Cook, other Apple execs open up on company's future in extensive '60 Minutes' feature

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 95

    bobroo said:

    Funny you bring up body language. My wife and I find Tim Cook to be a terrible liar. In short, when he lies he smiles. Questioning about the success/failure of the Apple Watch brought a big grin and confirmed (to my wife and I anyway) the Apple Watch sales results are no where near what Tim and Jony thought they would be.
    what absolute nonsense. lets hope nothing important rests on you & your wife's ability to truthtell. 

    and your nonsense isnt even consistent -- you suggest hes smiling when hes lying, but you also say he smiles because the sales arent as good as hoped for...which isnt lying, even were it true. (but the sales ARE good, per their earnings call and the Other category, so i doubt its true).

    multi-billion dollar business, overnight, and you and your wife are complaining about it. unreal.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 62 of 95
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:


    Whatever dude.

    Bottom line is Apple is paying a tax rate of 26%.
    No sir they are not. Do a little more research and you'll find why what Apple officially and quite legally reports differs from actual fact. Apple has not "paid" 26% of their worldwide revenues in taxes.  Look at the figures Apple uses in their computation and where those revenues come from. Further note that even there some of it is simply noted as due IF Apple were to elect to bring that portion home at some future point. If they have no plans to ever bring it home those revenues are not included in Apple's tax figures. So to make it simple the portion of Apple's revenues with deferred tax obligations does not include all of Apple's international revenue.  Why? Because there's no circumstance under which Apple would realistically bring any of it "home" and therefor it will NEVER be taxable as far as Apple is concerned. 
    Jesus Christ dude. At least check the facts before you start spewing total BS.

    Apple PAID $14 Billion in income Tax in FY2015
    Apple had a profit of $53 billion in FY2015
    That's a 26% tax rate PAID.

    And the rate would be even higher because the taxes for the 4th Qtr 2015 would not be paid till 1st Qtr 2016.  And since they made more profit in Q4 2015 than Q4 2014 the amount they will pay for 2015 profits will be even greater than $14 billion.

    Go read the SEC filing in the statement of cash flow.
    http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10973752-223585-230531&type=sect&TabIndex=2&dcn=0001193125-15-356351&nav=1&src=Yahoo

    Apple will probably pay about $20 billion in taxes next year.
    Now add the taxes paid by shareholders and its easily close to $25 billion.


    More reading would do you good sir. Here's a start with the recent look into Apple's 2012 tax report. Then look into US pretax income and international pretax income as it pertains to their financial reporting. Then look in footnotes in the Apple quarterlies for mention of "unrecognized deferred tax liability” , or in other words money it intends to to keep "overseas" forever and thus not subject to even deferred taxes. They do mention it if you look hard enough. 
    I believe you said you were an accountant by profession, right? 

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/apple-tax-rate-ignores-profit-shifting-offshore
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 63 of 95
    bobroo said:
    The iWatch is not the game changer it was thought it would become. I've found the only folks who use it in ernest are Apple Store employees. If there were huge demand for iWatches, Tim and Jony's Apple would be bragging about their sales profusely.

    In my own due diligence asking some folks I have seen wearing an iWatch and seeing if it would be something I should consider buying (it is not, BTW) one person said: "Ya' know, it's like this: If I'm driving to work and I forget my iPhone, I have to turn around and get it. If I'm driving and I forgot my iWatch, I'll try to remember to bring it tomorrow."

    I think that sums up the current value of the iWatch perfectly.
    so much troll-trop nonsense. too bad the block action is MIA.

    - theres no such thing as an iwatch.

    - Cook said before the Apple Watch was even released they would not share sales data on a brand new product category. thats valuable info they wont give to competitors. so your conjecture that they would be singing it from the roof tops is bullshit.

    - the AW is an accessory. of course the device its an accessory to is more important, duh.

    - do you hang-wring over Samsung's or Amazon's lack sales reporting? nope, just apple's. why? because thats what trolls do.
    edited December 2015 jfc1138palomineroundaboutnow
  • Reply 64 of 95
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    jfc1138 said:
    Obviously not since they don't right? So, money earned overseas is subject to those nations laws, including tax laws. Overseas money has already had taxes paid where it was earned, bringing it into the United States wouldn't serve any purpose: Apple has a lot of overseas expenses: paying for components, assembly etc. running it through the United States where it was neither earned nor being spent would be silly. 

    OTOH money earned in the United States IS subject to United States taxes and Apple pays billions and billions. 
    Businesses need not set up shop in the US to compete and the fact that so many American businesses have chosen other countries is a clear indicator US policies have become less and less favorable.

    The tax code needs to be gutted and the IRS should be shut down. There are a number of OK solutions out there, but there are also a lot of entrenched interests opposing completely upending the status quo.
    The Founders would vigorously disagree, one of the central reasons they discarded the FIRST structure of these United States (The Articles of Confederation) was the lack of a tax income for the central government: rendering it unworkable. Shutting down the IRS and thus totally bankrupting and gutting the entire Federal government of this nation isn't a rational response to a unsatisfactory tax code written, after all, not by the IRS but by the Congress. So shut down the Congress and turn this into a one person led dictatorship? I disagree. They way to tax reform is election campaign reform since the Congress uses the tax code as their was to pay back supporters.
  • Reply 65 of 95
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    No sir they are not. Do a little more research and you'll find why what Apple officially and quite legally reports differs from actual fact. Apple has not "paid" 26% of their worldwide revenues in taxes.  Look at the figures Apple uses in their computation and where those revenues come from. Further note that even there some of it is simply noted as due IF Apple were to elect to bring that portion home at some future point. If they have no plans to ever bring it home those revenues are not included in Apple's tax figures. So to make it simple the portion of Apple's revenues with deferred tax obligations does not include all of Apple's international revenue.  Why? Because there's no circumstance under which Apple would realistically bring any of it "home" and therefor it will NEVER be taxable as far as Apple is concerned. 
    Jesus Christ dude. At least check the facts before you start spewing total BS.

    Apple PAID $14 Billion in income Tax in FY2015
    Apple had a profit of $53 billion in FY2015
    That's a 26% tax rate PAID.

    And the rate would be even higher because the taxes for the 4th Qtr 2015 would not be paid till 1st Qtr 2016.  And since they made more profit in Q4 2015 than Q4 2014 the amount they will pay for 2015 profits will be even greater than $14 billion.

    Go read the SEC filing in the statement of cash flow.
    http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10973752-223585-230531&type=sect&TabIndex=2&dcn=0001193125-15-356351&nav=1&src=Yahoo

    Apple will probably pay about $20 billion in taxes next year.
    Now add the taxes paid by shareholders and its easily close to $25 billion.


    "worldwide revenues in taxes." Why EVER would they? Corporations pay taxes on profits NOT "revenues".
  • Reply 66 of 95
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    jfc1138 said:


    "worldwide revenues in taxes." Why EVER would they? Corporations pay taxes on profits NOT derived from those "revenues".

  • Reply 67 of 95
    redefiler said:
    Some questions:

    Is Apple required to bring that money home to the US?

    If Apple could get the same tax rate and benefits in the US that they get in Ireland... would Apple start keeping all their money in the US?

    Does anyone wonder why so many companies set up shop in Ireland in the first place?

    1. Nope

    2. Yes

    3. Because the Irish goverment attracted Apple to Ireland as part of a program aimed at bringing more tech jobs to the country and bolstering its economy beyond its predominantly agrarian based exports.  It was a smart move and a good deal for both Ireland,  this fact is often left out because it hurts the social justice warrior dramatization of the story.  

    In the late 80s the Irish Double Dip was pioneered by the likes of Apple.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

    They aren't in Ireland because Ireland invented this con.

  • Reply 68 of 95
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:



    More reading would do you good sir. Here's a start with the recent look into Apple's 2012 tax report. Then look into US pretax income and international pretax income as it pertains to their financial reporting. Then look in footnotes in the Apple quarterlies for mention of "unrecognized deferred tax liability” , or in other words money it intends to to keep "overseas" forever and thus not subject to even deferred taxes. They do mention it if you look hard enough. 
    I believe you said you were an accountant by profession, right? 

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/apple-tax-rate-ignores-profit-shifting-offshore
    I really don't give a damn what happened in 2012.

    Lets look at FY2015. Stop trying to pull up an obviously biased article by bloomberg that totally ignores GAAP and the timing difference in taxes accrued and taxes paid. Of course some of the cash won't come back to the USA.  They will spend TENS OF BILLIONS in tooling in China alone in the next decade.  Its not a crime to pay China tax on China profits and then use the cash on China factories.

    Again why are you ignoring this:

    FY 2015 Profit - $53 billion
    FY 2015 Taxes PAID - $14 billion
    Tax rate 26%

    Stop trying to cloud the issue.  Apple pay a boatload of taxes last year.
    How much of that supposed $14B was deferred? 
  • Reply 69 of 95
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    I can listen to Jony Ive's voice for hours on end. Reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock in a way. The interview was pretty pro forma. Since Don Hewitt and Mike Wallace passed, 60 Minutes is a hollow shell of what it was originally. 
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 70 of 95
    sog35 said:
    The stock is down 20% and could have been totally avoided if just Tim Cook just took 5 minutes to tell the world that supply chain rumors are unreliable.
    why do you keep complaining about this? COOK HAS ALREADY SAID THAT WAS A BUNK WAY TO FORECAST. has. said. 

    what, do you expect him to say it over & over again?
    I think it's a mistake for Cook to get wrapped up in supply chain nonsense. Most of the analyst squawking is about the March quarter. Analysts going to "Asia" and talking to the supply chain. Of course Tim isn't going to respond to that noise. 1) how do we know the people they're talking to have accurate information 2) one would assume any supplier that does business with Apple and wants to continue doing business with Apple isn't going to be leaking information to Wall Street analysts. The minute Cook says anything people are going to expect him to comment all the time. The best you can do is on the earnings call continue to reiterate that trying to glean anything from supply-chain noise is a fools errand.
  • Reply 71 of 95
    sog35 said:

    DUMB.

    So you base your entire basis on ONE PERSON?  

    You don't even know what the product is called.  Its not called the iWatch. That you don't even know its name proves you have no idea what it does.
    My guess you are spewing total lies. You don't even know what the product is called and you want us to believe you.
    People damn well know what the product is called. They use the name "iWatch" as a dig against the product. Obviously this product will look like a failure if the bar someone sets is it has to be as popular and indispensable as the iPhone. Clearly some have intentionally set unrealistic expectations because they know Apple can't meet them and then they can crow about how the "iWatch" is a failure.
    A little clarification: I use the term iWatch because it means Apples' Watch and it is in the vernacular that Apple created, trademarked, and wants us to use. If I use the word "watch" in a sentence it does not designate Apples' watch and could mean any watch. 

    Also: I said that iWatch sales have not been to the expectations of Tim and Jony. NOT that the iWatch is a failure or otherwise a dig against Apple.

    If I wanted to bring up failure I would have mentioned the iNewton. 
  • Reply 72 of 95
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    I really don't give a damn what happened in 2012.

    Lets look at FY2015. Stop trying to pull up an obviously biased article by bloomberg that totally ignores GAAP and the timing difference in taxes accrued and taxes paid. Of course some of the cash won't come back to the USA.  They will spend TENS OF BILLIONS in tooling in China alone in the next decade.  Its not a crime to pay China tax on China profits and then use the cash on China factories.

    Again why are you ignoring this:

    FY 2015 Profit - $53 billion
    FY 2015 Taxes PAID - $14 billion
    Tax rate 26%

    Stop trying to cloud the issue.  Apple pay a boatload of taxes last year.
    How much of that supposed $14B was deferred? 
    None.

    Their 2015 FY tax expense was over $19 billion
    They paid out $14 billion.
    So they still have another $5 billion of 2015 taxes they will pay in the future.
    Are you talking about their provision for taxes? I don't see where Apple already paid $14B in taxes on their 2015 revenues. Maybe I'm missing it. There can be a huge difference between reporting what you may have to pay and what you factually write the check for.

    Even Icahn recently highlighted the fact that what Apple says is a 26% tax rate really isn't as it includes a provision for taxes on a portion (not all) of Apple's "overseas cash" if it were to be brought back to the US, which as it stands now they won't. Repatriating all of it would cost $10's of billions more than they've reported as deferred since no provisions have ever been made for taxes on much of it. It was never coming home as far as Apple is concerned and taxes were never going to be paid so it has not been reported as taxable income, which is perfectly proper and legal, tho not entirely transparent. 
    http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/18/what-icahn-thinks-investors-are-missing-in-apples-earnings/

    edited December 2015
  • Reply 73 of 95
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,035member
    bobroo said:Questioning about the success/failure of the Apple Watch brought a big grin and confirmed (to my wife and I anyway) the Apple Watch sales results are no where near what Tim and Jony thought they would be.
    If Apple Watch sales aren't anywhere near what they expected, then what the heck was their target? Is their watch perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Can Apple really complain about having a 75% market share in the smartwatch category a year after Samsung had 75%? It's far more of a commanding lead than even in their spotlight market, the smartphone.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/strategy-analytics-apple-watch-captures-74-percent-global-smartwatch-marketshare-in-q3-2015-300167891.html ;

    Edit: I just saw sog35's post (#49) and looks like we totally agree on this one.
    edited December 2015 sog35
  • Reply 74 of 95

    bobroo said:

    In my own due diligence asking some folks I have seen wearing an iWatch and seeing if it would be something I should consider buying (it is not, BTW) one person said: "Ya' know, it's like this: If I'm driving to work and I forget my iPhone, I have to turn around and get it. If I'm driving and I forgot my iWatch, I'll try to remember to bring it tomorrow."

    I think that sums up the current value of the iWatch perfectly.
    My apologies. I didn't realize that you were a professional researcher.
    No I am not a professional researcher but I am a reasonable person willing to do due diligence. Perhaps that's an unfamiliar concept?

    And those words that were told to me; they summarize the feelings of Apples' watch (at this point in time) to many, many people-- perfectly.
  • Reply 75 of 95
    sog35 said:
    I think it's a mistake for Cook to get wrapped up in supply chain nonsense. Most of the analyst squawking is about the March quarter. Analysts going to "Asia" and talking to the supply chain. Of course Tim isn't going to respond to that noise. 1) how do we know the people they're talking to have accurate information 2) one would assume any supplier that does business with Apple and wants to continue doing business with Apple isn't going to be leaking information to Wall Street analysts. The minute Cook says anything people are going to expect him to comment all the time. The best you can do is on the earnings call continue to reiterate that trying to glean anything from supply-chain noise is a fools errand.
    It would literally take 5 minutes for Cook to say "relying on supply chain rumors to predict sales is  foolish. I would think twice about taking the advice or paying for advice from someone who relies on supply chain rumors to make investment decisions."  BAM.

    Tim Cook has alredy said this on earnings calls. You honestly believe Wall Street doesn't know this and in the need to constantly be reminded of it by Tim Cook? Nonsense. For three years now Wall Street has been predicting smartphone saturation at the high end and a general smartphone slowdown. Everything we get out of them is confirmation bias.

    All anybody is talking about on TV today is Apple and whether they pay their fair share of taxes. Why Apple would want that the week of Christmas is beyond me. Perhaps Tim Cook is too willing answer any question. This is what Apple's PR shop should have done, they should have told CBS we'll give you access to never before seen areas inside Apple HQ and the new campus and in return we get to control the story and certain things are off topic. Does anyone think CBS would have turned them down? Of course not.  And if Tim Cook wanted to discuss this stuff Steve Dowling should have sat in his office and said no, absolutely not. I mean my god why are we rehashing Foxconn working conditions that was a story like 2 years ago? This is a time when you want people buying your products not thinking you're a tax dodger whose products are made by "slave labor" in China. Dumb, Tim Cook, just dumb.
    palomine
  • Reply 76 of 95
    sog35 said:

    Tim Cook has alredy said this on earnings calls. You honestly believe Wall Street doesn't know this and in the need to constantly be reminded of it by Tim Cook? Nonsense. For three years now Wall Street has been predicting smartphone saturation at the high end and a general smartphone slowdown. Everything we get out of them is confirmation bias.


    What's the harm of reminding people?

    It would literally take 5 minutes for an Apple representative (not even Cook) to go on TV and state the idiocy of relying on supply chain checks.
    Because it doesn't matter. Notice I said confirmation bias. You're going to believe what they want to believe regardless of what Tim Cook says.
  • Reply 77 of 95

    bobroo said:
    People damn well know what the product is called. They use the name "iWatch" as a dig against the product. Obviously this product will look like a failure if the bar someone sets is it has to be as popular and indispensable as the iPhone. Clearly some have intentionally set unrealistic expectations because they know Apple can't meet them and then they can crow about how the "iWatch" is a failure.
    A little clarification: I use the term iWatch because it means Apples' Watch and it is in the vernacular that Apple created, trademarked, and wants us to use. If I use the word "watch" in a sentence it does not designate Apples' watch and could mean any watch. 

    Also: I said that iWatch sales have not been to the expectations of Tim and Jony. NOT that the iWatch is a failure or otherwise a dig against Apple.

    If I wanted to bring up failure I would have mentioned the iNewton. 
    Sorry now you're just being an ass. The product is called Apple Watch and it's pretty clear Apple is moving away from the "i" nomenclature as evidenced by Apple Watch. Apple Pay and Apple Music.  Of course you know all that. Just like you know Apple wasn't even using the "i" prefix at the time of the Newton.
    nolamacguyapplepieguy
  • Reply 78 of 95
    sog35 said:
    I think it's a mistake for Cook to get wrapped up in supply chain nonsense. Most of the analyst squawking is about the March quarter. Analysts going to "Asia" and talking to the supply chain. Of course Tim isn't going to respond to that noise. 1) how do we know the people they're talking to have accurate information 2) one would assume any supplier that does business with Apple and wants to continue doing business with Apple isn't going to be leaking information to Wall Street analysts. The minute Cook says anything people are going to expect him to comment all the time. The best you can do is on the earnings call continue to reiterate that trying to glean anything from supply-chain noise is a fools errand.
    It would literally take 5 minutes for Cook to say "relying on supply chain rumors to predict sales is  foolish. I would think twice about taking the advice or paying for advice from someone who relies on supply chain rumors to make investment decisions."  BAM.

    How friken hard would that be to do?

    Hell why not hire 800 people to handle stock price PR?  Apple has a staff of 800 people just working on the iPhone camera.  Why can't Apple have a PR dept just to defend its stock price from the non-stop FUD?  Why is that so hard?  All they have to say is the TRUTH.  How hard is that?  How hard is it to debunk rumors that come up maybe once a week at most?  How hard would it be to 'leak' conflicting reports about the supply chain to various media?  Propaganda is a war.  It must be fought on both sides. Apple is bringing a sling shot to the table while the Media and Apple's competitors are bringing WMD.

    I'm sick and tired of the Media and Wall STreet liars having free reign.  They can say anything they want about Apple no matter if its total lies. And they pay ZERO price. Apple needs to make it harder for these assholes to spew lies.  Call them out.  Embarrase them.  Remind them of their failures. That will make people think twice about spreading FUD.
    There's a difference between hiring 800 people for what is considered by many to be iPhone's most important feature vs hiring 800 over-glorified paper pushers that have reason being there.
  • Reply 79 of 95
    mactacmactac Posts: 316member
    If cannibalism is good then where the hell is the xMac?
  • Reply 80 of 95
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    None.

    Their 2015 FY tax expense was over $19 billion
    They paid out $14 billion.
    So they still have another $5 billion of 2015 taxes they will pay in the future.
    Are you talking about their provision for taxes? I don't see where Apple already paid $14B in taxes on their 2015 revenues. Maybe I'm missing it. There can be a huge difference between reporting what you may have to pay and what you factually write the check for.

    Even Icahn recently highlighted the fact that what Apple says is a 26% tax rate really isn't as it includes a provision for taxes on a portion (not all) of Apple's "overseas cash" if it were to be brought back to the US, which as it stands now they won't. Repatriating all of it would cost $10's of billions more than they've reported as deferred since no provisions have ever been made for taxes on much of it. It was never coming home as far as Apple is concerned and taxes were never going to be paid so it has not been reported as taxable income, which is perfectly proper and legal, tho not entirely transparent. 
    http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/18/what-icahn-thinks-investors-are-missing-in-apples-earnings/


Sign In or Register to comment.