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.
Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My apologies, I didn't know about those cases, as I haven't been following Samsung for 5 years.
Yes Congress decides it, but corporations are the ones who choose to use it. Why do corporations need lobbying, if not to influence elected officials to pass laws that are advantageous to them? Big business and government are in bed together.
That there's no "angel" in this case. I admit though, that based on the present evidence, you are right that Apple has not gone down to the level of Samsung and Google in terms of business ethics.
As the report notes, the document itself is not proof of Samsung's infringement of Apple's utility or design patents or its trade dress, but Apple is clearly using it to build its case that Samsung was looking to the iPhone as a superior device and in many cases seeking to copy the iPhone's solutions to user interface and other issues.
Like I said, you don't take advantage of special interest rates for cap gains? The mortgage interest deduction? Deductions for dependents?
It's not honest and not useful to single out businesses as especially evil here. America AS A WHOLE has concluded special treatment of various sorts, whether for individuals or for corporations is a great way to run a tax system. Don't pretend otherwise.
Ok, I haven't been here in a few years but I logged in just to answer your silly rhetoric in (certainly futile) hopes that you'll just shut up already. The answer to your riddle of how to make a button bigger without increasing the size is to make all the other buttons smaller. The button was not increased in size, but it would in fact appear "bigger". Now admit your WRONG and back off.
Appearing bigger and being bigger is not the same thing. And if the motivation to make it bigger was ergonomic it won't help making the others smaller
I agree, but I don't think that the op was taking about the obvious troll that has a first message saying Apple sucks
There's a huge difference between using tax breaks that have been specifically created to be used, and using loopholes.
Most families don't have tons of staff to find loopholes.
Corporations, on the other hand, go far out of their way to avoid taxes, like Apple's invention of the infamous "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich", where they shuffle income all over the world through tiny holding companies employing a handful of people. (Note that Google and others now do the same.)
Many US citizens are in the 30% tax bracket. Apple pays less than 10%. Other companies perhaps even less. Then these companies complain that they need a special tax break so they bring in all their overseas cash to the US (which has been tried before, and actually ended up with fewer jobs).
It's also small wonder that the mayor of Cupertino only half-jokingly asked Apple for free WiFi in her town, since Apple funnels all their US income through Reno Nevada instead of their home state of California. There's such a thing as being a good corporate citizen.
Well that sounds a little utopian. It's not just Apple, and Google its also Pfizer, orbitz, expedia, Disney, all the tobacco companies, oil companies, general Electric, PepsiCo, need I go on?
While the tax code obviously needs fixing, blaming companies like Google and apple who save billions by doing this is a little hyper moralistic.
It's far easier to find a "bad" corporate citizen then a good one. In fact can you name one major corporation that doesn't take advantage of the loopholes? People love to ignore the source of the problem and blame Google and apple for doing what's best for their bottom line. If you were ceo of these corporations you'd do the same and if you didn't you wouldn't be ceo long lol.
What's utopian about KDarling's response. He didn't say how things should be. He stated quite clearly how they are. He also didn't exclude other companies not excuse them.
And just because everyone does it still doesn't make it "right." I agree - the source of the problem isn't the companies themselves - but there's no harm in discussing the issues in total.
His statement that there's such a thing as a good corporate citizen. No there isn't if we're talking about taxes. That's utopian. In other words, there's no company that I can think of that would willingly not take advantage of these loopholes. Can you think of one? With a source to back it up?
I also didn't say he excused any company so not sure why you said that. My point in naming all those companies was that it's the norm not an anomaly when a company does it. Apple, Google are getting unfair heat from forumers for doing what all corporations do.
I don't think he was limiting his response of corporate citizen to just taxes. IE - the example he gave. Don't pay taxes in your state? Ok - how about doing something else. Like building a free wifi infrastructure.
And no - I can't point to other companies specifically that have done something like that. But I imagine there's been something. Somewhere. Whether "genuine" or hand-sorta-forced.
I'm sure both Google and apple do enough for their communities where they don't have to be judged by some arbitrary scale of what makes them good and evil. It's all subjective you know.
right and I didn't really expect you to because it's not something that happens. More of a rhetorical question to prove the point that labeling a company as bad for this or suggesting that they have to make up for their bad behavior because of this is a little hyper moralistic.
You keep throwing the words good, evil and hyper moralistic. These are hyperbole. I don't personify companies like that. Maybe other people do - but not not me. Companies are in the business to make money. Companies will always act in the best interest of the company. That being said - there are intangibles. Customer and community relations help boost a company's image which can lead to greater profits, political strength as so on.
Whenever you create jobs at the scale of a Google or Apple you have tremendous impact on the community (which is why municipalities lobby so actively for corporations to move their headquarters). As for direct charitable contributions, Apple has recently implemented corporate matching funds for charitable giving.
Literally five seconds of googling:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/02/03/apple-charity-donation_n_1253185.html
Here we go with the nitpick again. Sam, classify it however you want. Good, bad, evil, angelic. Kdarling is the one who said good corporate citizen. He's the one who personified it. Not me. I responded to him, you responded to my response to him and now you're nitpicking my statement.
If you have an issue with personifying corporations take it up with kdarling.
As for your last part, yes I know this and both Google and apple do their part. Maybe not up to your standards but that's irrelevant.
Jeez... Typical Apple hater. There really is ignorance in hate, huh?
For one:
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/14/apple-releases-product-red-bumper-for-iphone-4s4/
I agree - it's annoying when people move goalposts during a debate - regardless of who/what it's about
1) I was mostly responding to the claim that the tremendous lengths that corporations got to these days to avoid taxes, is anywhere near the same thing as a person taking a common and plainly laid out deduction for their mortgage or dependents.
It's not. For one thing, most of us don't hide our income by routing it through multiple countries.
2) My comment about being a good corporate citizen is mostly separate from that. Using tax loopholes is one thing (even though we all pay for it, one way or another). Giving back to your home country, state or city is another.
Many corporations are large sponsors of the arts. Many also support important community projects. Samsung, for example, has a Hope for Children program that has spent the last decade raising money for groups and charities across the USA for children's health and technical education issues. Carriers like Verizon have programs to recycle used phones to battered spouses so they can have private means of communication. There are many more examples.
Anyway, corporations are not evil. Corporations (and governments) are made of normal people who, left on their own, would usually do good. It's the leaders who define how a corporation is seen.
It's not. For one thing, most of us don't hide our income by routing it through multiple countries.
2) My comment about being a good corporate citizen is mostly separate from that. Using tax loopholes is one thing (even though we all pay for it, one way or another). Giving back to your home country, state or city is another.
Many corporations are large sponsors of the arts. Many also support important community projects. Samsung, for example, has a Hope for Children program that has spent the last decade raising money for groups and charities across the USA for children's health and technical education issues. Carriers like Verizon have programs to recycle used phones to battered spouses so they can have private means of communication. There are many more examples.
Anyway, corporations are not evil. Corporations (and governments) are made of normal people who, left on their own, would usually do good. It's the leaders who define how a corporation is seen.
Quite impressive indeed. Especially considering it's a single campaign, single charity. And another $50 Mil to Stanford Hospitals. And matching employee charitable donations.
Good points and thanks for clarifying. As I mentioned, whether a company meets a certain personal standard is irrelevant though. Apple is not known for being charitable but they've done their part.
Could they give more? Of course. So can everyone.
As for the tax things, yes corporations go to lengths. All corporations do. Which is why when I read articles about Google and apple "funnelling" money through other countries i roll my eyes.
Fix the code (which, because of lobbying is probably not a realistic goal), and stop blaming corporations that want to legally protect their bottom line (not meant for you kdarling, speaking in general)