Apple in Talks to Open R&D Facility in Russia's Skolkovo Innovation Centre?

[sparks9]

Originally Posted by Mattie Num Nums

Meanwhile, back at home unemployment continues to sky rocket.

European companies have lots of jobs placed in the USA. It has to go both ways.

[smoledman]

In America we eat Apples, in Soviet Russia Apples eat YOU!

[sergey19]

Originally Posted by alex00100

Salarys in russia are not far from the US ones. It's not Asia, it's Europe and salarys are almost as high as in the rest of Europe.

I'm Russian and Russia may be Europe but it is Eastern Europe. Salaries may be close to those in Europe and the US but they are definitely not the same (they are lower). This depends on the profession but they are in fact lower, even if this is just slightly lower.

[verakot]

Originally Posted by Inakto

Same engineers who built this plane?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...dies-retrieved

Well, of course your engineers never make mistakes like this, right?

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-14/u...signs?_s=PM:US

[iDemiurge]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

Disagree with the Space Program view. No private sector involvement. Sure we ride up and down in a 50's design Soyuz. That is not basing anything.

Watch this Sat early A.M. It's the future.
http://www.spacex.com/

...and no bologna about the 1 Billion in federal funding. NASA is an investor. Not a design partner, other than the docking module.

I agree that competition is a good thing. But you miss the point in the case of the soviet space program. They by no means operated on anything similar to "costs plus" arrangements. In fact their program was a lot more competitive than the American one, with several designers and laboratories competing for funding from a government that, as is known today, was far more interested in the arms race (read ICBMs) than in putting people up in space. Damn, Korolev himself, one of their chief designers, spent some time in a labor camp for falling foul of Stalin's priorities and expectations. That science could thrive at all in such an environment is itself a miracle.

For sure the Soyuz is old. But its design is a winner. And will be by no means obsolete until some other craft can ferry people to orbit at a lower cost.

[verakot]

There is no advantage for Apple to have an R&D center in Russia. As some posted here, salaries are close to US/Europe, tax advantages are very little (earned income is double-taxed if you want to bring it to the US) unless Apple wants to invest in Russia (oil or gas or timber!).

I think Apple has enough problems with China so I am sure they think twice before investing abroad.

[iDemiurge]

Originally Posted by ThunderSkunk

Apple working with Russian inventors and designers and engineers is an exciting development,

This. If the communists left one good legacy it was a highly educated workforce. It's a shame to see young russians so disappointed with their country and so much talent being wasted. Give them a chance and maybe their political system will begin to change as well.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Originally Posted by sparks9

European companies have lots of jobs placed in the USA. It has to go both ways.

Apple is only doing it to avoid taxes.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by verakot

There is no advantage for Apple to have an R&D center in Russia. As some posted here, salaries are close to US/Europe, tax advantages are very little (earned income is double-taxed if you want to bring it to the US) unless Apple wants to invest in Russia (oil or gas or timber!).

I think Apple has enough problems with China so I am sure they think twice before investing abroad.

Since when did you know what was best for Apple?

I sometimes wonder if people think Apple is running on autopilot or something. Do you seriously think they just wake up one day and think 'russia...that's where we'll go next!'. They will only do things that make business sense. This move obviously makes business sense for the company.

[Saladinos]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Since when did you know what was best for Apple?

I sometimes wonder if people think Apple is running on autopilot or something. Do you seriously think they just wake up one day and think 'russia...that's where we'll go next!'. They will only do things that make business sense. This move obviously makes business sense for the company.

If its true, of course. Right now its a rumour and the fact is that all of Apple's direct R&D is done on their doorstep in Cupertino.

If it were my company (hah), I'd be inclined to keep it that way. Too many companies spread themselves so thinly they don't know even know what goes on in their own company.

One of the things SJ brought back to Apple was focus. Overseas R&D does not by itself kill a company of course, but it can help you lose focus. That -can- kill.

Besides, location is unlikely to have anything to do with the USSR's space programme. Every country has smart people, and people move around a lot these days (although it is probably harder to get foreign talent from e.g. western europe to move to Russia than vice versa, which would count against setting up shop there)

[Rocketman]

If the USA would simply turn off the stimulus Obama started in 2009 and kept going since with a do nothing D Senate, the bond market would have liquidity for commercial rather than government bonds to the tune of $1T a year! Now companies might hire people from China, Russia, Israel, Mexico, and Canada too, but as US based capital always does, it would be invested here first. Investment preceeds employment and growth.

Hence sapping up all the liquidity for deficit spending does the opposite. No surprise growth is anemic and employment is low and unemployment is high. Easy solution with the stroke of a pen!

Hmmm. USA Innovation centers . . . I like the sound of that.

Originally Posted by Saladonos

Right now its a rumour and the fact is that all of Apple's direct R&D is done on their doorstep in Cupertino.

It's impossible to get timely permission to build the needed building and they already rented every space there is. At high cost. They issue construction permits in China in 2 weeks.

Rocketman

[onigami]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Obama-bashing, and then...

Hence sapping up all the liquidity for deficit spending does the opposite.

Man, where were you during the Bush years? Or did deficits not matter to you then because you are such a bald-faced partisan? (And if you dare say "But they got worse during the Obama years," you only prove my point)

They issue construction permits in China in 2 weeks.

They do so by causing mass displacement, often with little or no compensation, and then often use shoddy building material. I keep hearing stories of bridges being torn down after 10 years of use simply because they would buck under if they lasted any longer. It's only a matter of time before a massive accident occurs because of bad construction (or maybe someone can enlighten us on that information)

As per this whole thing, can't help but wonder if engineers will actually flock to the company in Skolkovo, especially when you got a Kremlin more interested in assembly line workers that want to bash heads than intelligent people. Feel like government red tape will just scare Apple off in the long run.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by onigami

False claim of Obama bashing and . . . Man, where were you during the Bush years? Or did deficits not matter to you then because you are such a bald-faced partisan? (And if you dare say "But they got worse during the Obama years," you only prove my point)

They do so by causing mass displacement, often with little or no compensation, and then often use shoddy building material. I keep hearing stories of bridges being torn down after 10 years of use simply because they would buck under if they lasted any longer. It's only a matter of time before a massive accident occurs because of bad construction (or maybe someone can enlighten us on that information)

As per this whole thing, can't help but wonder if engineers will actually flock to the company in Skolkovo, especially when you got a Kremlin more interested in assembly line workers that want to bash heads than intelligent people. Feel like government red tape will just scare Apple off in the long run.

Stating the Senate does not either bring for debate and reconciliation any budget in 4 years is not the same thing as Obama bashing since he can't sign anything not passed by the House and Senate.

As I have posted elsewhere with evidence, and feel free to look it up, Bush $400B/yr deficits, Obama $200B/month deficits, and the main point I raised is he promised ONE year of stimulus and what it was supposed to do, and we got FIVE years of stimulus as a result of the Senate thing, and it still has not improved either employment or growth, but has crashed the dollar.

And it may not seem like it, but this brings us right back around to Russia. That country has 10% sovereign debt not 150%, and partially because it is a Kleptocracy run by mob rule, but that makes it fiscally conservative.

Notably when you have all that money you "obtained" all of a sudden you turn off the printing presses for money so the currency does not lose value. Pure logic.

That's why it is a great place for an R&D lab. As is Ireland and Israel.

Oh, and on construction, the City of Cupertino trusts Apple explicitly to build quality and leading edge architecture. So why can't the other layers of government at least give timely approvals? We're not talking slumlords here.

Next time you accuse me of being politically partisan merely because I actually believed the Constitution when I read it and have a passing understanding of economics and how our political leaders are misusing it to actively harm citizens, I will feel free to judge and disregard you, and refer to this public disclosure of your methodologies.

Just Rocketman

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Stating the Senate does not either bring for debate and reconciliation any budget in 4 years is not the same thing as Obama bashing since he can't sign anything not passed by the House and Senate.

As I have posted elsewhere with evidence, and feel free to look it up, Bush $400B/yr deficits, Obama $200B/month deficits, and the main point I raised is he promised ONE year of stimulus and what it was supposed to do, and we got FIVE years of stimulus as a result of the Senate thing, and it still has not improved either employment or growth, but has crashed the dollar.

And it may not seem like it, but this brings us right back around to Russia. That country has 10% sovereign debt not 150%, and partially because it is a Kleptocracy run by mob rule, but that makes it fiscally conservative.

Notably when you have all that money you "obtained" all of a sudden you turn off the printing presses for money so the currency does not lose value. Pure logic.

That's why it is a great place for an R&D lab. As is Ireland and Israel.

Oh, and on construction, the City of Cupertino trusts Apple explicitly to build quality and leading edge architecture. So why can't the other layers of government at least give timely approvals? We're not talking slumlords here.

Next time you accuse me of being politically partisan merely because I actually believed the Constitution when I read it and have a passing understanding of economics and how our political leaders are misusing it to actively harm citizens, I will feel free to judge and disregard you, and refer to this public disclosure of your methodologies.

Just Rocketman

You know very well why senate can't come up with the budget - because republicans use a filibuster. Congress does not have a filibuster so a slim republican majority there is enough to pull any budget they want (even though they know that their budget has no chances of becoming a law). So, blaming the senate (the democrats) for inaction is just like blaming the Constitution.

And as far as stimulus is concerned - it is absolutely imperative to have it this time around (and no it's not a Big Government thing) because this crisis is different from all previous ones. Let me quote an article from CNBC (it's about Kudlow interviewing Larry Summers):

"But it’s really completely misleading to compare a recession like this, caused by collapsing asset values, with the recession like the one we had in 1982 that was policy-caused in an effort to contain inflation.”

“The right comparisons for this recession are the kind of experience Japan had in the 1990s or the kind of experience that the United States had in the 1930s,” he added. “It’s a lot better than those experiences, and that’s been because there’s a strong policy response.”

Summers, who was director of the White House National Economic Council under President Obama and a former president of Harvard University, credited the current administration for policies that halted the “Depression-like conditions” six months after taking office.

“The right comparisons for this recession are the kind of experience Japan had in the 1990s or the kind of experience that the United States had in the 1930s,” he added. “It’s a lot better than those experiences, and that’s been because there’s a strong policy response.”

Summers, who was director of the White House National Economic Council under President Obama and a former president of Harvard University, credited the current administration for policies that halted the “Depression-like conditions” six months after taking office.
“This was a very different kind of recession,” Summers said. “It was caused by overleveraging, excessive asset values, and when those burst — those bubbles burst when the deleveraging takes place, when you have a massive contraction in the private sector’s propensity to spend, then it takes a long time.”

The former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton blamed lawmakers for economic sluggishness.

“I think that it’s unfortunate that the Congress was unwilling to pass the stimulus in the form that the president originally proposed it, which would have put more money into the economy, and I think would’ve driven a more rapid recovery,” he said.

The lack of infrastructure investment, the failure to sign on to Obama’s long-term approach to deficit reduction and a Republican-led delay in extending the federal debt limit in August were singled out.

“I think that the failure to do all of those things has compromised this recovery,” he said.

It's a really interesting interview unlike the usual demagoguery that we hear from republicans (lower taxes promote economic growth blah blah blah - thank you George Bush)

[omenatarhuri]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

I seem to remember SJ mentioning how important it was to keep the innovation happening around the core in Cupertino and to keep people in Apple's cultural environment. I wonder how sure Tim Cook is that spreading people around the globe won't dilute product quality.

You don't need massive teams across the globe to make a massive global impact. Personally, I like how Apple keep everyone in product development close to home and focussed.

I work in Europe for a huge american company in R&D and could not agree more with you. Spreading out tends to make a mess and reduces corporate culture to a nagging sense of big brother and bureaucracy.

[vsighi]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

no the same engineers who were the FIRST in space, the FIRST to travel the planet, and the ones that defeated Nazi Germany in WW2 with superior tanks that could be built quickly and efficiently.

Yea those.

And Russia is the only country that is still going to space. Can't say the same for NASA....

...this Bolshevik is such an intelligent nationalist.

[usptact]

Originally Posted by basesloaded190

They've done a pretty good job keeping jobs in America. No reason not to have jobs in other places

We in other countries do not agree

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by lilo777

And as far as stimulus is concerned - it is absolutely imperative to have it this time around (and no it's not a Big Government thing) because this crisis is different from all previous ones.

I agree it was a liquidity crisis not a traditional recession. It was caused by government policies which caused lending with low underwriting standards and also at the same time, reduced reserve requirements.

That said the first response was to improve liquidity in the banks themselves with loans to federally regulated firms. Loans that have been repaid in full with interest or backed by stock which is being successfully liquidated in the open market.

The Summers led Keynsian stimulus, which is the point we disagree on was a choice to use the "spending side" of Keynsianism. An equally large deficit could have been created by lowering taxation. The reason it would have been more effective to the average guy is would have been far more granular. The targeted stimulus was intentionaly targeted to unions (transfer payments to states for public employee support) and other preferred groups. Furthermore it was promised to be ONE YEAR and it has been five so far. Bush gave Obama authorization beyond his TARP which Obama used for the GM, Delco, GE and Chrysler bailouts and others. Not federally regulated banks. In the case of GM and Chrysler and others he did the unprecidented move of canceling the bonds but not the union contracts, opposite of bankruptcies, and literally gave the companies to the employee union benefit plans. That was unprecedented.

Now rather than discuss the political layer I prefer to discuss efficacy. The thing that fixes pending recessions and liquidity crisis (run on the bank) is investment leading to confidence in the population things are getting better. Top down government spending does not do that. It's a band-Aid, and an expensive anf inefficient one.

Improving capital investment and private sector growth is the only way to change attitudes and actual perceived and actual opportunity.

Besides the style of one-sided, wrong-sided Keynsian stimulus that was used and is still being used, there is another entire approach which can be summarised as the Mises approach. Mises and Keynes didn't get along well, but Keynes got the support of the political class because he was advocating something they wanted to hear, more government spending and taxing to do it was just fine.

The Mises approach is essentially the opposite. More investment through properly underwritten liquidity, less taxation and more money in the pockets of persons and firms. That approach has not even been tried in this "crisis". What happened to "all at once"?

As a final layer, the printing of money and spreading to the population causes currency destruction which is different from price inflation. Currency destruction effects all things denominated in dollars, whether it be assets, incomes, savings, or other things. That's why your pay check doesn't stretch like it used to.

The Fed further has an "inflation target" of 2%. Inflation is bad. Targeting it to 2% year after year is very bad. It drops the value of the currency and labor in simple terms at 2% but compounded, it drops the currency and labor at more than 20% in 10 years. That separate from monetary destruction.

The Fed has stated they fear deflation. The reason is not because deflation is bad. It's good for people. It is bad for governments who have large recurring deficits and unimaginable debt because they would have to repay that debt in full strength dollars. If you both deflate and crash the economy you pay back the debt with highly discounted dollars in terms of purchasing power. That's called monetizing the debt.

The Fed has a stated and legislative policy and mandate of price stability. It absolutely and intentionally does the opposite as evidenced by the frame of reference mentioned in the Constitution, Gold. Since the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913 the value of the dollar has dropped 99%.

Countries who do not follow these policies are far more solvent and are currently hoarding natural resources by buying them with cash. This could become a national security issue as we increasingly hoard unsecured debt and forsake capital assets publicly and commercially. This is a tactical economic issue this government not only doesn't comprehend, but has taken the other side of the trade as compared to China, Russia, and other low debt countries.

It's the other Cold War, and they ARE winning.

See, I brought it back to Russia again. Buy land and businesses in Russia. Excellent investment.

Originally Posted by Lilo777

You know very well why senate can't come up with the budget - because republicans use a filibuster.

The senate votes in rules on itself and when the Democrats took over the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2008, they installed rules so they could run unencumbered. They passed the stimulus ridden budget with a 1.4T deficit in FY09. No Presidential budget has been passe din the senate since and the votes have been a few votes either way of 97-0 against. That was not influenced by a fillibuster. Had the Senate passed ANYTHING it would have subjected the placeholder budget to reconciliation with the House. That has not happened since Obama has been president largely due to tactical machinations by the Majority leader Reid and with the approval of the Senate President Biden and the US President Obama, all in the same party. The solution while way too late is simple. Pass any budget at all in the Senate and deal with the issues in reconciliation.

Rocketman

[Verbatim Cookie]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

Disagree with the Space Program view. No private sector involvement. Sure we ride up and down in a 50's design Soyuz. That is not basing anything.

Watch this Sat early A.M. It's the future.
http://www.spacex.com/

...and no bologna about the 1 Billion in federal funding. NASA is an investor. Not a design partner, other than the docking module.

The launch was aborted.

[ThunderSkunk]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

Disagree with the Space Program view. No private sector involvement. Sure we ride up and down in a 50's design Soyuz.

Well, the privateers still have a looong way to go to catch up to the performance of those cold-war era soviet missiles, and that's just to get into low earth orbit. I see SpaceX couldn't get off the ground again.

It's always been the role of Governments to fund the big explorations, whether on horseback or sailboats or spaceships. The cost is too great and there are too many unknowns for any business to take on for uncertain rewards. Private industry's role is always to come in once the risks and rewards are known, pick an area of interest, and pursue profit. ...in this case, launching satellites for wealthy companies and servicing them.

It's great there'll be more players in the space game, but with the advancing space programs of China, India, the ESA and the new program emerging in Russia, all seeking to pick up where we left off decades ago and forge ahead, we're defunding our program in favor of making a bunch of small companies start over from square one. While other nations are developing interplanetary technologies and reaping the benefits, we'll be making little short-range maintenance missions.

But hey, I saved a buck twenty on my taxes this year, by defunding the government program that yielded the highest return on investment by far. So I guess that's great.

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

I agree it was a liquidity crisis not a traditional recession. It was caused by government policies which caused lending with low underwriting standards and also at the same time, reduced reserve requirements.

That said the first response was to improve liquidity in the banks themselves with loans to federally regulated firms. Loans that have been repaid in full with interest or backed by stock which is being successfully liquidated in the open market.

The Summers led Keynsian stimulus, which is the point we disagree on was a choice to use the "spending side" of Keynsianism. An equally large deficit could have been created by lowering taxation. The reason it would have been more effective to the average guy is would have been far more granular. The targeted stimulus was intentionaly targeted to unions (transfer payments to states for public employee support) and other preferred groups. Furthermore it was promised to be ONE YEAR and it has been five so far. Bush gave Obama authorization beyond his TARP which Obama used for the GM, Delco, GE and Chrysler bailouts and others. Not federally regulated banks. In the case of GM and Chrysler and others he did the unprecidented move of canceling the bonds but not the union contracts, opposite of bankruptcies, and literally gave the companies to the employee union benefit plans. That was unprecedented.

Now rather than discuss the political layer I prefer to discuss efficacy. The thing that fixes pending recessions and liquidity crisis (run on the bank) is investment leading to confidence in the population things are getting better. Top down government spending does not do that. It's a band-Aid, and an expensive anf inefficient one.

Improving capital investment and private sector growth is the only way to change attitudes and actual perceived and actual opportunity.

Besides the style of one-sided, wrong-sided Keynsian stimulus that was used and is still being used, there is another entire approach which can be summarised as the Mises approach. Mises and Keynes didn't get along well, but Keynes got the support of the political class because he was advocating something they wanted to hear, more government spending and taxing to do it was just fine.

The Mises approach is essentially the opposite. More investment through properly underwritten liquidity, less taxation and more money in the pockets of persons and firms. That approach has not even been tried in this "crisis". What happened to "all at once"?

As a final layer, the printing of money and spreading to the population causes currency destruction which is different from price inflation. Currency destruction effects all things denominated in dollars, whether it be assets, incomes, savings, or other things. That's why your pay check doesn't stretch like it used to.

The Fed further has an "inflation target" of 2%. Inflation is bad. Targeting it to 2% year after year is very bad. It drops the value of the currency and labor in simple terms at 2% but compounded, it drops the currency and labor at more than 20% in 10 years. That separate from monetary destruction.

The Fed has stated they fear deflation. The reason is not because deflation is bad. It's good for people. It is bad for governments who have large recurring deficits and unimaginable debt because they would have to repay that debt in full strength dollars. If you both deflate and crash the economy you pay back the debt with highly discounted dollars in terms of purchasing power. That's called monetizing the debt.

The Fed has a stated and legislative policy and mandate of price stability. It absolutely and intentionally does the opposite as evidenced by the frame of reference mentioned in the Constitution, Gold. Since the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913 the value of the dollar has dropped 99%.

Countries who do not follow these policies are far more solvent and are currently hoarding natural resources by buying them with cash. This could become a national security issue as we increasingly hoard unsecured debt and forsake capital assets publicly and commercially. This is a tactical economic issue this government not only doesn't comprehend, but has taken the other side of the trade as compared to China, Russia, and other low debt countries.

It's the other Cold War, and they ARE winning.

See, I brought it back to Russia again. Buy land and businesses in Russia. Excellent investment.

The senate votes in rules on itself and when the Democrats took over the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2008, they installed rules so they could run unencumbered. They passed the stimulus ridden budget with a 1.4T deficit in FY09. No Presidential budget has been passe din the senate since and the votes have been a few votes either way of 97-0 against. That was not influenced by a fillibuster. Had the Senate passed ANYTHING it would have subjected the placeholder budget to reconciliation with the House. That has not happened since Obama has been president largely due to tactical machinations by the Majority leader Reid and with the approval of the Senate President Biden and the US President Obama, all in the same party. The solution while way too late is simple. Pass any budget at all in the Senate and deal with the issues in reconciliation.

Rocketman

That's too complicated to me - I am not an economist and not going to pretend I am But I disagree with you criticizing FED for not caring for price stability. The inflation is almost non-existant. What else should they do. If anything, all previous incarnation of FED were doing much worse job about price stability

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by lilo777

I am not an economist and not going to pretent I am

previous incarnation of FED were doing much worse job about price stability

See, we can agree you are not an economist. The claim is factually false.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Inakto

Same engineers who built this plane?

The engineers who built that Russian airliner didn't ask for permission to descend it below mountain heights. I think the pilots will be found at fault in this case.

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

no the same engineers who were the FIRST in space, the FIRST to travel the planet, and the ones that defeated Nazi Germany in WW2 with superior tanks that could be built quickly and efficiently.

More like it was the German engineers captured by both sides that helped put both countries into space

That said, the Russian programmers I work with seem much more innovative than the usual outsourcing suspects.

[ThunderSkunk]

Originally Posted by kdarling

More like it was the German engineers captured by both sides that helped put both countries into space

Too true. One of my grandfathers was an engineer on the Horton flying wing planes & later in the US, the F117a, among others. He came over with a couple thousand other guys in what is now known as Operation Paperclip. Never talked much about his experiences in the old days, but during the last years of his life he'd make the odd quip about his "choice" (at gunpoint) of immigrating, and not being sure who worked them harder, the Nazis, the USAF, or Lockheed. Those were some busy guys.

[dlkolegaev]

I am Russian, and I'm saying that this is not happening, Apple in Russia is all about marketing and sales.