robjn

About

Username
robjn
Joined
Visits
52
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,039
Badges
1
Posts
283

Reactions

554Like0Dislike79Informative

  • Apple AR headset codenamed 'T288' said to run new 'rOS' operating system, launch as soon a...

    robjnrobjn
    Soli said:
    Soli said:

    2) You can't have AR without a camera, but as we saw with Google Glass a camera just makes it creepy. Can Apple overcome that stigma?
    Is this actually true?  Couldn’t many of the things that are shown using AR be done without a camera?  Granted, on an iPhone/iPad the camera is required to see put, say, my kitchen table, on the screen.  But if I was wearing glasses couldn’t the AR information just be projected onto the lens that I’m already looking through?

    How much of what we currently view as AR relies on the camera for reasons other than showing what we can already see with our own eyes?  It seems to me that the other sensors are doing most of the AR work.  The camera is just there to supply an image.  Right?  So, couldn’t the camera potentially be eliminated while the other sensors still do their jobs in the same fashion?
    I'd still call an IR camera a camera, but I like where you're going with this. It wouldn't be able to take video like your iPhone can but it could use GPS and accelerometer data (for orientation) along with IR data to project images properly.
    I’m sure it would need more than IR image data to understand the environment and project images usefully.  It surely needs a visible light spectrum camera, probably multiple cameras.

    Also it is worth noting that the technology in the front facing TrueDepth Camera only works over short distances. It cannot be used to scan a room without much more power - if something the size and weight of a phone does not have the battery power to do this - do you think you are likely to see a more powerful TrueDepth Camera on a pair of lightweight glasses?
    patchythepiratewatto_cobra

  • Apple slams story of cash hidden in Jersey to reduce taxes, calls itself 'largest taxpayer...

    robjnrobjn
    78Bandit said:
    Apple is doing whatever it can to avoid tax.  Is all of it legal?  I'm sure it meets the letter of the law in the country in which the tax shelter is formed but likely is being abused.  I used to work in public accounting and would see it all the time as companies worked to minimize their taxes.  Many companies were organized in Delaware where there wasn't a corporate income tax.  They set up a management company in Delaware with a few employees and then would then set up subsidiary companies (hospitals in the case of the companies I worked on) as required to operate in the various states.  At year end the management company charged an "operating fee" to the subsidiary companies substantially equal to their profit which effectively eliminated any state-level income tax.

    Apple is doing something extremely similar except on a multi-national level rather than an intrastate level.  They are being very disingenuous with the statement "we are paying all the taxes we owe" when you look at their revenue sources.  If their income were taxed in the location where the sales actually took place then they would owe a whole lot more.  It is only through convoluted tax shelters and the cooperation of small countries that reap extraordinary benefit for hosting those tax shelters that Apple can say with a straight face they are following the law.

    The law needs to be reformed to eliminate the arbitrary shifting of profits to tax havens and instead provide for a true evaluation of where the money was earned.  Here's one possible way:  take the overall profit for the company and allocate it based on the percentage of revenue received from each country.  If the United States accounted for 1/3 of total revenue then Apple should pay tax on 1/3 of it's overall profit based on U.S. tax codes.
    The fundamental principle is that the bulk of taxes are paid where the value-adding work is done. This needs to be assessed internationally but the fact is that the vast majority of value-adding work is done in Cupertino - where the products are invented.

    Countries like the U.K. already charge much higher rates of sales tax. That’s why Apple customers in the U.K. will typically pay about 10% more than a customer in the U.S. - So is the U.K. government really suffering as much as the BBC would have us believe?
    radarthekat

  • Apple slams story of cash hidden in Jersey to reduce taxes, calls itself 'largest taxpayer...

    robjnrobjn
    avon b7 said:
    This is a damage control statement. The article by the BBC is a damning revelation that leaves Apple in a bad moral light.

    The questionnaire leak alone paints a picture which will make everyone in PR at Apple squirm.

    This is going to be like quicksand in the sense that any move to defend itself will probably make things worse. Just like this statement has done. I can see it being torn apart line by line for deliberately trying to distract from the reality that the leaks have put onto the table.

    Nope. The the articles in the media play on public ignorance of international tax laws and stir emotion through our innate sense of justice.

    The fact is that international tax law is probably not fair.

    An iPhone might be designed in the US, made in Asia and sold in the U.K. Services might be managed somewhere else and every country along the way wants a large chunk of the profits - but international law dictates that most of the tax should be paid in the U.S.

    Apple is caught in a tug of war between countries as to how future tax laws should distribute the money.

    The narritive that Apple pays no tax is utterly false and dishonest reporting. The BBC is guilty here!

    I follow Apple’s financial reporting and they pay about 25% tax.

    So again, these stories play on emotion that springs from the profound inequality that most people suffer everyday. These stories are also promoted by governments that believe international law should entitle them to more taxes from work done in the US - something the US government vehemently opposes.

    In the meantime Apple just follows the law as it stands.
    tmayradarthekatStrangeDaysjony0

  • Apple reaping higher profits from each iPhone X sold than iPhone 8, analysis claims

    robjnrobjn
    “costs about $357.50 to make”

    Nope, that’s just a guess at the cost of component parts - it costs more to actually engineer and assemble. Then you have to package, distribute, advertise, retail, etc

    Actually it was reported last month that the OLED screen cost Apple well over $100, now these people say about $65. The guesses are all over the place!
    cornchipwatto_cobranetmageSpamSandwich

  • Apple's 2018 iPhone X will have new metal frame allowing for faster wireless data transfer...

    robjnrobjn

    jiveturkey said:
    Liquidmetal?
    Kuo appears to be talking to suppliers that are geared up to machine steel and aluminum parts. This suggests phones with steel and aluminum frames will be in the lineup next year.

    Bulk Metallic Glass alloys (aka LiquidMetal/ other brand names) are shaped with an injection molding process. This process is probably outside of the expertise of typical machine shops.
    watto_cobracornchip