pick with corporations even though I assume your living standard largely depends on them.

[rsjsouza]

In my experience, companies seem to have a specific goal in mind that acts as the drive to inspire people - at that stage, success seems to be a secondary concern and seen as a natural consequence of attaining the main goal. That tends to happen at early stages of most companies, but can happen throughout its lifetime as innovative or disruptive technologies come along.

One thing that Apple was quite innovative was to bring an easiness of use and smoothness to the common man. That is something that permeated the company during the Jobs' second term at the helm of the company but, against his own idea on the video, he himself is a "Sales and Marketing" person as well. Sure, he was also a "Product" person but his product ideas had no shortage of ups and downs. No company can rely solely on one or another for their decision making.