spheric
About
- Username
- spheric
- Joined
- Visits
- 257
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,381
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,569
Reactions
-
Microsoft hammered with $29 billion back-tax bill
AppleZulu said:sdw2001 said:gatorguy said:AppleZulu said:9secondkox2 said:welshdog said:9secondkox2 said:darkvader said:9secondkox2 said:This is theft.The government wants money. Solution? Just retroactively “adjust” someone’s taxes from years ago! A good solid decade ought to do it.Pure evil. If there was ac actual issue all this years ago, the IRS WOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THEM AND THEY COULD PAY WHAT WAS OWED. this isn’t that. This is an extortionist government.Microsoft didn’t do anything illegal. They took advantage of the way the tax systems were set up, like any smart company would do.
You don't know that "Microsoft didn’t do anything wrong.". No one has said they were doing anything illegal, they simply didn't do the tax dodging in a manner the IRS thinks is correct. There will be a back and forth and eventually a settlement will be reached. There is no reason to ever place any faith or belief in corporations doing the right thing, that's not how they operate. All desisions are based on what makes or saves the most money - period. Apple are slightly less guilty of that than some mega-corporations, but MSFT? Come on, they are not going to follow the law to the letter if they think they can get away with it. Gates' legacy of hacking and gaming everything, always and forever lives on.They are even calling this an “adjustment.” Thst means the government is changing things now. That can be applied moving forward but should never be retroactive. That’s wrong. If the rules for a gamrr we change next year, you shouldn’t lose your trophy thst you won playing by the rules in years prior.This is not an ex post facto change in the law. This is an audit finding that Microsoft did their taxes wrong. The “adjustment” refers not to a retroactive change in the law, but to a revision in what MS owes, based on the audit finding that they did their taxes wrong. -
Who at Apple thought getting rid of fast Watch Face switching in watchOS 10 was a good idea?
Spencer314 said:spheric said:Weird. My watch occasionally switched watch faces on its own before watchOS 10.I have no trouble holding my finger on the dial for three seconds before doing exactly the same thing to switch faces as the last seven years I’ve owned an Apple Watch.I’d be fine if you just blamed me, but I actually never suggested this improvement (it is an improvement for me) to Apple.It was a feature that would activate accidentally, and that — in my experience — is no less accessible, but no longer accidentally switches on me.I bothered replying because I am literally one of those people who thinks this is a good idea (even though I don’t work at apple), and I thought, given that you are obviously invested enough in the feature to go on an online forum to rant about it, you might be interested in an explanation as to WHY I think it’s a good change.I apologise for having misread your one-way broadcast as an interest in communication. -
Apple could be out $20 billion a year if Google loses DOJ antitrust case
13485 said:spheric said:As Microsoft found out both in the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case and the European case, "enabled by default" can absolutely constitute an antitrust issue, because the vast majority of users never ever touch their defaults.
It's weird how twenty years later, people are still perpetuating weird myths that have long been dispelled by actual (very expensive) court cases.The EU case involved both Windows media Player and Internet Explorer, and Microsoft paid the 500 million € fine in full. -
India's antitrust regulator investigating Apple's & Google's business practices
rob53 said:Maybe the CCI should spend more time investigating all the India-based scammers. Let's get rid of them before discussing unfair practices by Google and Apple.
That's like asking the DMV to spend more time investigating car-jacking. -
Apple could be out $20 billion a year if Google loses DOJ antitrust case
9secondkox2 said:So stupid. There is no antitrust when you have options. Apple provides them in settings.Google isn’t the only option. Enabled by default is fine.
It's weird how twenty years later, people are still perpetuating weird myths that have long been dispelled by actual (very expensive) court cases.