djsherly

There’s no part in the article where this is all googles fault. I must have missed something. 

But seriously, the connections here between themes are a bit of a stretch.

Apple has put its hat in the political ring more than once so I think Israel’s regional policies are fair game. I have nothing against Jews or Arabs or Sri Lankans or Indians or Aussies, but the general tenor of policy in the region has a bad smell all round. If Apple are happy to campaign on LGBTI rights, then surely they should also be wary of a region where clear wrongs are being conducted and act consistently with whatever their values are.

nunzy said:

New Zealand is being unfair to Apple. If anybody knows how to take care of its customers, it is Apple.

True, this legislation just ensures the consumer when buying a product from a merchant can reasonably expect it to last as one would expect it to. 

It seems more or less the same legislation that exists in Australia and we don’t see companies imploding here due to its onerous and overreaching nature, as some might make it out to be, mostly because products do, in the main, last a reasonably long time. 

I don’t understand how the merchant plays a part in whether Apple Pay is available at a location. 

In this case Starbucks have their own app but I’m talking about in the general sense where credit cards are accepted as payment. 

In Australia, the bank sets up its infrastructure to support Apple Pay and then any place that accepts tap and go is now Apple Pay compatible if your bank allows you to load up your card into Apple Pay.

Tap and go has been available since years before Apple Pay ever arrived here. 

How does the model differ in the US? 

tallest skil said:

djsherly said:
Fiduciary has a meaning, champ. Look it up. Try again. 

So… thanks for not understanding.

All I’m getting from you is that you actually no idea what a fiduciary responsibility is, let alone what or whether a fiduciary relationship exists between a company, it shares holders or any decision makers in between. 

Yet you continue to belittle me to divert from the truth that you don’t actually have a clue. 

So so let’s try this again. Is a company legally required to minimise its taxes? And does a fiduciary obligation exist to do so. You won’t answer because there is no such obligation. But I don’t have to prove that because I never made the assertion there was.