adrayven

macxpress said:

I'd say there will be a different Mac announcement sometime in October. I'm thinking Sept 7th won't have anything Mac related except for maybe macOS. I can already hear the pissing and moaning about the lack of a new MacBook Pro/iMac. Tim must be fired for this!

Exactly. Major Mac release announcement is likely in October. With full production available until November'ish, that actually lines up well..

Problem: Would Apple switch to Kaby Lake this quickly if they didn't expect it until late December? Intel says they were surprised to be a head of schedule.. Apple tends to plan and lock in chips MONTHS ahead.. so, it's very possible that even though Intel was actually a head, we won't see Kaby Lake until next year sometime and Apple will release Skylake systems this year..

In which case, I may, yet again, wait on upgrading my 2012 MBP

gwydion said:

The Commission declared that tax rates on European profits were illegally low at 0.005 percent in 2014, and 1 percent in 2013

No, this is not what the EC declared, what the EC declared illegal is the deal between the Irish Government and Apple for the way the amount of taxable profits in Ireland were calculated for Apple Sales International.

The rate applied was 12.5%,  The problem has never been with the tax rates in Ireland, or the tax rates in Belgium in the latest analog ruling

Incorrect.. The commission never proved their was a 'special' deal.. They only claimed it based on the 'low rates' in those years.. Their case is truly based on the low rates.. Which is why Ireland is largely fighting it, saying EU shouldn't be able to set their rates.

It's believed this move by the EU is a first political move to attempt to force it's will of equalized rates across all countries that are part of the EU.. I have a feeling that, while people are poo poo'ing Apple, that soon other countries will soon (Netherlands for example) be in the EU's sights and things will heat up even more.

The irony is; Tim Cook is completely disputing the low rates they claim. Example is Apple says they paid Ireland $400 million (5%) in taxes in 2014; which completely contradicts EU's contention that Apple only paid a $4-5 million (.005%) ... I'm VERY interested in seeing where the EU is getting their low numbers from..

Just because I have $1000 in the bank, doesn't mean I want to pay someone $10 just because it would be a hassle to fight it. The logic that because Apple has a lot of money on hand they should just pay it is asinine.

SpamSandwich said:

Cook is making the wrong argument here and his response was just painful to read.

Not sure why.. He's claiming that the EU Commission's .005% is an outright lie. That they paid over 400 million in 2014 (about 12%, which is what it's supposed to be at in Ireland). Thats a big discrepancy and I'd like to know why its so big; whats the deal with the EU's numbers? I'm reserving my opinion until we find out why ...

anantksundaram said:

austriacus said:

Because usually the party that did not pay the taxes is the one that has the issues. Also, as far as I know Apple is (not yet) being penalized. The amount mentioned is the amount they should have payed more. So there is no financial penalty (as of yet)

I am curious: do you pay any taxes that you are not asked to? Or does that only apply other people?

Exactly. The narrative of Apple is evil because it didn't overpay Ireland what its as asking for is dumb.. Who does that? Apple had Ireland repeatedly, every year, audit their taxes.. Generally, the only people you need to worry about when it comes to taxes is the country your money is in.

Now, if the tax law has been found insufficient, or defective, CHANGE THE DAMN LAW. Can you guess what Apple and other companies will do? They'll follow the new freaking law; whatever it is. This back-taxing because they 'suddenly see the light of the wrong doing' is a piss-poor move on EU's part.

You know why that have not changed the laws? 1) They couldn't legally change irelands Tax laws and 2) Because they wanted a back-door to do so.

You see, what NO-One has heard, is the actually 'special deal'.. What no one has heard, is what criteria makes it illegal. Thats because it was purely 'SUBJECTIVE' opinion from the commission.