I am talking specifically in the Apple Maps context here, and nothing more. Remember one of the possible reasons Apple went with their own Maps app? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/05/apple-google-maps-iphone-dropped. I don't think they were encouraging competition in this context. I agree with you though in this example in that they are giving users a certain % of what they need in a Maps app.
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.
Tim Cook Says Apple is Always Focused on 'Products and People' Over Wall Street Expectations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am talking specifically in the Apple Maps context here, and nothing more. Remember one of the possible reasons Apple went with their own Maps app? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/05/apple-google-maps-iphone-dropped. I don't think they were encouraging competition in this context. I agree with you though in this example in that they are giving users a certain % of what they need in a Maps app.
Yeah, to give users turn by turn, and in the process, google would also update their maps app to provide the very same feature.
The lesson Apple keeps teaching and which others keep ignoring is - to create true meaningful change in a market you need to force change. By taking bold unapologetic stances. And that is what they have done here. Force change when it was clear that none was coming.
But where? Due to globalisation only a few companies are at the top, there is pretty much no way for any alternatives to come through - almost everything is a duopoly now - Windows / macOS*.
iOS / Android (though I've recently used an Android device exclusively again and I have to say that Nokia with their pure Android have come a long way, especially when it comes to value for money - but - at a 1/3 the price of the SE the Nokia is admittedly slower)
There are basically no options for the consumer, so it's choosing the least bad option and wishing it was more aligned with our needs...
*yeah - I ran Linux exclusively from 2001 -2010 due to company policy, but Linux remains a bad user experience (no replies necessary).
If they keep going down the route of price gouging, avoiding paying their fair share of taxes in the countries in which it is earned, require people to buy lots of dongles, have a crap siri, keep needing every phone I buy being replaced under warranty, not having devices that play well outside the ecosystem etc then yes I can see why people whinge and complain a lot about Apple.
[doublepost=1519634147][/doublepost]
what?
Price gouging? Don’t buy their products if they are too expensive and don’t have enough value for you. As far as the taxes, they had an agreement, nothing was avoided. Not like Apple purposely engineered a tax evasion scenario. As far as the rest of it, sounds like generic sour grapes, a straw man of things read on the internet.
I have my opinions just like you have yours. I am allowed to think they price gouge and buy their products thank you.
As for avoiding taxes, no matter what they do legally, I believe they are avoiding taxes morally. Companies are beginning to bow to public pressure and are now paying more taxes in the county it is earned in.
Generic sour grapes, I think no, just because you have no use of a headphone jack, sd card slot, ethernet port, hdmi port, removable laptop battery, soldered in SSD/ram etc doesn't mean I have to like it.
Also I don't think strawman means what you think it does. (you used it in the wrong context)
I have my opinions as well. I am allowed to think their products offer a better value for my usage, more than their competitors. I also believe There is no such thing as overpaying taxes.
And since I don’t use the headphone jack, et al, I don’t miss it. Also don’t use Siri, I dislike “smart assistants”. Have an echo dot, which is unused also.
I know what a straw man is but your post is a conflation of seemingly everything critical, rather than you’re specific issues with products you own etc.
Last edited:
Maybe because the Nikkei stories have been completely false and based on little to no evidence? Everything Nikkei has “reported” on iPhone production has been proven wrong in the quarterly reports from Apple.
They are literally fake news.
Adjusting for a 13 week quarter vs 14 weeks last year, Apple sold 83M iPhones in Q1 at $100 higher ASP. Best performance ever. iPhone X killed it because Cook confirmed it was best selling iPhone every week since release, even through January.
Besides, a 90 day clock on performance is a pretty arbitrary way to evaluate Apple’s business. But since they have to do that, $20.1B in profit in 90 days for the best quarter in corporate history isn’t bad.
This is carrying fan excuses for Apple a bit too far
However if, as you suggest, Apple DELIBERATELY holds back its own apps in order to encourage third party versions, then they should also allow us to set those BETTER third party versions as the default app(s).
It was specific issues with products I own and I have a ton of Apple products.
There is no such thing as "avoiding taxes morally". Every CFO in the world has a mandate to reduce their corporate tax liability within the limits of the law, in whichever jurisdictions they make money. Apple is no different. Sole proprietors, S-Corps (I am one), LLCs, all do the same. Things like the Ireland situation changed because the EU made a ruling effectively changing the law. When laws change, so do the tax practices of those affected. There is no "moral" pressure being put on them by the public that affects their tax practices.
In the US, people always post stupid stuff like "Apple pays zero taxes!" or "Apple doesn't pay their fare share!" which is complete nonsense. They pay somewhere in the realm of ~$16 Billion a year, more than any other entity inside the US, at a rate of around ~26.5%. All within the very clear limits of the law. Meanwhile, if they repatriate their foreign cash pile now that the US tax laws have changed (thereby reducing their double taxation rate at which they'd repatriate their funds), that's another ~$28 Billion in taxes paid to the US treasury.
So, it doesn't matter what you "believe" they are doing — they're operating within the limits of the law everywhere they operate. That is the job of every CFO out there, and if Luca Maestri went to Tim and said "Hey Tim, some dude named Dilbert on MacRumors said we are morally wrong even though we're not breaking any laws, so I've been paying way more than we owe!" he'd be fired for incompetence. If they're not operating within the law, then they're guilty of a crime, and I somehow doubt you're the kind of multinational corporate tax lawyer that's qualified to make that determination.
yet companies have started to pay more taxes in the countries that it was earned in regardless of shareholders... so doesn't matter what you think
There is definitely public pressure being put on around the world. Companies are trying to save face. Public perception works and companies will do what is necessary to keep the right perception.
What companies are trying to save face and how are they doing that? Companies are under no obligation to pay more tax then applicable laws state. The governments want to turn around change the laws, that is their prerogative. But I don’t see any companies saving face, only doing what is legally required.
There are lots of companies paying more tax in Europe and Australia, Amazon is one name I can remember.
Okay. That doesn’t make Amazon good nor Apple bad. They may have to due to their business model.
Do you really believe this? If Apple really believed in letting every kid get a chance to shoot the ball, wouldn’t ios not force the user to their crap maps app when calling up an address, but allow the user to go to, say, the Google map app? Or allow a user to go to a 3rd party podcast app instead of defaulting to needing to use the iOS podcast crap app when calling up a podcast from safari? Similar for adding an appointment, etc
Never said it did, It just a breath of fresh air to see some companies doing the right thing
Just like I praised Apple in another thread for saying they are going to still repair some devices that are older than 5 years old.
How much taxes a company pays as long as the tax bill is legal, for me, has nothing to do with doing the “right thing”. Maybe amazon (as much or little as it pays) is underpaying and they should pay more?
Anyway like the proverbial horse this topic has been beaten into the ground.
Honest question to you or anyone.
Can there be situations where no change occurs and that would be acceptable? Or should change in every/any nook and cranny be constant, which runs the risk of change for the sake of change.
I’ve often accused Apple of forcing changes where the negatives far outweigh any positives for me even after 4+ years, acknowledging that those changes may be very welcomed by some and then simply tolerated/accepted by some in the middle. Since Apple’s calling card is typically a one-size-fits-all approach which can result in a higher % of polarized customer satisfaction, should Apple stop being expected to be universally renowned as the “it just works” company it was once considered to be (which, to hold that reputation, requires a near-universal appeal across a majority of customers) and is it ok that Apple instead be considered a company to maximize change at whatever cost to % of customer acceptance?
Honest question.
Don’t understand the hypothetical scenario. I am dealing with a consumer electronic product, albeit an expense one.
To me, Apple used to be known as the “it just works” company and still is. That doesn’t mean if one or two or even a thousand actual customers, don’t feel that way the moniker doesn’t fit.
You allude to how much change is for the sake of change. Nothing stays constant in this world and if I’m paying good buck for a new device I would like some change (internal or external) from the old device. Sometimes I don’t care if it’s a shiny coat of paint. My house gets painted every few years, even with the same color in some rooms.
Okay, I'll bite — Which companies? Where? Care to provide citations to show that they're actually paying more taxes due to public pressure?
[doublepost=1519876298][/doublepost]
Please cite any proof that they were doing the "wrong" thing and corrected their behavior.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in tax law unless you're operating outside of the law, which is a crime, and therefore obviously illegal. Beyond that, there is tax law, which is created by lawmakers in the their respective jurisdictions. If you don't like the results of current tax law, you need to take it up with the lawmakers in that jurisdiction — there's absolutely no situation where a company is going to change their operational tax policy based on misplaced public pressure based on misunderstanding how tax law works. No corporation pays more tax than they owe in order to do the "right thing", this is completely false.
No right or wrong, just 50 shades of gray and companies who are operating in grey areas will listen to their customers to avoid public outcries