Interesting charts
I can see what looks like exponential growth in the iPhone sales chart which is good for Apple, but iPad sales seem linear which is not good.
832 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Mar 2008
"Except that if nobody spent that $15,001 way back when to make the Batmobile, how the f*ck was anybody going to buy said Batmobile today?"
WTF?
If nobody spent that $15,001 way back when to make the Batmobile we wouldn't be having this discussion. You'd be taking the bait on someother forum and I'd be busy shagging really fit looking whores in downtown Vegas with all the money I'd made off you from selling you crap investments.
The question is a non sequitor.
You clearly know nothing about investing so let me enlighten you. 'Investing in the stock market' consists of holding a fully diversified portfolio that has a beta of 1.0. You can either do it yourself or - since the 1970s - you could buy units in an Index Fund that tracks a market index, eg. S&P 500. You want an accumulation index, of course, not just a price index.
The $15,001 spent on the car wasn't a good investment at all - unless it gave rise to non-pecuniary benefits as I alluded to.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise it'd be better being the guy who put his money in the market in 1955. He could've bought that batmobile today and still be left with over $0.8m to spunk away on shagging upmarket hookers in Las Vegas.
It strikes me that, although Google Play and App Store, expose a developer to a greater number of potential app buyers this can count against a developer by his/her app being 'crowded out' by the competition.
Google and Apple have always touted their big application base as a benefit for developers but I wonder if there is a level where a developer gets more 'bang for their buck' in a smaller ecosystem like BB or Windows.
I've had Android, WinPho and Apple handsets in the past and Android/Apple can be a PITA trying to decide which is the 'best' app to buy when the search list comes back with 100+ results. I didn't have that problem with WinPho but I ended up hating WinPho for other reasons - like iTunes, having to do everything through Zune was just a right royal PITA, then, when MSFT announced there'd be no upgrade for loyal WinPho7 users to WinPho8 I just thought "this is not the platform for me" and I exited and haven't looked back.
I'm curious about BB10 though. If it goes with the 'drag-and-drop' model of Android, I'll be very interested.
Why 'slightly less offensive'?
I'm sure there are a lot of heiferlumpas out there that are incensed by the Make me Fat app. As there are chrome-domes who take offense to the Make me Bald app with apologies to the Google Chrome project as, apparently, we have to apologies these days for taking delight in the diversity of peoples' physical appearance).
Fans of Mary Shelley will also be very angry, but I suspect more so at the continued abuse of her classic novel by those that have never read it: Frankenstein was the creator of the monster, not the monster.
What really irks me about this is that a bunch of retards think the 'app' is racist. I don't believe this is possible. To my mind, only the creator of the app, could have their ethics questioned - not the 'app' - which is clearly incapable of having a conscience. Retards, the lot of them. Furthermore, on the account of 'racism' I can see no evidence of it. The author/authoress (yes, there is no such thing as a female author - just like no woman has ever won an Oscar for 'Best Actor' despite them all calling themselves that). Anyway, what I mean to say is that the preponderence of similarly themed apps (fat, bald, indian, asian) created by the same source, is clear evidence that the author/authoress is NOT racist. Clearly, he/she has no favourites and would appear to hate a number of social groups.
Shame on Google.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Fu Man Chu.
National Audit Office statistics show that, despite popular opinion, the only banks "bailed out" in the financial crisis were:
Northern Rock (£23bn) - the first. In Labour's heartland of NE England.
Royal Bank of Scotland (£46bn) - the Scottish bank. Another votewinner for Labour.
Lloyds TSB (£21bn) - only after its disastrous acquisition of Halifax-Bank of Scotland (HBOS) - another Scottish bank. Another votewinner for Labour.
Bradford & Bingley (£9bn) - the only bank to bailed out that had no political upside for Labour.
So "bailing out the banks" amounted to saving 4 banks from the Liquidator.
"I am sure Apple or perhaps a decent digital watch brand like Suunto could make it look classy."
EXACTLY.
A watch is a consumer item. Consumers frequently buy on the basis of the "image" the item is perceived to impart to them. I could name one company that understands this and has been exploiting it ever since.
Examples of 'style over content' consumption include the original iPod - a large, clunky, ugly looking device that Apple sold on image. Beats Audio - oversized headphones with bog-standard technology that Monster have sold on image. The list goes on...
Everyone remembers Dick Tracey's wristwatch for a reason - it was a cool/must-have device. I think these nay-sayers are wrong, just like those that said the iPad was just another tablet and would never take off.
Bill Gates is a smart guy - we all know that. Ever since he announced he'd be stepping down as CEO of MSFT, I've always believed he could see the writing was on the wall.
MSFT experienced fantastic growth and profitability for decades but history has shown, time and time again, that nothing ever lasts.
"Margaret Hodge, Labour MP and head of the panel, said it was clear that the companies were using complex corporate structures and exploiting the current tax law setup to move their profits out of the country."
So they weren't breaking any laws.
"HMRC should be challenging this but its response so far to these big businesses and their aggressive tax planning has lacked determination and looks way too lenient. Policing the tax system must be at the heart of what HMRC does"
And we're going to cut your HMRC budget so that you can't employ anyone to do this.
"We suspect that all these arrangements are devices to remove profits from the UK to these areas with lower tax"
Oh FFS. HELLO! ANYONE IN THERE? It's called "Transfer Pricing" and everyone who works in international tax has known about it for decades - even pre 1970s. WAKE UP YOU DOPEY POLITICIANS AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
"The MPs said HMRC needed a "change of mindset" on big multinationals and had to prosecute the ones that weren't paying the tax due in the UK."
That's the realy cowardice, right there. Blame the HMRC when it's been successive Governments who are the villains. Repeatedly failing to listen to the HMRC about their need for adequate resources.
Only when the mass media starts pointing the finger at the politicians will anything ever get done about this. Trying to deflect blame to the HMRC and the Multi-national Taxpayer like this means NOTHING will get done. It's complete rhetoric and venting of anger. That is all. Nothing will come of this. Tax avoidance will continue to occur. There is nothing to see here. Move on.
"It would be remarkable for Microsoft to launch its own phone, given the job Nokia is doing as Redmond's hardware arm."
I think that's what will happen. Having pimped them for all they're worth, I would not be surprised if MS acquired Nokia in a 'hostile' takeover bid. MS has a great track record of acquiring things on the way down and I see Nokia as the quintessential opportunity for MS.
"increasing talent shortage in APAC could harm organisations' innovation efforts as CIOs struggle to adapt to ongoing technological change"
"importing talent... can lead to unwanted inflation in the market"
I'm finding it difficult to reconcile these two statements. Maybe it's because I'm not an idiot. People really need to proof read their copy before they publish. Unless they want to look like a fuckwit.
Google are just trying to make life simple for you. Microsoft like to use the phrase 'feature rich'. It's all the same thing - a load of old bollocks. Now if you want REAL innovation take a look at those phones that have a dedicated facebook button. That's innovation right there. Something so simple and yet so highly innovative.
...and for those literaltards out there, I am being sarcastic.
The US corporation licenses its intellectual property to the Luxembourg entities who are allowed (under the terms of the license) to sub-license to other EU entities. Royalties are set by contractual agreement between the parties and that is how 'profits' can be shifted out of the UK tax net
This is an overly simplistic analysis for the real world of international tax law is very complex where one country may view an arrangement entirely differently from another, eg. Australia considers contracting through a company for purely personal expertise (ie. 'IT Contracting') as a complete and utter sham, while the UK allows it to go on but with restriction via IR35. Anyone who thinks IT Contracting through a company is not a form of tax avoidance is deluded. All tax avoidance is perfectly legal, just like what Amazon, et. al. are doing.
As to non-resident IT Contractors out there (Aussies, Kiwis, etc.) why stop at IR35? Why not really shag the UK tax base for all its worth and license your intellectual property/personal services through a series of offshore companies a-la Amazon? As long as it's legal, I won't have an issue with you doing it. But I will be mighty pissed off with my MP for allowing it to happen.
I agree. A dedicated, Facebook button is the type of innovation I've long been looking for. I'm surprised Microsoft have missed this trick with their 'Surface'. Had they the foresight to see the exponential profit growth that this innovation brings to the consumer space then they wouldn't be seeing their sales figures every time they look down the swanny after they've dumped.
I'm amazed at the simplicity of the structure. It's ingenious. And perfectly legal.
It's become very clear to me that Governments all over the world are failing to come to terms with the way international business is now being done. Double Tax Agreements negotatiated decades ago could not have foreseen how powerful the internet would become as a means of effecting trade (that's 'effect', not 'affect').
The fact that Google, et. al. are able to do this means those Governments have been caught with their trousers down and are now pointing at Google, et. al. saying "don't look at me althought I look absolutely ridiculous, please look at Google instead who are obeying all tax laws I've created".
What a farce.
If Google was an individual born in the UK, they'd be getting a CBE by now like another, well known user of tax avoidance schemes - Gary Barlow. Yes. Let's all give Google a CBE as I fail to see the difference.
What REALLY pisses me off are the fools who swallow the Government's misdirection and start slagging off the tax avoiders WHEN IT IS THE LEGISLATORS' FAULT. FFS, people, stop being idiots and start complaining to your MP for the piss-poor performance in letting this type of thing happen.
P.S. IT Contractors (ie. those alienating income from personal exhertion into lower-taxed corporate vehicles) should think twice before complaining - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree with what you're saying but what is your definition of 'profits', eg. do you allow deductions for interest on borrowings? if so, what about shareholder loans? how much can a company borrow (and therefore, get tax relief on interest) before you deny them the ability for tax relief? 100% leverage, 80% leverage, 79.9% leverage? what about payments on perference shares - interest or dividends? do you allow deductions for raw materials bought offshore - if so, how much is a reaonsable mark up for the vendor? what if the vendor is related to the purchaser (ie. transfer pricing) - what markup is acceptable then?
Geoff, the very point is that to interpose a tax efficient vehicle (in this case, a company) between two parties to a contract for services that can only be provided by personal exertion is perfectly legitimate in the UK but in other jurisdictions it is considered artificial/a sham eg. Australia where it is called a 'Tupicoff Scheme' (after the 1984 tax law case involving Mr Tupicoff - yes, that's right, 1984 when this sort of thing was outlawed 'Down Under').
So, one jurisdiction (UK) says it's a legitimate exercise while another (Oz) says it's completely bogus. Such is international tax law.
As to any claims about the 'quite artificial' nature of these types of transactions, there are provisions within UK tax law (eg. Ramsay) where the Courts can set aside transactions which are considered 'artificial'. So either the Inland Revenue is not doing its job or the transactions have passed muster and are not, as you put it, 'quite artificial'. Or perhaps you know something the Inland Revenue doesn't? In which case you should contact the Inland Revenue as soon as possible and point out to them where they're going wrong.
It's very easy to join the bandwagon and cry 'aritifical', 'sham', 'immoral', etc. but to do so misses the point: it is the Government which sets the law and it will be a much more profitable exercise to vent frustration at them than to swallow their misdirection and blame the multinationals for following the law.
"None of the three companies were able to change the Public Accounts Committee's mind that they may be avoiding tax legally..."
There you have it. They're not doing anything illegal. So who should the public be venting their anger at? THE LAWMAKERS, ie. Parliament. Why haven't Parliament done anything about it over all of these years?
If the public keep shouting about it, they could even close one of the biggest IT "loopholes" there is: alienation of personal services income.
A "contractor" (through a company) - eg. Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce, Jimmy Carr - legitimately enjoys lower tax rates and deductions for expenses that a non-corporate contractor can't make, etc. while at the same time providing the recipient (eg. employer) with exactly the same personal service. Insurance is available for the individual, so why "contract" through a company? Answer: the tax breaks available to a corporate are greater than those available to the individual, eg. lower tax rates, capital allowances, income splitting, non-residency - to name but a few.
So while on the subject of the 'immorality' or otherwise of tax avoidance, just give a thought closer to home. The only difference between Starbucks, et. al. and contracting for personal services is scale.
"...claiming back the cost of connectivity on expenses"
"...getting staff to use their own connectivity is becoming an unmeasured expense in many businesses"
WTF? The only way it's not being measured is if it's not being claimed. If that's the case, why would the employer give a shit?
Seriously, who writes this shit?
Alan Sugar has been hugely successful at selling the brand: "Alan Sugar".
Labour loved him. They made him a Lord, they gave him a job in Government. I even suspect one of the then Cabinet gave him a blowjob.
As to anything other than the brand "Alan Sugar", success is an orphan to him.
30,000 units is an AMAZING figure. It's 'probably' more than 3 times the iPhone 5's first day sales (Apple only say what they want you to hear - including their sales figures).
This is 'probably' the MOST AWESOME sales debut ever.
It'll 'probably' set a GUINESS WORLD RECORD.
They'll 'probably' have them on the ISS with the next Dragon delivery.
The space crew will 'probably' use them to phone their wives (or boyfriends).
Somewhere, someone will 'probably' drop it down the shitter.
And they'll 'probably' fish it out with their bare hands.