or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

 As far as we know, the correct number is ZERO. Zilch. Apple does indeed provide hardware and support but does NOT pay for placement. As far as we know.
As far as we know, Apple does provide equipment and support (setup etc etc) but does NOT pay for placement.  And you're right - there are lots of them.
Well maybe. But I guess that they couldn't find any other way to prevent Apple Pay. After all, neither CVS not Rite-Aid did anything to enable it - it "just worked". So even though PayPass/payWave had been grandfathered (it seems), they felt that they couldn't continue to have Apple Pay work. Or something like that. Whatever it was, it was dumb. Still is.
Look at it another way. When you bring the money back to the U.S. you get your original payment back (not in reality, but as a credit) and then pay just the U.S. tax.  So you're not paying full-rate tax twice, which is most people understand by the term "double taxation". Note that this DOES occur in some situations but not in this one. Here you pay no more, but no less, than if the money had come directly.
Sort of. It was "subject to tax" but in a place where the tax rate was zero. So there has not been a tax payment on it, but it has been "taxed" because it was subject to tax. A subtle point but one much loved by corporate tax advisers.
Not quite. It was the cooperation between Apple and some publishers to RAISE the pricing of e-books.
They were probably active for PayPass/payWave and those were grandfathered. And maybe Google Wallet also was grandfathered - I'm just speculating. Whatever it was, it didn't get enough attention for anyone to do anything about it. It just didn't matter. Then ... BOOM ... Apple made a big splash. And the actions of CVS and Rite-Aid are a huge vote of confidence in its success.
And I have a few purchased at $24. And that was pre-split, so about $3.50 for today's shares. Alas, far too few of them.
Look at it in a slightly different way. Apple International pays a share of the R&D costs - in proportion to the sales in America vs. rest-of-world. But all those people are in the U.S. So ASI is in fact sending a large chunk of that money back  - paying salaries etc in Cupertino and elsewhere. I'm glad that Apple has not done what many others have and moved some of that offshore. That said, I agree with your position. I just don't hold it as strongly as you.
I can't agree with you on this one. Running such a business is not Apple's strength and it would detract and distract Apple from what it does do well. I remember the signs that would occasionally appear in stores: "We have a deal with the bank. We don't give credit and they don't sell groceries". Apple has often said that there are a thousand "no"s for every "yes". This principle has served them well.
New Posts  All Forums: