avon b7

clarker99 said:

avon b7 said:

clarker99 said:

One thing I see is that people do not realize how much value a used iPhone has in grey market. Getting $200-$250 for a 6s is really good value for a 3 1/2 yr old device. Why dont more people leverage this?  

For whatever reasons, it seems iPhone customers want to use the phone until it has zero value and then complain about the price of a new one. Trade-in/selling on Craiglist 1-2 yrs earlier (and considering time-value of money/inflation) you provide yourself better value. Especially, if your carrier or Apple provide zero cost financing. 

People complain because prices have gone up. That's reasonable. Zero cost financing still means paying that increased price so the complaint remains valid.

As a result, some people will hold onto their phones longer. Others will opt to stay on older second hand phones. Both actions impact the sales of the newer, higher priced models.

Selling your phone to leverage the purchase of a new phone actually happens but clearly not enough to move the needle by any significant amount on sales of the new models.

It is reasonable to think Apple's current pricing (the price end users actually pay) is simply hitting users' price ceilings and as a result, they aren't biting.

Couple that with no compelling reason to upgrade and intense competition and you can see and understand (at least to a large degree) why things are like they are.

I am not even sure why I am answering you but Going from a 5s/SE6/6s to a current gen iPhone is a significant jump in tech. Using your existing device to leverage a better price every 2-3 yrs is just smart.  Or run your device till it dies and pay the going price in 2020 or 2021. Your not saving anything bc a dollar today is not worth a dollar tommorrow and your old phone is worth nothing. Unless you think Apple will cut the price of iPhones down $200-$300... and good chance that is not happening.

A significant jump in tech but not compelling and if the price is too high, everything is moot.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the iPhone market and how it flattened for three years and just contracted - right on its historic blowout quarter.

You can wish people to do what you say - and some do do that - but it isn't turning things around.

It not what I think. I believe the market is speaking for itself. Now it is up to Apple to take action if it feels it is necessary to do so.

clarker99 said:

One thing I see is that people do not realize how much value a used iPhone has in grey market. Getting $200-$250 for a 6s is really good value for a 3 1/2 yr old device. Why dont more people leverage this?  

For whatever reasons, it seems iPhone customers want to use the phone until it has zero value and then complain about the price of a new one. Trade-in/selling on Craiglist 1-2 yrs earlier (and considering time-value of money/inflation) you provide yourself better value. Especially, if your carrier or Apple provide zero cost financing. 

People complain because prices have gone up. That's reasonable. Zero cost financing still means paying that increased price so the complaint remains valid.

As a result, some people will hold onto their phones longer. Others will opt to stay on older second hand phones. Both actions impact the sales of the newer, higher priced models.

Selling your phone to leverage the purchase of a new phone actually happens but clearly not enough to move the needle by any significant amount on sales of the new models.

It is reasonable to think Apple's current pricing (the price end users actually pay) is simply hitting users' price ceilings and as a result, they aren't biting.

Couple that with no compelling reason to upgrade and intense competition and you can see and understand (at least to a large degree) why things are like they are.

carnegie said:

I meant to add to my above replies:

@Avon B7 and @Gatorguy... Do you think that the methods Apple was allowed to use in determining profit allocation (for the Irish branches) was unreasonable? And if so, why?

This question is not about Ireland's general (prior) tax policy of making profits not attributable to an Irish branch not taxable in Ireland, nor about the (perceived to be) unreasonable results which could result from that tax policy oddity.


(I'm assuming, since the issue of the Irish tax situation was raised in this thread and conversation about it was allowed to continue, that it's okay to discuss it in this thread. I intentionally waited a period of time before responding to that issue to give moderators a chance to decide that it shouldn't be discussed here.)

I have always stated that the technical issues should be resolved by specialists in the different fields and accepted that we must wait for the case to be heard. Simply because the issues at hand are complex. This particular case required a three year investigation and we only have a summary.

That said, the summary of the investigation reveals situations that do not sit well with the majority of casual observers. I don't think it is a case of deciding if what was allowed was reasonable or not but if what Apple (and others) did with it was reasonable or not. That falls into a personal, subjective arena. 

What gets under my skin (and I"m sure I'm not alone) is seeing a CEO using 'values' as a supporting line of defence in the public realm.

My biggest complaint is there but it is personal. 

It is not a question of 'picking numbers out of thin air'. It is a question of saying, which instruments can we use to determine how much we will make available for taxation. That allows for the company, given its size, to effectively decide for itself what the figure will be (all 'legal' - until determined not legal). 

That is where the investigation will put facts on the table and we will eventually be able to see what those 'values' equate to and if the spirit of the law has been followed or not. 

The way to go if you are not happy with what potential suppliers can provide on both a technical and delivery level. It makes sense for those reasons. On the other hand, costs could increase (patent licencing included) and the finished product will have to be competitive. 

Either way I think it makes sense to bring the design in house.

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

randominternetperson said:

avon b7 said:

lkrupp said:

ireland said:

The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.

Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple. When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?

Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.

We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.

Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share."  Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed.  If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials.  Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do?  I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan.  But feel free to do that with your own money.

That isn't actually true.

You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.

When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.

I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.

Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.

If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.

To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!' 

In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.

Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.

Is that a pure example of whataboutism?

My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.

Yeah, pure.

As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.

It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?

It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.

Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.

As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/Correspondence/190129-Correspondence-from-Huawei.pdf

then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually got caught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.

Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological  and competitive reasons.