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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Building Cash Reserves for 'Big, Bold' Moves
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah that name really sounds like coming out of your a$$
lol...i couldnt resist
sorry
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.
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.
So, now you are claiming that your own duplicitous 'stereotyping' about Mac users 'posing' at Starbucks ought to somehow be considered less discriminatory?
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.
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".
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).
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.
Delta and Southwest are just a hair under $20 billion by themselves. How could they buy the entire US airline industry with cash to spare?
D-OH! I forgot Southwest when doing my math...
I wonder what they are talking about...
Look at Steve's hands, obviously they are talking about who is "bigger".
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.
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!"
I dunno... I can't see Bill's other hand... it could be pointing to the ground. in which case, Bill won. ;-)
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.
Ditto... I love Apple...generally ... but they've been known to stick it to us , their loyal flock more than once in my experience...