ManyMacsAgo

About

Username
ManyMacsAgo
Joined
Visits
19
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
83
Badges
0
Posts
34

Reactions

54Like0Dislike6Informative

  • Qualcomm pushed for iPhone exclusivity in response to $1B incentive payment demand, CEO sa...

    ManyMacsAgoManyMacsAgo
    MlorianFueller said:
    We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

    Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level
    Not sure that he is paid by Apple or overly biased. He seems to have agreed with most of Samsung's arguments and pro-Samsung rulings in the Apple v Samsung case.
    sacto joemdriftmeyernetmageSpamSandwichgilly33bb-15jony0

  • Apple's earnings warning indicates trouble in China, but everyone should calm down

    ManyMacsAgoManyMacsAgo
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple spend more $Billions on stock buybacks will be driving the price higher than it otherwise would, and it's not stock that Apple holds as an asset either. I don't see the win-win for investors but whatever. I don't currently directly own shares of any of the techs.
    No it's not stock Apple holds as an investment -- that's the whole point. They retire the shares they re-purchase, so that there are far fewer outstanding shares, and the EPS goes up accordingly.

    Apple's vast amount of cash is regarded as a liability by wall street, and at the same time, wall street barely values Apple's business over and above its cash hoard.

     https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/28/no-apple-didnt-lose-9-billion-by-repurchasing-shar.aspx
    Apple has acted sensibly; and as mentioned in the article, Netflix, for one, provides an example of an unwise move re: share repurchasing.

    tmay

  • Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee suspected of evading $7.5M in taxes by South Korean police

    ManyMacsAgoManyMacsAgo
    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.

    lolliverRayz2016watto_cobrajony0

  • Apple's bitter dispute with Qualcomm not expected to be resolved anytime soon

    ManyMacsAgoManyMacsAgo
    Yet out of everything I stated only the $1 billion part was wrong. You are just someone who doesn't like differing opinions. But I would like to hear your opinion over Apple demanding $50 per device from Samsung because of rounded corners and icon shapes in comparison to what Qualcomm wants for the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place. You could pack all the horsepower in the Ax chips that you want, and it wouldn't be much good if your data connection was limited to 1G analog signals would it? And by the way ... Apple was sued for patent infringement over their ARM designs for the Ax chips by the University of Wisconsin ... and lost and had to pay up big. So yeah, I guess that is why you would rather I comment elsewhere, right?

    "the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place":
    Exactly, that is called an SEP. Apple has paid (notice, "has paid"), for something that every phone has, however cheap or expensive that phone may be. 
    iPhones don't sell because they can make a phone call. Qualcomm's tech is non-differentiating, it is a "commodity" that has to be used by all phones.     And, arguably, Apple has paid twice.

    By contrast, Samsung (which had not paid for alleged non-SEP patent infringement) was being sued for making an obvious pivot and selling phones on the basis of their similarity to the iPhone.

    So, there is your difference. (And I think it was you to whom I responded similarly in the last article about this subject).

    Apple had been paying what Qualcomm asked, for years. This whole thing started, because Qualcomm withheld a promised rebate following Apple's cooperation with an inquest into Qualcomm's practices! Apple initially asked for what Qualcomm was supposed to have reimbursed. Qualcomm has escalated this from there. And, this isn't just Apple -- it's numerous companies and governmental bodies looking at Qualcomm.
    teejay2012tmaywatto_cobrapscooter63bshank

  • Apple Park tree quota leaves local contractors scrambling for foliage

    ManyMacsAgoManyMacsAgo
    sflocal said:
    This project was planned for years, along with its intention of planting thousands of trees.  Even with all this advance notice, why are people suddenly pressed for product?  I'm not sure how one goes about placing an order for thousands of trees, but I like Apple does with iPhone parts, the order would have been placed years ago and the trees set aside and cared for until the time comes to plant them.

    Is this article just stating there was a problem to generate web clicks?  This really sounds like a non-issue.

    Listening to the radio this morning: Apparently, Apple is looking for certain size trees: they need to be about 9 years old. And apparently, the global housing recession meant that tree planting in CA came to a halt 9 years ago and didn't resume until 2012. So, there is a real lack of trees of the right size.
    patchythepiratewelshdog