How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes→
As someone who is interested in both Apple and taxes, I suppose I should link to this article in the NY Times describing how Apple’s tax strategy saves it billions in taxes:
Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent. (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.)
Defenders of Apple seem to be citing to the fact that other large corporations (e.g. Google, GE, etc.) use similar methods to reduce their tax burden as well. That doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable — just because there are a lot of people who act like jerks doesn’t mean that it’s okay to act like a jerk (unfortunately). Of course, it isn’t clear whether what these corporations are doing is wrong, either. As the article states, they employ perfectly legal methods for reducing their tax burden (although they do tend to push the envelope).
One thing that is clear, however, is that those who are upset with this type of behavior shouldn’t be blaming the individual corporations — they should look to the tax system. If the rules are setup so that this kind of stuff can happen (legally), then you shouldn’t fault those who take advantage of the rules. As a wise person once said: don’t hate the player, hate the game.
On Google, Apple, and "privacy"→
I’m not really too interested in last night’s WSJ “scoop” on Google and its mobile Safari practices, but if you want to read up on it, this piece by John Battell is probably the most balanced I’ve read so far:
In short, Apple’s mobile version of Safari broke with common web practice, and as a result, it broke Google’s normal approach to engaging with consumers. Was Google’s “normal approach” wrong? Well, I suppose that’s a debate worth having – it’s currently standard practice and the backbone of the entire web advertising ecosystem – but the Journal doesn’t bother to go into those details. One can debate whether setting cookies should happen by default – but the fact is, that’s how it’s done on the open web.
This is still a pretty young story, so I’m sure more details will surface in time. [John Battelle via Techmeme
About Gatekeeper→
The folks at Panic — developers of popular apps Transmit and Coda — wrote up a pretty good article explaining the pros and cons of Gatekeeper, a security feature offered in the newly announced OS X Mountain Lion.
Today’s Mountain Lion announcement introduces an important new security feature, called Gatekeeper, in addition to the “sandboxing” feature that premiered in Lion. I’d like to talk a little bit about it, and why it’s important to all Mac users.
[Panic via Shawn Blanc]
How Samsung plans to win over Apple fans→
I’m sure you’ve seen those commercials where Samsung takes a dig at Apple fans waiting in line for the next iProduct. At first I thought they were kind of silly, but it turns out there’s a method to their madness:
For starters: The washed-out look of the commercials was purposefully unsaturated and a bit milky, because the tone visually embodies the boredom of waiting in line. Apple fans depicted as hipsters are another subtle trick to suggest that trendy folks are always on the lookout for “the next big thing.”
It’s always interesting to hear the thought process behind ad campaigns. [9to5Mac]
Confessions of a Publisher→
Sarah Lacy has a fascinating article on her newly launched PandoDaily site that provides an insider’s perspective on how Amazon may be planning on taking out book publishers altogether:
[Publishers] can’t pay $1 million for books anymore. Amazon could probably afford to lose $20 million/year in their publishing arm just to put the other publishers out of business. I think that’s what they’re trying to do–throw money around in an industry that doesn’t have any, until Amazon becomes not only the only place where you buy books, but the only place that publishes books, too.
So rather than getting a 30% of an ebook (with the other 70% being split between the publisher and author), they’ll be getting a 70% cut (with the other 30% going right to the author). Funny thing is that it’s actually better for authors.
Meanwhile, John Gruber of Daring Fireball goes one step farther by suggesting that Amazon’s dominance may be the opening that Apple needs to step into the market:
It’s occurred to me that Apple’s stunning successes over the last decade could be a hindrance to its ongoing negotiations with content companies — movie studios, TV networks, book publishers, etc. Imagine a weekly poker game where, week after week, the same player wins. Every goddamn week. Pretty soon that player is going to stop being invited to play. That’s Apple.
Apple’s opportunity with books is that there’s already a dominant money-winning bully at the table: Amazon.
I have no idea what Apple is going to announce at tomorrow morning’s event — and for the record, I’m not expecting much at all — but I’m definitely really interested in seeing how the future of publishing will turn out. [PandoDaily via Daring Fireball]
Why Samsung Is The Next Apple→
Samsung, and to some extent the other vendors, have finally cracked it. For most of the past few years they’ve watched as Apple ran circles around them in terms of media sharing and remote control. Obviously Apple’s systems have been limited to iPod/iTunes/iPad/Mac but Samsung, a major player in both the white goods and the mobile markets, can now have it all.
…
Samsung’s success isn’t a sure thing. Incumbents rarely survive the revolutionary tidal wave of Apple’s design team and if history is any guide when/if the “real” Apple TV appears all of Samsung’s hard work will be forgotten as accolades roll in for Apple’s amazing (and I’m just guessing) retina display screen, built-in coffee-maker, and Scent-Surround smell emitters. However, if your Samsung phone and tablet can talk to your Samsung Smart TV and your Samsung aquarium pump, you may be inclined to stay in a single family when it comes to CE choices.
I’m not sure it’s fair to call Samsung “the next Apple” (or why there even needs to be a “next Apple”). Why not just “the first Samsung” — though that probably wouldn’t generate the same pageviews. Either way, the bottom line is that Samsung has been killing it and has really come a long way since the days when my parents used to buy their inferior products (at the time) simply to support their motherland. They’re a legit contender now, and the future is looking pretty bright. [TechCrunch]
Joe Hewitt on Apple's future in TVs→
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I think it’s pretty safe to say that Apple will eventually release their own branded television set, and I really liked this article by Joe Hewitt discussing what he thinks would be the most important feature: Airplay.
I’ve been reading a lot of speculation recently about what a future Apple TV might look like. Not nearly enough of these analyses have talked about AirPlay. It’s clear to me that AirPlay would be so important to the Apple TV, you might as well call it AirPlay TV.
He’s right, too. With so many networks already on board with native iOS apps — HBO, ABC, NBC, ESPN, TBS, and TNT to name a few — an Apple-branded TV would already be primed with a decent amount of content. Not to mention apps, games, photos, and videos from your iOS device. [Joe Hewitt via Daring Fireball]
How Steve Jobs ruined my life→
An industrial designer shares his thoughts on how Steve Jobs and Apple’s success may have actually stunted the design movement. An interesting take:
As a designer, you might think that I would be inspired by Apple. Maybe even in awe of their awesome design might. I am, but they’ve also made my job so much harder. Unfortunately, I don’t mean in terms of raising the standard of design.
All of a sudden, business stopped listening. Now they “understood.” They didn’t need to pay designers to do research into what people wanted. People wanted Apple.
What really happened to the iPhone 5
A followup to last night’s iPhone post: 9to5Mac just posted an article that attempts to piece together what really happened to the iPhone 5 that was rumored to be released this year. According to their sources, an iPhone 5 with a thinner, lighter case was originally planned, but manufacturing difficulties forced it to be delayed until summer 2012. It’s an interesting read, especially if you’re wondering what went wrong.
Of course, it’s impossible to verify their story, but I tend to believe it. And I still stand by my opinion that it doesn’t take anything away from the iPhone 4S, as the only changes noted were mainly cosmetic (i.e. same internals). [9to5Mac]
The last big project that Steve Jobs worked on
According to CNET, Steve Jobs was not intimately involved with the iPhone 4S. Instead, he devoted most of his time to the upcoming iPhone 5, which is expected to be a “complete redesign.” Cue all the haters who were unhappy with the “minimal” improvements of the iPhone 4S.
Personally, I think the iPhone 4S is a ridiculously good phone. Aside from maybe the upcoming Nexus Prime, I honestly don’t see any other phone on the market that can compete with it. The only reason I’m not upgrading my iPhone 4 to a 4S is actually more of a testament to how great the iPhone 4 has held up. The iPhone 4S is actually significantly faster than the iPhone 4 — the only problem is that the iPhone 4 isn’t exactly slow, so the improvement just doesn’t feel as significant. That shouldn’t take anything away from the iPhone 4S, though.
Think of it this way: had Apple actually announced an iPhone 5 earlier this month, what would people have wanted on the inside? An A5 processor, an upgraded camera (easily my favorite feature, by the way), and the long-rumored “assistant” feature from Apple’s acquisition of Siri last year. And that’s exactly what the 4S is.
There were some complaints about a few things that weren’t upgraded from the iPhone 4 — namely, the form factor, amount of RAM, and 3.5” screen. The iPhone 4 is honestly the best designed phone I have ever owned, and it’s still one of the best — if not the best — constructed phones on the market today. Unless people wanted Apple to make a change simply for change sake, there was really no need to alter the design after only a year. The iPhone 4S may only have 512MB of RAM, but Gizmodo does a great job explaining why this is a non-issue (spoiler: iOS is more optimized than Android, so it performs better with less). In my opinion, the only legitimate gripe has to do with the screen size. Those who defend the current 3.5” screen claim that a larger screen would hinder one-handed phone usage, but there’s gotta be some wiggle room there. I’m not saying we need a 4.5” iPhone, but would a 3.7” or 4” screen really be that much worse from a usability standpoint? I’ll defer to the Apple R&D team here — I’m sure they have their reasons for why they believe that 3.5” is the ideal size — but it’s a legitimate gripe for some people who long for a larger screen.
The ironic part is that I actually think most people would have been satisfied had Apple simply changed the form factor and called it the iPhone 5 (along with the same internal upgrades, of course). In effect, people are upset over aesthetics — and it’s not as if the iPhone 4 is a bad looking device. So when you really think about it, it’s kind of silly. [CNET]
