Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
not sure about Apple, but Dell had a huge presence in Ireland for years. even some of the US sales agreements to buy a Dell in the USA you had to agree to abide by the laws of Ireland in case of a dispute. a lot of multi-nationals are nothing more than a shell company and LLC's or subsidiaries owned by the shell company to funnel money for the greatest tax savings no matter where the item is produced. Microsoft makes you buy all their software through a subsidiary in Nevada even though they are based in Washington State.

in the USA most fortune 500 companies are all headquartered in one office building in Delaware even if no one works there
Thanks for that explanation. As I understand it then, Apple are to an extent bound by international agreements as regards pricing in different countries. I was also overlooking the fact that UK prices always include a fairly high VAT (UK sales tax), whereas quoted prices in the US always add Sales Tax later, as it varies from state to state.
 
Apple could just buy AT&T. Fixes everything themselves.

Actually, I think (out of my a$$) that Apple is going to buy Google. One company's mission is to "Organize the world's information" while Apple's mission is becoming "Presenting the world's information" or "Making the world's information usable."

They will call the new venture, Goople.

yeah that name really sounds like coming out of your a$$
lol...i couldnt resist
sorry
 
steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-at-dinner1.jpg


I wonder what they are talking about...
 
Thanks for that explanation. As I understand it then, Apple are to an extent bound by international agreements as regards pricing in different countries. I was also overlooking the fact that UK prices always include a fairly high VAT (UK sales tax), whereas quoted prices in the US always add Sales Tax later, as it varies from state to state.

if you have subsidiaries around the world you can create fake buy/sell transactions to funnel your products around the world to minimize paying taxes. and Apple may not be as good at currency hedging as other companies. employee wise apple is small and other companies have whole departments dedicated to avoiding taxes

the USA sales tax is added later is because there is no national sales tax. it's a combination of state and local taxes. every time you cross a county line the tax changes. in NYC it is 8.25%. next county over it's 8.75%. when i visit family in the midwest it's 5% or 6%. when you buy online it's usually 0% unless the company has a presence in your state.
 
Total Cash - 24.80B (Link)

Both numbers are correct. They have a stockpile of 40B invested in various ways. $25B of this is cash and shortterm investments (near cash).

The difference of $15B is in long term investments where accessing the money would likely incur a penalty or loss of interest.
 
No, that would be stereotyping.

Denying a class of citizens basic civil rights because of their
sexual expression is unfair discrimination.

So, now you are claiming that your own duplicitous 'stereotyping' about Mac users 'posing' at Starbucks ought to somehow be considered less discriminatory?
 
But rather, the ever more "Controlling" manner/direction in which they are going.

Apple doesn't prevent me from running arbitrary code on another OS. Heck, even Microsoft doesn't do this.

Making a choice to not choose (an open device) is itself a choice. If your choices and Apple's don't mix, don't buy the products they offer.

I don't own a tractor. The existence of a dump truck does not prevent me from riding the bus every day. Apple selling locked down mobile devices does not prevent me from running a terminal in OS X on a Mac Mini.

tl;dr Apples do not prevent me from eating tangy oranges when I have the urge.
 
Because in part Microsoft thinks its owners know how to spend/invest their money about as well as the corporate officers do. It is called a dividend.
Apple's execs thinks they are smarter than the owners so will spend the money "for them".

MS is obliged to give out dividends simply because it knows its growth possibilities are close to zero, that's all...this has nothing to do with "who knows best how to invest".

As with Microsoft, that is going to run out of steam. Once a double digit billion dollar company can put huge multiples on that in a consistent fashion. When each year start to require the GDP of a small country to get higher than "average" growth number that growth games sputters out and start having to hand the owners some of the profits.

Apple is still a LONG, LONG way off in regard to facing similar problems as MS. Its growth potential is excellent in almost all areas, something that can be easily achieved with continued innovation and increased mindshare as they do right now.

Besides, publications like Harvard Business Review have already shown that the old mantra that "companies exist to increase value to shareholders" based on continued future growth expectations is unsustainable BS. Companies like Procter and Gamble and Nestlé already demonstrate that customer-driven value is the way to be followed. In this case, Apple would benefit even more from its innovative edge (even in mature markets and quasi-monopolistic situations).

There is enough product overlap with Apple that may turn into bigger DoJ issue for Apple than it would for Microsoft. Similarly Microsoft has a larger multi-platform port team than Apple does. Merging those could be more of a synergy cost reduction .

Monopolies are not a problem when they arise from innovation and better organic performance. Not to mention that the market for DTP and imaging is still highly competitive in its upper-end. As for multi-platform support, Apple has more than sufficient expertise in this regard (iTunes, QuickTime, OS-related open-standard efforts, as well as all Claris endeavors); antitrust authorities wouldn't even say a word when Apple buys Adobe.
 
Think about all the thing's they would gain...

Sony is a stable company, like you said they do make lot's of thing's, BLURAY FOR MAC!!!!

even if they bought Sony, they wouldn't put blu-ray in the macs. Apple is pushing downloads too hard. that is the future they are going after. not anything disc based.

They would gobble up a huge share of the market overnight.

assuming they want a 'huge share' of the market. Remember that lack of share and market power is how they are allowed to tie the hardware and OS together and kill off folks like Psystar claiming anti-trust. if they suddenly jump in share another company or even several will pop up and try again and this time, Apple might not win
 
even if they bought Sony, they wouldn't put blu-ray in the macs. Apple is pushing downloads too hard. that is the future they are going after. not anything disc based.



assuming they want a 'huge share' of the market. Remember that lack of share and market power is how they are allowed to tie the hardware and OS together and kill off folks like Psystar claiming anti-trust. if they suddenly jump in share another company or even several will pop up and try again and this time, Apple might not win
True that. MS is the market share leader, so MS is the biggest target for the lawsuits.
 
You know what............

Apple frighten me.

Or rather they dissapoint/worry me.

Why you might say? Well in the way they are now (more than ever) not just making great machines and letting people be creative and do what they wish with them (which is the way it should be and the way Msoft and the PC world is.)

But rather, the ever more "Controlling" manner/direction in which they are going.

I think big businesses differ in terms of "evils." For business like starbucks and apple, who provide a service isn't a necessity, there's no reason they shouldn't get as big as they want. We WANT, but we don't NEED apple products or coffee (depending on your level of addiction). For big companies like drug companies, oil industry, steel, etc, things that we pretty much need on a day-to-day basis, that's different. Controlling/regulating that would benefit the people. But apple produced something that many people WANT, so as Mary Jane Parker would say to Spiderman, "go get 'em, tiger." In this case, "Go get 'em, Snow leopard!"
 
How about buying out AT&T?

extremely highly unlikely.

If Apple wanted to be a cell phone service company they would have bought out a bunch of smaller services and tied the iphone for eternity to that company a la the Sidekick and T-Mobile.

They didn't so they haven't. Just like they haven't become an ISP, a cable company etc. And likely won't.
 
If Apple were to buy Adobe, I think it would be great for consumers. A better Mac version of Photoshop, a combination that provides the best of Aperture and Lightroom, the death of Flash, and the death of Acrobat Reader.

With that said, great for consumers and great for Apple are not necessarily the same thing.

Ditto... I love Apple...generally ... but they've been known to stick it to us , their loyal flock more than once in my experience...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.