ManyMacsAgo

"...purging skeuomorphism from iOS 7 in favor of a flatter, more synthetic look."

I think that is less synthetic. What is more "synthetic" than trying to reproduce leather digitally on a piece of two-dimensional glass?
flatter, simpler design is more "true to" the medium of digital pixels presented on a screen.

tzeshan said:

Do you know that PCs sold far more units than iPad? 

Your argument was about Apple's culpability in the law suit alongside the three named defendants (albeit probably as a way to make a point about the increased demand) in the lawsuit, and that is why you are getting some pushback.

Nevertheless, your point about the price increases being more likely due to significantly increased demand than price-fixing collusion by the three named companies is well-taken. I guess Apple would do well to encourage the growth of the industry by supporting a smaller supplier outside of those three (if there is one).

Having said that PCs sold more units than iPad: Apple tends to sell a lot more iPads than Macs (at least 2 to 1, I think); and if iPads were represented in PC statistics, like the Surface, Netbooks or any piece of sub-$500 plastic junk that PC OEMs get away with selling as PCs, the iPad would make a significant proportion of annual PC sales by unit and raise Apple (currently in fourth place or so by unit) up a couple of places.

k2kw said:

So did Apple Pay EU taxes on all the profits they had stashed in Ireland.

This Samsung guy should have moved to Ireland.

First, there is nothing "stashed" in Ireland that should be subject to tax in some other part of the EU, or anywhere else. Apple pays taxes in every nation in which it books any revenue. The reason the vast majority of Apple's European (and Middle East and Africa) Revenue is booked in Ireland is legitimate:

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.

It's already out this past Wednesday here in Netherlands. And we get an intermission at our cinemas, as a rule.

BubbaTwo said:

I feel all of the US based multinationals can't have it both ways...Play accounting games so that they avoid US taxes and then run to court whenever someone threatens one of their patents...Pay up multinationals -- all of you!

Accounting games?

The money was earned in other countries, where these multinationals have legally registered local entities as required.

The US has already received tax on the US revenue.

The US does not require tax on foreign-earned revenue, until it is repatriated. And it hasn't required these multinationals to repatriate the foreign-earned income. 

A company can operate and survive without repatriating its foreign-earned income. Nevertheless, Apple earmarks funds for US taxes, out of its foreign-earned income, and accounts for this in its earnings calls.

Many multinationals WANT to repatriate (at least some of) their foreign-earned income -- they just don't want to be double-taxed on the same income (apparently a US-only practice), nor pay a 35-45% rate (one of the highest in the world, apparently). Maybe 25%, minus what they have already paid under deals given by countries who appreciate their presence and the jobs they provide...

...Assuming the multi-national is a good citizen in these countries, which Apple arguably is, though many others are not. It seems it's often the influence of the US govt that gets the deals in other countries for its multinationals, to the point of coercion; so you can't have it both ways.

Apple would probably be all for getting double-taxed on its foreign-earned income, and/or paying 45%... IF the US had decent medical coverage for all its citizens.