asdasd

About

Username
asdasd
Joined
Visits
248
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,785
Badges
1
Posts
5,686

Reactions

1.4KLike0Dislike81Informative

  • Apple grabs 86% of global smartphone profits, iPhone X alone seizes 35%

    asdasdasdasd
    andrewj5790 said:
    asdasd said:
    I am glad they are not above 100% anymore. That was hurting my head. 
    Ah, but most likely if you add Samsung to Apple, then it’s over 100%. I say most likely because I haven’t seen the numbers but it works that way every year. :)
    NOOOOooooooooo!
    red oakwatto_cobra

  • Why Apple's HomePod targets home entertainment, not a voice-first mobile-free world

    asdasdasdasd
    Also, because siri sucks. 
    SolicroprcgWerksmuthuk_vanalingamavon b7lkrupp

  • European Union proposals could tax Apple and other tech giants between 2 percent and 6 per...

    asdasdasdasd

    Madrajin said:
    Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
    It’s only morally repugnant because the tax system was developed by politicians, each of which hopes to include an element that benefits their respective constituents. 

    The only real real solution is to tax the transaction (sales tax) at a rate that satisfies government revenue requirements, and cease trying to tax profits. This is the difference between taxing consumption vs taxing production. Taxing production increases production costs and sets the stage for tax law manipulation, while taxing consumption provides tax revenue in the jurisdiction where the transaction takes place. 

    In order to tax foreign imports and lower the cost of domestic production many countries have established value added taxes (an overly complex sales tax). 

    The biggest problem with with tax compliance is the creators, all of which are constituent motivated. Understand that not all constituents are equal (think “Animal Farm”) with the more equal bearing the most political motivation. 
    Hmm.  The European countries already have a consumption tax, VAT is generally around 20% on electronic goods in most of these countries. VAT isn’t revenue for the company. It’s not booked as normal revenue, the business that sells onto the final (non VAT collecting) consumer is basically a collector of VAT.  It’s collected and paid per quarter (gross vat minus any VAT paid by the business. That’s often zero as businesses can use their VAT number to buy goods free of VAT. So it is only sales to individuals or very small companies where VAT is charged). 

    This tax is new, and it seems to be a tax on actual revenue. If Apple sells a 700 Euro device to its wholesalers, the consumer country wants 14-42 per device sold regardless of profits. This may not seem very high until you realise that most companies (not Apple) make about 10% margins on electronic goods and some far less. 
    propodavon b7

  • iPhone 8 outsold iPhone X in Apple's holiday quarter, consumer survey finds

    asdasdasdasd
    zoetmb said:
    500?  Sample size too low, IMO.   And of course lower prices product sell more.   That's true for almost everything and there are only rare exceptions, when comparing apples to apples (or Apples to Apples).  
    This is easily proven. What's Apple's market share compared to say Samsung's? 500 is a pathetic sample size and it doesn't state where they were located. I know the article says US but does it include all 50 states or is it only California for example? Does it include richer states who may be more likely to purchase higher end phones than poorer states or what?

    This is the problem with numbers, they don't tell a story, they only tell you something is bigger than something else.
    If done properly it will be randomised exactly like that. The important thing is that 500 is enough for a random selection at a +- 4% accuracy. 
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • macOS High Sierra App Store settings menu not effectively secured by user password

    asdasdasdasd

    lkrupp said:
    Physical access and logged in as an administrator? Really? I’m terrified B)
    Admin user is default. This bug means that passwords are broken. Any password works on the App Store settings. Its fairly big.

    Something is going on with those preferences panels, somebody has written some test code which makes any password work, and its clearly not defined out on launch.

    Also it means the security is skin deep, that each preference panel is using its own mechanism, and not using the security API. Odd anyway. 
    coolfactorfastasleepcornchip