anantksundaram

I've had tons of problems with my keyboard for the first gen 12.9" iPad Pro. I will be getting in touch with Apple based on this report -- his is the first time I've heard that Apple had an "extended repair program" for this.

Frankly, for $169, it's a PoS keyboard. And damn ugly, to boot.

I’d be curious to know the demographics of the typical AppleMusic user. I have feeling that it probably skews much older compared to Spotify, and not the coveted 15- 34 segment. For example, not one of my son’s or daughter’s friends (late teens to early 20s) — to whom I’ve pointedly asked the question about AM v. Spotify — uses AM.

You might say that’s just two data points, but between the two of them, I’ve asked more than a dozen kids. Maybe my sample is atypical, but I doubt it.

CFIUS is US law. It’s a process that has to be gone through when a foreign company makes an acquisition in the US. Doesn’t matter who, from which country. 

Broadcom should stop whining and follow the law. Or find some else somewhere else to acquire. 

I have to say that I came close to getting scammed a couple of times. Both times when I was traveling abroad. 

adm1 said:

anantksundaram said:

I am guessing this could mean a real earnings hit for Apple. Under the prior system of worldwide taxation of US corporations, Apple would have simply transferred the $16B from what it would owe the US Treasury for $$ repatriated from abroad*, in the process of paying Ireland. In other words, it could have led to a fight between the the two Treasuries over who should get the $$.

Under the new, post-Trump, territorial taxation system -- wherein any tax paid abroad is considered "fully paid" -- the US Treasury doesn't care any more.

*...if/when repatriated from abroad.

It's not the same money tho - the taxes that weren't paid in EU wouldn't have been paid to the US instead. Likewise, when/if apple pays the taxes, it's not discounted from the repatriation tax as that's a totally separate thing.

That "trump territorial taxation system" you mention, has no effect on Apple's tax obligations to counties outwith the US - they are still owed to wherever they operate - it only stops the crazy double taxation on sales that the US imposes on it's homegrown companies for whatever reason.

You're missing the point. And perhaps not understanding what the 'worldwide' taxation system means. Whether "..taxes weren't paid in the EU..." or not is irrelevant if/when the profits were repatriated under the worldwide system. Apple would have owed 35% of those profits as taxes to the US Treasury under the worldwide system. 

Here's a simple example. Suppose taxes in Ireland were 1%, US 35%, and Apple made $100 in pre-tax profits in Ireland. Apple would have paid $1 in taxes in Ireland. Under the territorial system, if/when Apple repatriated the $99 to the US (100 – 1), Apple would have owed the US Treasury 99*0.35 = $34.65 in taxes. Now, suppose the EU came along and said, "Ireland, make sure Apple pays 20%, not 1%, in taxes." The numbers above would become $80, and $28. In other words, because the EU insisted Ireland collect its "fair share", the US Treasury would end up with $6.65 less than it would have got under the Irish tax regime. (Would Apple care, in that setting? No! Because it would simply pay then EU what it would have owed the US.) The US government would have every incentive to fight the EU for that $6.65. The US would argue that Ireland taxed the this US company already, those taxes were paid, and the EU is taking away $$ that should legitimately belong to US taxpayers.

Now, the US Treasury doesn't care since it has moved to a territorial regime. (Yes, there are some additional wrinkles in the law on tax credits and such, as a couple of others have pointed out above; but my larger point, that Apple will not have the US government as a potential ally in this fight, remains).