Ecky-Thump

As a UK resident, I am extremely pissed off that Apple makes huge profits in the UK that they don't pay any tax on. Local companies are expected to help pay for the infrastructure, education and lawful society that allows business to work efficiently, while multi-nationals don't want to pay for any of that, just use it all for free. And then have the audacity so whine about "it's all Political crap" when your greed starts catching up with you.

"being targeted by the European Commission, looking for ways to grab corporate cash at the expense of those companies' investors and employees" Or in other words, claw back the tax dodged by massive corporations using sweetheart deals in low tax countries. Like the way Ireland gets the tax from profits from the UK. Tim calls this political crap. Well the US just crapped on itself big time on Tuesday.

lkrupp said:

imperialforces said:

I have to say that I agree with this. Infinite pay decreases motivation and innovation. Personally, I don't believe any executive should gross more than 30x the amount of money paid to their lowest paid employee or contractor. 

Price and wage control. Yeah, that always works. You socialists are hilarious.

Actually, he's right when he says that as pay increases, after a certain point motivation and performance decreases. This was the results of experiments done by economists at MIT. Check out this great short cartoon about the subject. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+more+you+pay+someone+the+less+motivated+they+become+TED+talk&view=detail&mid=8674603B0C3B3E1F23118674603B0C3B3E1F2311&FORM=VIRE Also, as a long-term shareholder. I find the management's huge stock options as bad for the company, as it was for ENRON. I think this quote sums it up quite well. http://qz.com/65295/giving-a-ceo-too-many-stock-options-can-make-a-company-perform-worse/ "Conventional wisdom has it that paying company bosses with a lot of stock and options aligns their interests with those of shareholders. But a working paper from three researchers in the US and the UK suggest equity-heavy pay packages do exactly the opposite: Depress returns for years to follow" Apple's executive pay structure is hurting the company and I for one will be voting accordingly.

rob53 said:

dick applebaum said:

Question:  How many Apple A10X* chips would it take to emulate a Xeon?

* Assuming A10X : A10 roughly equivalent to  A9X : A9

I thought you would know. There are many people wondering the same thing but from what I've seen recently, there's a question about multitasking and other things that Apple hasn't necessarily incorporated into their A-series designs. If Apple wanted to try an A-series Mac (wouldn't surprise if they already have), I'd imagine they'd start with at least four A10X CPUs (so 8 full speed CPUs and 8 half speed?) as well as the 6? GPUs in each for a total of 24 GPUs and see whether they could get them to run together. I doubt the A10X GPUs would compete with the existing Mac Pro GPUs but who knows, maybe they would. 

As for Windows virtualization, I remember seeing W10 being available on ARM (maybe just a wish) so if it is or will be people won't have that excuse to bash Apple about moving to ARM.

How about future iMacs running multiple apple SOCs that can daisy chain via thunderbolt to create more and more powerful distributed processing. I think that would be very efficient and a good way to sell multiple iMacs to business Like a transputer (Atari?) Is thunderbolt easy, difficult or impossible on current Apple SOCs?