Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year;
Which is exactly what I have done since Cook ballooned iPhone prices. I had a new iPhone every other year since the original, until the 6S. Since then I have only bought one: the X - and that was second hand. Cook's absurd pricing has caused them to lose a number of iPhone sales from a historically avid fan, and thus average revenue from me has nosedived in the latter 5 years compared to the 5 before. ASP is up, but that is meaningless. Many of my friends have switched away from iOS or are still rocking an ancient iPhone 6, and they all say it's down to the crazy prices.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year; Apple aren't immune to price sensitivity. Price rises will mean Apple loses sales, especially if competitors don't raise prices.
So while Apple may raise prices, I'd be very surprised if they accommodate the complete tax increase, rather than absorbing some of it into a reduced markup.
They're not that stupid.
Apparently you and others here have been waiting for the ‘overpriced’ rebellion to take hold with people walking away with their wallets. It hasn’t and there’s not much chance it ever will, especially after 45 years of overpriced Apple gear selling in droves.
Well, "apparently" it has. iPhone sales are largely flat since 2016, excepting 2020 as that's an anomaly year with more tech purchases due to the pandemic. Also what do you think the arguably biggest reason 1990's Apple almost went bust if it wasn't prices? Macs were double the cost of equivalent spec PCs back then, which is nigh on where they are again now, albeit without the crap OS.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year; Apple aren't immune to price sensitivity. Price rises will mean Apple loses sales, especially if competitors don't raise prices.
So while Apple may raise prices, I'd be very surprised if they accommodate the complete tax increase, rather than absorbing some of it into a reduced markup.
They're not that stupid.
Apparently you and others here have been waiting for the ‘overpriced’ rebellion to take hold with people walking away with their wallets. It hasn’t and there’s not much chance it ever will, especially after 45 years of overpriced Apple gear selling in droves.
Stop putting words in my mouth please, I never said any of that. Quit with the projecting.
Are we going to pay less in taxes now that G7 is collecting more taxes and closed the loopholes?
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
Are we going to pay less in taxes now that G7 is collecting more taxes and closed the loopholes?
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
The point is to level the playing field between multinational corporations with clever accountants and smaller, more local or regional companies who don't have the infrastructure to avoid tax in the same way, but therefore aren't able to compete on price. It was never about what consumers pay.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year;
Which is exactly what I have done since Cook ballooned iPhone prices. I had a new iPhone every other year since the original, until the 6S. Since then I have only bought one: the X - and that was second hand. Cook's absurd pricing has caused them to lose a number of iPhone sales from a historically avid fan, and thus average revenue from me has nosedived in the latter 5 years compared to the 5 before. ASP is up, but that is meaningless. Many of my friends have switched away from iOS or are still rocking an ancient iPhone 6, and they all say it's down to the crazy prices.
The 12 mini I recently bought was only $80 more than my first iPhone, a 4S. It's a significantly more capable device for very little extra money. If you're comparing a Pro Max with 3 cameras (5 actually) to older phones, well.....
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year;
Which is exactly what I have done since Cook ballooned iPhone prices. I had a new iPhone every other year since the original, until the 6S. Since then I have only bought one: the X - and that was second hand. Cook's absurd pricing has caused them to lose a number of iPhone sales from a historically avid fan, and thus average revenue from me has nosedived in the latter 5 years compared to the 5 before. ASP is up, but that is meaningless. Many of my friends have switched away from iOS or are still rocking an ancient iPhone 6, and they all say it's down to the crazy prices.
The 12 mini I recently bought was only $80 more than my first iPhone, a 4S. It's a significantly more capable device for very little extra money. If you're comparing a Pro Max with 3 cameras (5 actually) to older phones, well.....
Is it though? It has FaceID rather than TouchID, it's faster, it has MagSafe, is (officially, the 6S was unofficially) waterproof and has an extra camera. But do any of these things really make it materially "more capable"? The 6S can do almost all the things the 12 mini can do. As much as I hate to say it a cheap $399 Android phone can also do almost all the things the 12 mini can do. iOS has much more value than Android of course, but a lot of people don't really put value on the software. I notice too that Apple's comparison page is claiming the iPhone 12 has aerospace grade aluminium as a plus over the 6s. Only at the time of the 6s's release, it also was touted to have aerospace grade aluminium. False marketing much?
Either way, this is not the right thread to discuss this - I shall refrain from derailing it further.
Are we going to pay less in taxes now that G7 is collecting more taxes and closed the loopholes?
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
The point is to level the playing field between multinational corporations with clever accountants and smaller, more local or regional companies who don't have the infrastructure to avoid tax in the same way, but therefore aren't able to compete on price. It was never about what consumers pay.
True - but the smaller players are always at a disadvantage, no matter what the tax system, and most tax is raised from the purchases from the largest companies, so fiddling with their tax can raise (or loose) the most.
I wonder how many of those that insisted "Apple never did anything wrong" and that "politicians should focus on closing loopholes rather than going after Apple" are going to be singing the same tune now that politicians have worked together to close loopholes.
1) You’re assuming this holds. This is just the G7 so far. We’ll see. I am not hopeful it’ll stick.
2) More importantly, re. those saying Apple did nothing wrong — and Apple did NOT — you appear to have totally missed their points. Apple played by the rules set, and if the rules change — as they will for everyone conditional on (1) above — Apple should play by those new rules. I have no doubt at all that Apple will. It’s just that you can’t start singling out individual companies, and you can’t start clawing back things retroactively.
Apple should close shop in all those money grabbing countries. That’ll teach them!
Or raise their prices by %15 to cover their respective taxes
If they could have raised prices by 15% without negatively affecting overall profits they would most assuredly already have done so. Pricing is not inelastic, nor would Apple be a company expected to leave money on the table. That is not what investors want.
I wonder how many of those that insisted "Apple never did anything wrong" and that "politicians should focus on closing loopholes rather than going after Apple" are going to be singing the same tune now that politicians have worked together to close loopholes.
1) You’re assuming this holds. This is just the G7 so far. We’ll see. I am not hopeful it’ll stick.
2) More importantly, re. those saying Apple did nothing wrong — and Apple did NOT — you appear to have totally missed their points. Apple played by the rules set, and if the rules change — as they will for everyone conditional on (1) above — Apple should play by those new rules. I have no doubt at all that Apple will. It’s just that you can’t start singling out individual companies, and you can’t start clawing back things retroactively.
I haven’t missed their point, I don’t dispute that Apple played by the rules. You don’t seem to have understood my point at all - it’s nothing to do with Apple’s behaviour.
Are we going to pay less in taxes now that G7 is collecting more taxes and closed the loopholes?
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
The point is to level the playing field between multinational corporations with clever accountants and smaller, more local or regional companies who don't have the infrastructure to avoid tax in the same way, but therefore aren't able to compete on price. It was never about what consumers pay.
True - but the smaller players are always at a disadvantage, no matter what the tax system, and most tax is raised from the purchases from the largest companies, so fiddling with their tax can raise (or loose) the most.
It’s funny. When companies do this, it is anti-competitive and restraining trade. When countries do it it is being fair. It being conspiring with all the other players for minimum “price” levels and that sort of thing.
Also, I don’t see how this would have undermined Ireland and it’s situation. Ireland is not part of the G7.
I don't see it either -- and I haven't seen anything detailing how this would block the tax shelter nations -- but the rhetoric is pretty clear that it would -- it just doesn't say how it would do that.
Also, i have to wonder about the situation with multi-nationals where their taxes do not go to where they are making their profits: Take a hypothetical case of a German car maker: They build their cars in the U.S. then sell them in the U.S. -- but their profits and their taxes go to Germany? That sort of sucks for the U.S. But it's an even bigger deal for european countries and the new digital multinationals like Facebook and Google -- they do business in Germany but the taxes from that business get paid to Ireland. That just doesn't seem right and it doesn't seem like a sustainable situation -- but apparently this deal takes care of that too.
I guess we just have to wait and see how this all shakes out.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But some people definitely won't, they'll go somewhere else, or put off that upgrade another year; Apple aren't immune to price sensitivity. Price rises will mean Apple loses sales, especially if competitors don't raise prices.
So while Apple may raise prices, I'd be very surprised if they accommodate the complete tax increase, rather than absorbing some of it into a reduced markup.
They're not that stupid.
He's just fear mongering.
According to his logic Apple should have cut prices in the EU by 15% when Ireland gave them that great tax deal of 0.05%
i wonder why that didn't happen? The theory says.....
Are we going to pay less in taxes now that G7 is collecting more taxes and closed the loopholes?
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
Great point, mike g. G7 countries get to raise taxes and blame it on someone else (wasn't it President Biden that proposed this tax agreement recently?). Of course it may be interesting to see the "G7 Tax" line item show up on your next tech purchase receipt. Airlines do it (in the US) with a "911 tax." FedEx at one point with a "Fuel Tax", etc.
Comments
Also in the end, all companies will just tag on any extra taxes to to the consumer. Taxes are always paid by the buyer!
Agreed - The G7 have agreed to increase taxes (hopefully) to all their people whilst labelling it as taxing the greedy multination companies - a win - win
It's a significantly more capable device for very little extra money.
If you're comparing a Pro Max with 3 cameras (5 actually) to older phones, well.....
Either way, this is not the right thread to discuss this - I shall refrain from derailing it further.
If Apple could charge more they already would.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/how-microsoft-parks-profits-offshore-to-pare-its-tax-bill/
Wait, forgot I was smoking weed. Never mind.