ManyMacsAgo

Ireland is Apple's HQ for that large region of the world. Apple's Ireland operation is not an entity on paper with a PO box; it's a large operation with thousands of local workers, assembling and shipping units of all kinds.

A. Apple's resellers throughout the region (including their own brick and mortar stores) buy from Apple's Ireland operation at wholesale prices -- Apple Ireland is the supplier. Over the years, a lot of hardware was also sent back there for servicing.

B. Though Apple's website shows pages with local currencies and local languages, the Apple Online Store sends physical goods out to customers in the whole region from Ireland.

So, every sale throughout Europe, Africa and Middle East has a large Ireland component since that seems to be the distribution center.

Secondly, Apple has already paid ALL the taxes that Ireland asked, on ALL the revenue that it booked there; as well as ALL the taxes that any other jurisdiction has asked of Apple on ALL the revenue booked in those locations. Now, however, the EU is pressuring Ireland to levy additional tax, retroactively, because it believes Ireland unfairly enticed Apple to its shores with a deal that Ireland gave no other corporation.

Thirdly, Apple is the most transparent, financially, of all the large tech companies; and arguably the most forthcoming (gives more numbers and breaks out more things than most of the others). Single P&L statement; doesn't shift things between multiple divisions to make things look good, and all that.

credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level

opinion over Apple demanding $50 per device from Samsung because of rounded corners and icon shapes in comparison to what Qualcomm wants for the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place. You could pack all the horsepower in the Ax chips that you want, and it wouldn't be much good if your data connection was limited to 1G analog signals would it? And by the way ... Apple was sued for patent infringement over their ARM designs for the Ax chips by the University of Wisconsin ... and lost and had to pay up big. So yeah, I guess that is why you would rather I comment elsewhere, right?

used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!

pressed for product?  I'm not sure how one goes about placing an order for thousands of trees, but I like Apple does with iPhone parts, the order would have been placed years ago and the trees set aside and cared for until the time comes to plant them.

Is this article just stating there was a problem to generate web clicks?  This really sounds like a non-issue.

holds as an asset either. I don't see the win-win for investors but whatever. I don't currently directly own shares of any of the techs.

software company would say its software is most important. WRONG BITCH.

Hardware is equally as important as software. They both need to work together.

There is so many years left for hardware innovation. It will never end.

Apple will keep shriking the bezel for the rest of the decade. AR will be huge and will require more and more horsepower from the CPU.  In the next decade we will be seeing foldable screens on iPhones.

Don't believe the lies of Google and FAcebook that say hardware don't matter.

What's funny, is that diehard Android fans seem to think that software isn't important either! One notorious, anti-apple poster on several tech forums I frequent insists that fragmentation of Android is a myth, that there are no consequences whatsoever to most of the Android install base NOT being on the latest version of Android.

He says it's not an issue, just something made up by Apple fans, because Google has worked it, "by design", so that api's and innovations can all somehow be addressed through the store and Google Play services. He insists that an Android app on any Android phone running ___ version, four versions back, is just the same as running the app on a newer, better phone running latest Android version.

Sounds to me like a recipe for Lowest Common Denominator. Sounds like something Google HAD to deal with because OEMs and Carriers weren't helping the OS update situation. Sounds like Android users aren't expecting Google to come out with ANY significant updates to APIs or new APIs (like AR, for example).

So, if neither hardware nor software are important to Android users, I wonder what is important? Oh yeah, replacing the battery and SD cards, and "choice" (until that moment they make a choice for the one Android phone they end up with, that doesn't come with the latest version of Android and will never get an update ...but, apparently Apple "plans obsolescence", go figure!) ;P

profitable as possible. Remember Cook is a financial guy, not an inventor like Jobs' was. His job is to always present Apple in the most favorable light with regards to financial health.  And don't forgot all those leaches at the stock market that believe everything Bloomberg and other's right and then panic like little school girls and dump 100s of millions of shares. Plenty of blame to go around.

Licensing terms in exchange for having their parents made part of the 4G standard. So you can’t really avoid all of them, assuming they’re valid. But then they turned around and tried to take a percentage of total device value as licensing. So if Apple offers a better screen or battery and charges more, Qualcomm expects more money too for the exact same part and function. Apple says that’s not fair, reasonable, and considering Apples unique place in the industry, not non-discriminatory either. Neither side will budge and it’s a fundamental difference of opinion. If Apple loses, all devices which implement any modern spec will become a minefield of patent percentages. Usually there isn’t that clear a bad guy, but here it’s pretty clear it’s Qualcomm acting against the industry and public good. Hopefully they lose soon and hard. 

Not only are the licensing terms not fair, reasonable nor non-discriminatory, but there is the whole "double-dipping" thing, which is what a lot of companies and governments around the world are disputing with Qualcomm, it's not just Apple disputing...

Essentially, Qualcomm wants to license BOTH the assembling company for the part (Foxconn, etc), AND the device company (Apple) for the same part. Normally, a license for a part covers its use in whatever it is put into. Apple accounts for licensing, and is good with that, but just once -- either Foxconn gets the bill and passes it onto Apple, or Apple gets the bill. But Qualcomm shouldn't be doing both.

Apple's complaint to Qualcomm about that was partly how Apple got some rebate from Qualcomm (but Apple had to "agree" to let Qualcomm be the exclusive supplier of modems as well). Then Qualcomm withdrew the rebates (1B per year) over Apple testifying in someone else's case against Qualcomm (in S Korea, I think).