birko

cropr said:

Apple may be great in designing iPhones and iPads, but bringing down an online store to add a few products is ridiculously unprofessional.  Apple should be ashamed. 

Of course it is unnecessary from a technical viewpoint. If they wanted to they could make changes months in advance, and program them to go live at a given time in a given location. 

But Apple has always been about anticipation. Anticipation for the launch and the urgency when stocks "run low" shortly after launch. All part of the stigma that surrounds Apple. It gets their fans excited and generates millions of dollars of free advertising. And it works!

ireland said:

And yet if the shooters were Christian this whole case wouldn't exist. Such hypocrisy.

If these shooters were christian and there was a chance that there may be a network of people promoting this type of activity among other christians the case probably would exist.

Conspiracy theorists are far more abundant than I thought. The government is out to get you.

Don't forget the tin-soil hats so that they can't read your thoughts.

Many countries have quite specific laws regarding tax. But they also have less specific laws. One of the less specific laws is that companies and business operating in the country need to act in a way that, within reason, maximizes their profit. Any international parent companies must, within reason, not act in a way that works against this.

Now the "within reason" is the area that is questionable.

An example: Company A based in land X, is owned by company B based in land Y. Company A borrows money from company B in order to run its business. All fine and legal. Problem is that the interest rate company B charges is as much as 10 times higher than the market rate. Company A could easily get a loan from local banks, or hold back more profits so it has operating cash, but chooses to pay 10s of millions extra interest to its parent company.

To me, this appears to be an obvious case of company A not fulfilling its obligation to operate in a way that maximizes profits. Land X could decide to go after company A, and where possible company B, for lost taxes. Naturally, land Y would go after neither because it is already getting its taxes and more.

If land X was a EU land and land Y was America, this would not be a case of a vendetta, just a case of a country protecting its interests.

What is happening with Apple is less "obvious" and, interestingly, revolves heavily around a EC land. Regardless of the outcome of this investigation, it is not a EC vs US vendeta.

cnocbui said:

birko said:

Technology already exists to do this, but the big problems are size of the charger and excess energy consumption. Energy cunsumption can be reduced by focussing the electromagnetic radiation but this creates problems that may restrict placement of devices and how many can be charged at any one time. Having far-field wireless charging offers no benefit unless you are free to place your devices anywhere within range. I would be surprised if apple were only a year out from solving these problems. 

Greenpeace would have a field day.

And with Apple pushing towards carbon-neutral data centres and headquarters, I can't imagine them releasing anything unless it is energy efficient.