nht

gatorguy said:

nht said:

gatorguy said:

nht said:

gatorguy said:

jbdragon said:

Corporations don't pay taxes, YOU DO!!! So you tax them more, they will just raise prices and YOU are the one that's actually paying.

If they raise prices then wouldn't that obligate them to even more taxes since they'll make even more profit?

Besides that how do you raise prices after the sale occurred? Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which can only be determined after a sales period has closed.  How would you know how much to add in advance? I have zero doubt that Apple has already computed the optimal prices for their products, right to the final dollar to maximize its profits. Raising them more because France wants a bit of what they are paying as a corporation to end up in French accounts for French use rather than Irish ones would be counter to that. 

If I'm off-base maybe you can explain.

EDIT: It seems after doing a bit'o reading that the claim companies simply raise prices is more a FUD-ism than fact. I guess it gets repeated so much that some folks just accept that it must be true. 
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-corporate-income-tax/

"Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea. They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax. Other suppliers include foreign corporations and nonprofits."

Explain to me which "sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations" competes with Apple, Google, etc?  None.  There are also no foreign corporation that are in the same league as the targeted US companies.

If French taxes are higher then these companies can and will charge French consumers more than for other consumers for these services.  Since the tax is levied against all providers then unless demand is very elastic there isn't anything to keep that from happening.

This is a tax on "digital services" AFAICT. Depending on the details this might have negligible to zero impact on companies like Samsung and Huawei or force a price increase in their handsets. Apple's ability to simply raise their iPhone prices and pass their French taxes on without also pricing themselves further away from competitors may be limited.

Wait for details to see who this actually affects but the acronym for the tax is pretty telling : GAFA, named after Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon 

And what competitors to GAFA would not be taxed and therefore able to take Digital Services consumers from GAFA?  None. 

So who prevents GAFA from raising prices of movies, music, etc in France to cover the tax?  Samsung and phone prices are simply you trying to muddy the waters since they aren't competing with GAFA in digital services.  So not them.

So who are the competitors in your "pricing themselves further away from competitors" statement?  

As I said, unless demand is very elastic for digital services there's not a whole lot to prevent GAFA from pushing the costs onto the French consumer.  It's just another tariff. 

What's the impact of $200B worth of tariffs against Chinese goods is pushed completely onto the American consumer?  About $60 a year.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/12/upshot/trade-war-cost-families.html

Maybe there would a few French consumers that would reduce spending but not likely very many if the French economy is stable.  

Further, some of the consumers of some of the GAFA companies are advertisers and not citizens.  Do you think they're really going to be that price sensitive and who are the competitors they will move to to reach the same demographics?

I'm not going to even attempt to argue economics when actual economists (perhaps you too are one, I'm not) have already commented on whether product prices are increased equally by the corporate tax expense incurred. As far as I can tell those professionals "trained in the art" in general say no. 

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

gatorguy said:

jbdragon said:

Corporations don't pay taxes, YOU DO!!! So you tax them more, they will just raise prices and YOU are the one that's actually paying.

If they raise prices then wouldn't that obligate them to even more taxes?

Besides that how do you raise prices after the sale occurred? Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which can only be determined after a sales period has closed.  How would you know how much to add in advance?

If I'm off-base maybe you can explain.

It's called "math".  You plug in the percentages and magnitude of the taxes, fees, tariffs, excise, "because we said so" payments, manufacturing costs, etc, decide how much profit you want, then voila the magic of math gives you the answer as to what price to charge.

Taxes will always be passed on to the consumer, no matter what form they might take.

Apple's desired margins, almost assuredly maxed out to yield the greatest profits as most corporations try to do,  are pre-tax not post aren't they?  Raising them further would potentially harm sales and not help, leading to lower profits.  

EDIT: Another link that explains why the oft-repeated claim is mostly false:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/tax-tricks---do-corporati_b_541709.html

• revenue between $60 billion and $62 billion
• gross margin between 38 percent and 38.5 percent
• operating expenses between $7.95 billion and $8.05 billion
• other income/(expense) of $300 million
• tax rate of approximately 15 percent before discrete items

Madtiger said:

k2kw said:

Madtiger said:

avon b7 said:

Madtiger said:

Seth2015 said:

@tmay People use different devices. I have both an iPhone X (standby phone every 2 weeks) and Huawei. You want a real world opinion? You can't see the difference in speed in actual using the phones. There's no jitter or judder, despite what Strangedays thinks he knows.

Anyhow - but based on the comments here slating Androids, it'd be interesting to see which the people have used (or even read about;). There's a great world out there of mobile phones! @Madtiger wasn't even aware that Huawei phones be bought anywhere in the world - yet they're the second largest manufacture behind Samsung? So, it's very interesting how he (and others) can be that opinionated on something he has zero idea about.  

Huawei...BANNED.  Sorry.  They sell a lot in countries where it is not banned or thru 3rd party.  Oh look, its CFO got arrested...must be because they do honest business.  Oh wait...they support terrorist nations.  Good job there kid for supporting Huawei.

Huawei handsets have not been banned. Much less 'BANNED'.

Check out Amazon US.

There are limitations on use in some areas (US military personnel for example) but that is applicable to many brands all over the world.

I've known people in the 'intelligence' realm who can fly using civil aviation but not use aeroflot. The are restrictions for people in certain jobs.

Honest Q...you support Huawei 100%?  Even though they are sending OUR technology to IRAN?  The country that literally produces some of the worst terrorist networks and are responsible for killing your so many countrymen and our soldiers???!!!!  

You our want to keep defending Huawei?  If so, then you’re pathetic. 

Really.  Saudi Arabia has killed more Americans and currently has a terrorist running it guilty of war crimes against civilian populations.    And Apple has no problem doing business with them.

Saudi is worst than Iran in your eyes?  

saarek said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

saarek said:

Come off it. A Mac Mini in 2005 started at $499, allowing for inflation that would now be $645, today it is $799

You can see price increase across all of their product lines over the last couple of years. 

Higher margins to offset slowing sales. What pisses me off is that the only slow down on the Mac is due to tardy refreshes and expensive features, such as the Touch Bar, that almost no one wants.

And yes, I do think that the current price gouging by Tim and his team is a mistake.

I joined the Apple family with the original Mac Mini, at the entry level price point it was around 30% more than the equivalent PC at the time, but the difference was justifiable for me and at a point where I could afford to dip my toe into the Apple world. Many years later and I’ve converted most of my family and friends.

But Apple’s new pricing strategy is making it really hard to justify to people, or indeed myself.

The iPhone XS at £999 doesn’t look like such a good deal against the £300 Pocofone.

The £1200 MacBook Air doesn’t look like such a good deal against the £700 Dell XPS.

I always found that Apple was around 30% more than the nearest true competitor, not the build your own stuff. But now they are 50-60% more and it’s hard to justify that.

At 30% more you can talk about the build materials, the OS, the overall fit and finish etc.

But at twice the price.........

For the first time in around 13 years I find it difficult to recommend Apple products to my friends and family. I know that many people will assume I am some kind of troll, but I’m really not. I love Apple.

But at the same time that their competition is catching up in terms of hardware quality, whilst also lowering their prices Apple is increasing their price whilst standing still.

The new MacBook Air is a lovely machine, I’ve had a good play with it at the Apple store, but it’s just a long overdue evolution of the original MacBook Air and other laptop manufacturers, such as Dell with their XPS were already there.

I’ll hold out for a bit, my trusty MacBook Pro from 2014 should give me a bit more time. But when I come to upgrade it might well not be to a Mac, and that’s just sad.

Read the editorial again. This isn't about Windows, that is an entirely separate discussion. These are literally Apple's pricing, the retail launch prices all here under all the relevant CEOs, even Jobs. You don't have to like them, but facts are facts. Furthermore, the margins have been the same for at least the last 12 years.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/12/tim-cook-is-only-robbing-you-if-you-thought-steve-jobs-was-too

And, the low-end mini today is positioned at a higher market segment than the G4 mini was, or the $499 core solo one was. Saying otherwise is disingenuous. We've said before that Apple would benefit from a switcher model, but the "low" end mini now is not aimed at the same market segment that it used to be.

But you also can’t deny that Apple have been ramping up prices across the board for the last couple of years either.

With pretty much every refresh comes an increased price, from the Apple Pencil to the MacBook Air.

Of course the 2018 model is better than the previous one, how could it not be.

The Mac Mini hasn’t actually seen a proper upgrade since 2012 as the 2014 model was slower than the 2012 one. For a 6 year gap you’d expect an upgrade like the one we have now.

That’s not to say that the 2018 Mac Mini is a bad machine, it’s not. But like all of Apples recent Mac’s, apart from the iMac Pro, they have moved from being around 30% more to 50% more for comparable hardware from the likes of Dell.

If Apple wants to sell less for more, well that’s their choice. But I think it’s going to bite them in the arse.

I’ve done a rough calculation and I think I could directly link myself to around £250,000 worth of Apple hardware sales since I got that first Mac Mini. That’s a lot of phones, computers and accessories.

But now I’m starting to recommend alternatives, and if I’m doing it you can better others are too.

For me it’s sad that Apple is deliberately leaving behind the higher end of the consumer space.

mike54 said:

"The office was a steady 21C throughout the duration of the test." - Thanks for mentioning the ambient temperature. That is quite cool though even for an office. With temperatures >32C for half of the year here, it won't bode well for the thermals.

"Unfortunately, graphics performance is where the Mac Mini suffers" - Your dead right. And buying an eGPU to make up for it is not a reason for the low spec internal graphics.

After 4 years of nothing, Apple had the time and certainly the resources for a re-design to improve thermals, to add in better graphics (or at least an option) and with the capability for an optional fan filter. (I know some companies stack these, but using this is an excuse)

Disappointed in the almost relative minimal effort Apple has put into this, and far from the best that Apple could of done and is capable of. It seems to me a half-hearted effort and far from reflects what this company could and should do. For those want it, it's Apple only reasonably priced headless mac they offer.