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 discussion thread [merged]
- Thread starter raptorstv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know Tim Cook personally, but Apple's decision to remove important ports both from their iphones and Macbook lines is going to cost them. Ironic since it was probably a money-saving decision in the first place. Now I know some of you Apple apologists will say, "I prefer a computer built for the future", and "we never really needed that port anyway". But let me address both of these responses accordingly. Firstly, if I designed a laptop with 1 USB-G connector (yeah, it'll be popular in 2024), would you buy it? Buy the time the (currently) fictional USB-G gets adopted, the laptop will be useless junk. In the present day, USB-C is still IN THE PROCESS of being adopted, and it is not even close to the universal widespread use of USB-A yet. How many TB3/USB-C mice exist? or USB keys? Also, if the idea of Macbooks is to be thinner and lighter, how does plugging in a bulky hub or port extender going to help that? I think it will make the Macbook look ugly, and the competitor's laptops with built-in ports MUCH neater looking.
Secondly, the absence of a headphone jack on iphone 7/8/X is beyond me. On Youtube, there's a guy who managed to open an iphone-7 and retrofit a 3.5mm headphone jack. Apple had no space for the taptic engine so they needed to remove the port, you say? Nonsense. Apple couldn't design a water-resistant 3.5mm headphone jack, you say? Horsedung. Samsung has done it fine. So Apple is making one bad decision after another. If I didn't know better, I'd say that Tim Cook was trying to sink Apple's ship himself. Not sure why, but it seems he doesn't have as much experience at running Apple as most people might think. Jobs knew the business, the marketing, and the technology. Cook doesn't understand technology. His lecturing at the Apple events reminds me of someone transported from the past into the present and is astonished by a mere hand-operated can opener.
I don't see Apple as a functioning or independent company in 10 years from now. I think they'll either be bought out by Google (or some other huge conglomerate), or bankrupt.
Steve took the company with him when he passed away.
You must be new to Apple products. It has always been in their M.O. to drop dated technology. Steve was doing it way before Tim even joined Apple.
“Sinking the company..”. Yeah...right..Apple has made the most money they have ever had and stock holders are happy (including the board). Maybe “sinking” in regards to technological “wow”, but intentionally sinking the company..come on...
Apple is in its growth stage (or topped) for focusing on just making money for all of the years of sacrificing before to make great products. Now, forget sacrificing and just reap in the money for retirement. Has Apple seen their day...? Probably, every company does if they become a “rock star” at some time. Apple was a “rock star” in the tech industry. Now their spot light is slowly deeming. They had their time. They can ride it out for a bit more, but technology overall is getting like the calculator or just becoming the norm. Can buy a calculator at the dollar shop now-a-Days for even less than a dollar in some places.
Times chance, Apple had seen their days. It is just how it is..
Jobs was way better; but, do know that a single USB-C cable can carry data, sound, power, and video: something which usually takes several cables. If you have a 'docking station' at home, it's a good setup to have a single cable bring everything to life—then a second cable to daisy-chain a bunch of storage to it.
This even sicker part of USB-C or Type-C, is once you have a port, and then all the drivers, that's that!
The drivers get more integrated, into just having to support 1 port type. It might be hard to understand, but in a distant future (5+ years), when all ports are basically Type-C, it'll be just 1 driver package, and blam, all ports are ready.
It will even make creating "New OSes" easier...
Like you said 1 cable/port for data, sound, power, and even video...
Now that we have the iPhone battery issue out in the open, which was addressed by severely throttling the phone, we have to ask ourselves what this tells us about Tim Cook as CEO. I've kinda keep my thoughts to myself, but I'm going to bring out my theories on how I believe the company is run.
I believe Tim Cook chooses components for iPhones and other devices based mainly on their cost. If company X can beat company Y with a lower cost battery and prove reasonable reliability (from Tim Cook's perspective), that company gets the green light to provide batteries for the iPhone.
I also believe that Tim wants to hit a certain level of cost for components and then whatever that cost is, triple the price of the device. So when people wondered why the Mac Book Pros were costing $4,100 to get a high speced model, I think that's the reason. If Apple sold less, they sold less, but that was the target price based on component costs. I'm not going to say this is literally the way they do it for every product, but I bet it's pretty freakin close. The reason I bring this up is this is would be somewhat of a driver in why we are having this battery issue today. It was all about hitting numbers.
My second observation on Tim Cook is how he addressed this before today. For starters, instead of being more open about the issue and replacing batteries on a more mass scale (which would have actually been a relatively small cost compared to Apple's profit margins), Tim decided to try to hide the issue. It's my opinion that this wasn't done to force customers to buy new iPhones so much as Tim was afraid customers who received new batteries would have devices that would have TOO MUCH longevity. So basically, it was the opposite side of the coin, Apple knew there was an issue and while they didn't intend to SHORTEN the lifespan of iPhones, they were afraid they would LENGTHEN the lifespan of iPhones if they provided new batteries. It was kind of a catch 22. The problem is, even with today's response of offering an affordable battery (which actually means Apple is going to lengthen the lifespan of existing iPhones too much for Apple's taste), is it will devalue the iPhone brand severely (I'll get into that more later on).
The other challenge for Apple is that as iPhones get more powerful, and as performance increases become more minuscule, the incentive to buy new iPhones becomes less attractive. Make no mistake, Apple needs replacement of iPhones every two years by customers if they will continue to grow as a company! While not a perfect comparison, this reminds me off Microsoft's Windows dilemma where they wanted customers to upgrade to the latest version, but there was less incentive to do so once the OS become reliable enough to ignore new versions. In essence, Microsoft's previous versions of Windows became a competitor to new versions, and Apple's old iPhones are becoming a competitor to new versions. It doesn't help that the price of iPhones continue to rise with component costs.
The other challenge that this issue has brought up is this is going to severely impact customer willingness to upgrade iPhones in the future, and also severely impact the reputation of the entire smartphone industry (whether that is fair or not). For starters, an iPhone that is an iPhone 6 or later may very well have a battery issue which is made worse because the phone's performance is throttled to address the issue. And so you go and buy a new battery for $29, how much time do you "buy" with that battery replacement, exactly? From a consumer perspective, that is a question in the back of your mind whether you admit it or not. Keep in mind, people paid a lot of money for these devices, and there was a certain expectation the consumer had in terms of longevity, and if that expectation isn't met, the customer is going to be disappointed (and now that the battery issue has been brought to the open, they'll be pissed).
Basically, this issue brings into question the value of the value of the iPhone 6 through the iPhone 8 Plus. Ironically, suspect the iPhone X solves the battery issue, but we have no way of knowing because Apple technically has only admitted to slowly down iPhones to improve battery longevity, not because they admit an underlying battery issue. And frankly they can't admit to a battery issue, because it would bring into question *why* this issue would be allowed to go on for so long in the first place. And the scary answer to that question would be because Tim hoped consumers wouldn't notice, and become Tim was trying to meet certain profit margin metrics.
If you want to interpret what I'm saying in the most cynical perspective, you'd have to ask yourself some serious questions. Is a CEO who knowingly allows a battery issue to occur for multiple generations even fit to continue in that post, especially when he risks the companies future and reputation in order to meet certain metrics? Were these decisions to the best interest of Apple's LONGTERM growth as a company, or did they really promote short-term growth but sacrificed long-term growth?
In all fairness, I believe at SOME point, consumers were going to wise up to the fact that smart phones at increasingly high prices was a bad value, but my argument now is this battery issue (which isn't what Apple admitted exists) is just the straw that will break the camel's back. And I don't think it will be an opened reason why consumers begin to make a different decision, it will be on a more subconscious level. Make no mistake, I believe this issue has literally change the way consumers will view the value of the iPhone (and smart phones in general), they just won't entirely understand "why".
So, as this plays out over the long term, I think this leads to question on Tim Cook's leadership and you could really argue for both sides: Is Tim Cook a good leader who realized the smart phone market was temporary and grabbed as much profits as he could? Or, is Tim Cook a poor leader who a sacrificed long-term growth for temporary gain?
Also, you could argue that I've overestimated how much this issue will impact Apple. But I don't think so. To put this into annoying marketing terms, I believe this issue will change the relationship of the public, and how the view their iPhone. In non-marketing terms, I'll just say, that ain't good for Apple. Question is, how long will it take for Apple to see the slide take place.
I believe Tim Cook chooses components for iPhones and other devices based mainly on their cost. If company X can beat company Y with a lower cost battery and prove reasonable reliability (from Tim Cook's perspective), that company gets the green light to provide batteries for the iPhone.
I also believe that Tim wants to hit a certain level of cost for components and then whatever that cost is, triple the price of the device. So when people wondered why the Mac Book Pros were costing $4,100 to get a high speced model, I think that's the reason. If Apple sold less, they sold less, but that was the target price based on component costs. I'm not going to say this is literally the way they do it for every product, but I bet it's pretty freakin close. The reason I bring this up is this is would be somewhat of a driver in why we are having this battery issue today. It was all about hitting numbers.
My second observation on Tim Cook is how he addressed this before today. For starters, instead of being more open about the issue and replacing batteries on a more mass scale (which would have actually been a relatively small cost compared to Apple's profit margins), Tim decided to try to hide the issue. It's my opinion that this wasn't done to force customers to buy new iPhones so much as Tim was afraid customers who received new batteries would have devices that would have TOO MUCH longevity. So basically, it was the opposite side of the coin, Apple knew there was an issue and while they didn't intend to SHORTEN the lifespan of iPhones, they were afraid they would LENGTHEN the lifespan of iPhones if they provided new batteries. It was kind of a catch 22. The problem is, even with today's response of offering an affordable battery (which actually means Apple is going to lengthen the lifespan of existing iPhones too much for Apple's taste), is it will devalue the iPhone brand severely (I'll get into that more later on).
The other challenge for Apple is that as iPhones get more powerful, and as performance increases become more minuscule, the incentive to buy new iPhones becomes less attractive. Make no mistake, Apple needs replacement of iPhones every two years by customers if they will continue to grow as a company! While not a perfect comparison, this reminds me off Microsoft's Windows dilemma where they wanted customers to upgrade to the latest version, but there was less incentive to do so once the OS become reliable enough to ignore new versions. In essence, Microsoft's previous versions of Windows became a competitor to new versions, and Apple's old iPhones are becoming a competitor to new versions. It doesn't help that the price of iPhones continue to rise with component costs.
The other challenge that this issue has brought up is this is going to severely impact customer willingness to upgrade iPhones in the future, and also severely impact the reputation of the entire smartphone industry (whether that is fair or not). For starters, an iPhone that is an iPhone 6 or later may very well have a battery issue which is made worse because the phone's performance is throttled to address the issue. And so you go and buy a new battery for $29, how much time do you "buy" with that battery replacement, exactly? From a consumer perspective, that is a question in the back of your mind whether you admit it or not. Keep in mind, people paid a lot of money for these devices, and there was a certain expectation the consumer had in terms of longevity, and if that expectation isn't met, the customer is going to be disappointed (and now that the battery issue has been brought to the open, they'll be pissed).
Basically, this issue brings into question the value of the value of the iPhone 6 through the iPhone 8 Plus. Ironically, suspect the iPhone X solves the battery issue, but we have no way of knowing because Apple technically has only admitted to slowly down iPhones to improve battery longevity, not because they admit an underlying battery issue. And frankly they can't admit to a battery issue, because it would bring into question *why* this issue would be allowed to go on for so long in the first place. And the scary answer to that question would be because Tim hoped consumers wouldn't notice, and become Tim was trying to meet certain profit margin metrics.
If you want to interpret what I'm saying in the most cynical perspective, you'd have to ask yourself some serious questions. Is a CEO who knowingly allows a battery issue to occur for multiple generations even fit to continue in that post, especially when he risks the companies future and reputation in order to meet certain metrics? Were these decisions to the best interest of Apple's LONGTERM growth as a company, or did they really promote short-term growth but sacrificed long-term growth?
In all fairness, I believe at SOME point, consumers were going to wise up to the fact that smart phones at increasingly high prices was a bad value, but my argument now is this battery issue (which isn't what Apple admitted exists) is just the straw that will break the camel's back. And I don't think it will be an opened reason why consumers begin to make a different decision, it will be on a more subconscious level. Make no mistake, I believe this issue has literally change the way consumers will view the value of the iPhone (and smart phones in general), they just won't entirely understand "why".
So, as this plays out over the long term, I think this leads to question on Tim Cook's leadership and you could really argue for both sides: Is Tim Cook a good leader who realized the smart phone market was temporary and grabbed as much profits as he could? Or, is Tim Cook a poor leader who a sacrificed long-term growth for temporary gain?
Also, you could argue that I've overestimated how much this issue will impact Apple. But I don't think so. To put this into annoying marketing terms, I believe this issue will change the relationship of the public, and how the view their iPhone. In non-marketing terms, I'll just say, that ain't good for Apple. Question is, how long will it take for Apple to see the slide take place.
In the real world, profits drive direction. If a CEO is able to bring in high marginal profits and looks good to the board and the stockholders, meaning stockholders are earning a good reward, than that CEO will be praised and continue.
Do you think stockholders will dump their shares right now because of this issue....? no....so no change.
Do you really believe that people now will stop buying the iphone or slow down sales? No....people will continue to buy because there are no better overall phones out there in the market if you enjoy the Apple ecosystem.
What MAY happen is Apple may look to improve battery life or spend a little more on a better battery which will increase the cost overall on the iphone. Tim will not take a lose or adjust his margins if he has to pay more for a component in the phone.
Nothing will probably chance unfortunately...UNLESS people stop buying the iphone...
Is that going to happen....?
Probably not...
Why can't people just use this as an excuse to slow DOWN the speed of buying and iPhone? Or, why can't people just choose a model that is more affordable? You are coming from this at the perspective that Apple has no competition. The problem is, Apple's competition is also Apple. Why not get a new battery and hold onto my existing iPhone longer? Especially when the performance goes back to normal and the device isn't so slow after all.
Don't take my argument so literally, by the way. I'm not saying consumers stop buying iPhones. I'm saying Apple's growth ends NOW. They'll post growth in their upcoming quarter and then they will begin to shrink (unless they come up with a new category that's viable). I'm saying the smart phone market has reached its peak. By the way, if Apple comes up with a better battery that lasts longer and costs more, that shrinks their profits and allows customers to hold onto their iPhone longer. You're making my argument and not realizing it.
Apple is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It was bound to happen one of these days. The market got too big, and finally Apple got caught being too greedy in that market. I suppose you could point to how Samsung released a phone that basically exploded and recovered from that with better then ever profits. I'd argue that Samsung handled their situation much better and earned consumer trust (not that they had a choice).
Not saying that I disagree with you, but my point is I think Apple won’t do much about it unless it hurts their pockets. That will only happen if their sales decrease, which I doubt unfortunately.
This situation also concerns me in that I bought the ipad 2017 as a replacement for my old iPad 3. It’s battery still works for Hours and originally thought when I bought it that I could get the same mileage on it as my old iPad 3. Why..? Because it is Apple and not the PC world.
But....
This 2017 model from Apple is considered a “cheap” economy model...so now I expect a cheap not lasting battery since Tim Cook also (it seems) did this to his premium flagship products (iphone) by putting in an inferior (probably cheap to save on costs) battery. I thought this iPad would last long as my iPad 3 did, but it looks like Tim’s Apple is heading for the pc’s laptop 1 or 2 years on a battery etc.
As I have said before, Tim Cook comes from the PC market (Compaq) and was in the purchasing supply chain (If I remember correctly) where their job (and game) is to purchase parts at the lowest cost to reduce manufacturing costs on products (while not lowering the product cost to consumers..i.e makes more profit per product for the company. They get rewarded or bonuses by getting the parts at the lowest costs, saving their company on production, but this also (most of the time) reduces quality and performance. I worked many years ago in the manufacturing industry and saw this being done, especially for important aerospace products that are SUPPOSE to have premium parts due to safety, but in reality, the industry cuts corners to save a buck and the specs on the parts were not exact as the higher costing parts. Same principle....just as long as the part works (for the most part) then use it....as long as they (Apple) can save a “buck”.
I was afraid that because Tim Cook came from that side of manufacturing, he would be tempted to use those same tactics at Apple and I believe now he is doing it. apple is known for quality parts, but I am starting to see that maybe Tim is changing to a high margin, lower parts (quality) costs and keep the premium price tag. I can understand if the products are compaq laptops....but not Apple premium expensive price tag products that are suppose to last for years.
This situation also concerns me in that I bought the ipad 2017 as a replacement for my old iPad 3. It’s battery still works for Hours and originally thought when I bought it that I could get the same mileage on it as my old iPad 3. Why..? Because it is Apple and not the PC world.
But....
This 2017 model from Apple is considered a “cheap” economy model...so now I expect a cheap not lasting battery since Tim Cook also (it seems) did this to his premium flagship products (iphone) by putting in an inferior (probably cheap to save on costs) battery. I thought this iPad would last long as my iPad 3 did, but it looks like Tim’s Apple is heading for the pc’s laptop 1 or 2 years on a battery etc.
As I have said before, Tim Cook comes from the PC market (Compaq) and was in the purchasing supply chain (If I remember correctly) where their job (and game) is to purchase parts at the lowest cost to reduce manufacturing costs on products (while not lowering the product cost to consumers..i.e makes more profit per product for the company. They get rewarded or bonuses by getting the parts at the lowest costs, saving their company on production, but this also (most of the time) reduces quality and performance. I worked many years ago in the manufacturing industry and saw this being done, especially for important aerospace products that are SUPPOSE to have premium parts due to safety, but in reality, the industry cuts corners to save a buck and the specs on the parts were not exact as the higher costing parts. Same principle....just as long as the part works (for the most part) then use it....as long as they (Apple) can save a “buck”.
I was afraid that because Tim Cook came from that side of manufacturing, he would be tempted to use those same tactics at Apple and I believe now he is doing it. apple is known for quality parts, but I am starting to see that maybe Tim is changing to a high margin, lower parts (quality) costs and keep the premium price tag. I can understand if the products are compaq laptops....but not Apple premium expensive price tag products that are suppose to last for years.
This is old but new to me, as I just came across it and could not find it using the search forum feature. The article is pasted from the article appearing on Süddeutsche Zeitung's Paradise Papers website.
Bear in mind nothing here is new info or indeed a behaviour only known to Apple. But if it hasn't been said before as clearly as this, this deserves to be as 'open' as it can be. It's a well-written, eloquent way of public opinion response and one which I hope encourages further corporate responsibility by all. It's a good read - please consider this more a form of sharing information as opposed to an intention to create conflict.
An open letter to Apple's CEO from the Süddeutsche Zeitung's editor-in-chief.
Dear Tim Cook,
You don’t know me, but I know you. Not personally, but from TV, livestreams of your appearances in Cupertino as you unveiled the next iPhone, and of course, from my organization’s newspaper and its website. I am the editor-in-chief of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany’s leading daily and the outlet that obtained the Panama Papers and later the Paradise Papers, which we continue to analyze and report on with colleagues from the New York Times, the Guardian, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and nearly 100 other media organizations.
Yours is one of the most famous and prestigious companies on the planet. Its products are outstanding. The iPhone not only changed the world, it did so faster than virtually any other technological innovation in history. Apple is adored by millions and has achieved cult status. Personally, I have had an iPhone for 10 years. My fingers brush across my iPad every day. At home, a MacBook awaits. If everyone in our newsroom had their choice of work computer and smartphone, I’m confident most people would opt for an Apple device.
My colleagues and I have long followed the debates in the United States and Europe over the taxation of Apple. You, yourself, have often taken a stance on the issue, like you did before the U.S. Senate in 2013. You said at the time that Apple did not “depend on tax gimmicks.” In the Paradise Papers, however, we uncovered information that tarnishes the image of Apple that you try to convey. Questions posed by the Süddeutsche Zeitungand our aforementioned colleagues have gone either unanswered or been met with, at best, tight-lipped platitudes. Why?
Apple employs thousands of excellent, highly qualified engineers, technicians, lawyers, managers and public relations specialists who attended colleges and universities around the world. Many of these institutions of higher education are entirely or partially funded with taxpayer money. Apple directly benefits from the infrastructure – educational or otherwise – that countries maintain. Mr. Cook, you recently told the New York Times that Apple had a “moral responsibility” not only to help grow the U.S. economy, but also “to contribute to the other countries that we do business in.”
Of course we’re aware that Apple is one of the largest taxpayers in the U.S. But what about abroad?
Public filings reveal that between 2010 and 2017, on average, Apple generated two-thirds of its profits outside the U.S. Evidently, it earned $41.1 billion in 2016 and $44.7 billion in 2017. What these filings also show is that since 2010, Apple’s foreign-earned income has been taxed at a rate of between 1 and 7 percent. Mr. Cook, do you believe this comports with the “moral responsibility” you have advocated? Such “tax optimization” – albeit legal – is only possible because specialized law firms such as Appleby devise complex company structures inaccessible to most other firms. Skilled workers, small business owners and employees in most countries outside the U.S., many of whom surely use Apple products, don’t have the means to shirk ordinary taxes.
In Germany, Apple is estimated (you don’t publish the exact figures) to have generated revenues in the billions last year – of which it paid 25 million euros in taxes. In other words, only 0.2 percent of the taxes that Apple paid worldwide ended up here. This does not even remotely stand in relation to the percentage of global sales and profits Apple logged in Germany. I’m sure you can appreciate the difficulty we have explaining this to our readers.
But what unsettles me the most is the way in which Apple instructed a law firm to obtain an “official assurance of tax exemption” from the government of a country. Why do you want that? Why do you feel entitled to not pay any taxes in a country? Did you want to make zero-tax status a precondition for establishing tax residency there? What gives you the right to do so?
And what understanding of democracy are we supposed to discern from the question you had this law firm ask? The one about whether the country had a “credible opposition party” or “movement that may replace the current government?” Were you trying to ensure that you would be able to retain tax-free status even after elections or a change in government?
Mr. Cook, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and our readers are still awaiting answers to a litany of questions.
Apple bills itself as a transparent company. If this is true, then there really isn’t any reason to stay silent, is there?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Krach
Editor-in-Chief, Süddeutsche Zeitung
Bear in mind nothing here is new info or indeed a behaviour only known to Apple. But if it hasn't been said before as clearly as this, this deserves to be as 'open' as it can be. It's a well-written, eloquent way of public opinion response and one which I hope encourages further corporate responsibility by all. It's a good read - please consider this more a form of sharing information as opposed to an intention to create conflict.
An open letter to Apple's CEO from the Süddeutsche Zeitung's editor-in-chief.
Dear Tim Cook,
You don’t know me, but I know you. Not personally, but from TV, livestreams of your appearances in Cupertino as you unveiled the next iPhone, and of course, from my organization’s newspaper and its website. I am the editor-in-chief of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany’s leading daily and the outlet that obtained the Panama Papers and later the Paradise Papers, which we continue to analyze and report on with colleagues from the New York Times, the Guardian, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and nearly 100 other media organizations.
Yours is one of the most famous and prestigious companies on the planet. Its products are outstanding. The iPhone not only changed the world, it did so faster than virtually any other technological innovation in history. Apple is adored by millions and has achieved cult status. Personally, I have had an iPhone for 10 years. My fingers brush across my iPad every day. At home, a MacBook awaits. If everyone in our newsroom had their choice of work computer and smartphone, I’m confident most people would opt for an Apple device.
My colleagues and I have long followed the debates in the United States and Europe over the taxation of Apple. You, yourself, have often taken a stance on the issue, like you did before the U.S. Senate in 2013. You said at the time that Apple did not “depend on tax gimmicks.” In the Paradise Papers, however, we uncovered information that tarnishes the image of Apple that you try to convey. Questions posed by the Süddeutsche Zeitungand our aforementioned colleagues have gone either unanswered or been met with, at best, tight-lipped platitudes. Why?
Apple employs thousands of excellent, highly qualified engineers, technicians, lawyers, managers and public relations specialists who attended colleges and universities around the world. Many of these institutions of higher education are entirely or partially funded with taxpayer money. Apple directly benefits from the infrastructure – educational or otherwise – that countries maintain. Mr. Cook, you recently told the New York Times that Apple had a “moral responsibility” not only to help grow the U.S. economy, but also “to contribute to the other countries that we do business in.”
Of course we’re aware that Apple is one of the largest taxpayers in the U.S. But what about abroad?
Public filings reveal that between 2010 and 2017, on average, Apple generated two-thirds of its profits outside the U.S. Evidently, it earned $41.1 billion in 2016 and $44.7 billion in 2017. What these filings also show is that since 2010, Apple’s foreign-earned income has been taxed at a rate of between 1 and 7 percent. Mr. Cook, do you believe this comports with the “moral responsibility” you have advocated? Such “tax optimization” – albeit legal – is only possible because specialized law firms such as Appleby devise complex company structures inaccessible to most other firms. Skilled workers, small business owners and employees in most countries outside the U.S., many of whom surely use Apple products, don’t have the means to shirk ordinary taxes.
In Germany, Apple is estimated (you don’t publish the exact figures) to have generated revenues in the billions last year – of which it paid 25 million euros in taxes. In other words, only 0.2 percent of the taxes that Apple paid worldwide ended up here. This does not even remotely stand in relation to the percentage of global sales and profits Apple logged in Germany. I’m sure you can appreciate the difficulty we have explaining this to our readers.
But what unsettles me the most is the way in which Apple instructed a law firm to obtain an “official assurance of tax exemption” from the government of a country. Why do you want that? Why do you feel entitled to not pay any taxes in a country? Did you want to make zero-tax status a precondition for establishing tax residency there? What gives you the right to do so?
And what understanding of democracy are we supposed to discern from the question you had this law firm ask? The one about whether the country had a “credible opposition party” or “movement that may replace the current government?” Were you trying to ensure that you would be able to retain tax-free status even after elections or a change in government?
Mr. Cook, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and our readers are still awaiting answers to a litany of questions.
Apple bills itself as a transparent company. If this is true, then there really isn’t any reason to stay silent, is there?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Krach
Editor-in-Chief, Süddeutsche Zeitung
I guess we'll see. I might the underestimating the consumer's apathy towards purchasing items that deliver good value. Still, I couldn't imagine paying $949 for an iPhone 8 Plus for the device to only last a year before it slows down. Maybe they fixed the issue with that model. Maybe the iPad 2017 doesn't have the issue, it has a significantly bigger battery.
But, that's the problem. You just don't know. Now you have doubt about the purchase, and you have doubt about the reliability of Apple as a company. We don't even know what needs to be fixed, or if this is a "normal" deterioration of the battery combined with processors that are more powerful (highly unlikely).
It's going to be interesting to see what the EU does, as I'd imagine there's a strong chance Apple will be fined for a significant amount of money.
But, that's the problem. You just don't know. Now you have doubt about the purchase, and you have doubt about the reliability of Apple as a company. We don't even know what needs to be fixed, or if this is a "normal" deterioration of the battery combined with processors that are more powerful (highly unlikely).
It's going to be interesting to see what the EU does, as I'd imagine there's a strong chance Apple will be fined for a significant amount of money.
If I told you that I am perfectly happy with my MacBook, because I honestly and genuinely never need any ports, except on very rare occasions when I might need to use a USB drive, and just use dongle. And that I value the light weight and portability of the MacBook more than ports?
Would that be me apologising for Apple, or might it simply me my legitimate, and perfectly reasonable opinion of my own, based on my own situation, requirements and preferences?
[doublepost=1514669288][/doublepost]
I thought we knew that it’s an issue with the kind of battery, as it deteriorates.
We do know what needs to be fixed - either the battery tech. Or somehow limiting CPU speed to prevent or minimise crashing under peek CPU use.
I didn’t realise it was kicking in after a year though! I thought it was older than that.
What needs to be fixed is Apple's lack of transparency.
I think that the feature to limit power draw to the battery's current condition is a good thing.
However, what is inexcusable is the lack of an "opt-in/opt-out" for the feature - or even a simple warning that due to the condition of the battery the feature is being enabled.
I have Windows laptops that shift to "low power" mode as the battery drains - along with a system modal popup to warn me that my power management settings are being temporarily modified to stretch the battery life.
My Samsung phones do something similar when the battery gets low - but they warn you that they're going into a power-saving profile.
All he I know is he is quickly turning Apple into another Samsung. Cheap parts, premium price tag. Only difference is how each company got to this point. Apple has always been over priced and catered to hipsters, until the iPod and iPhone exploded in popularity, and Samsung started out as a bargain bin brand that raised their prices when contrarians, who couldn’t be seen owning something popular, had no where else to turn.
The iPhone is ugly because Cook has no eye for fashion, and is a piss poor architect.
Apple products are becoming buggy and defective, because he is buying cheap parts.
The iOS is a mess, because he has to rush everything out the door, because he some disorder where not single nickel can be sacrificed.
He is the reason bean counters should never run companies. Because they’ll turn iconic brands into just another pile of plastic, or in apples case, cheap, scratchable glass.
The iPhone is ugly because Cook has no eye for fashion, and is a piss poor architect.
Apple products are becoming buggy and defective, because he is buying cheap parts.
The iOS is a mess, because he has to rush everything out the door, because he some disorder where not single nickel can be sacrificed.
He is the reason bean counters should never run companies. Because they’ll turn iconic brands into just another pile of plastic, or in apples case, cheap, scratchable glass.
Yeah, it totally makes sense for people who need to [conveniently] hook up lots of things to their laptop, while at home. It might still be odd to those who want to do so while on-the-go, but that's basically because they're trying to be 'old school' and plug in flash drives and such. The ONLY thing relevant that one should need to plug into a laptop is an SD card, so I'll give the complainers one point.
A real 'professional,' though, will have a USB-C display and USB-C storage all ready and his desk, and he can plug in the storage and monitor/s and suddenly have a glowing desktop setup. The users complaining about the laptop should go look on YouTube and see the various videos out there which show people running dual displays and daisy-chained storage from their new MacBook Pros. I'd need a cruddy adapter to plug two displays into either a 1st or 2nd-gen unibody MacBook Pro, and the normal USB ports wouldn't cut it for fast storage. And, can I daisy-chain USB storage? No. I'd need a hub for more USB 2.0/3.0 ports. The fact that USB-C allows for daisy-chaining is awesome.
[doublepost=1514687620][/doublepost]
Yeah, n00bs were getting all upset when Apple stopped including floppy drives within their computers. The same happened when they dropped optical drives. Dropping optical drives was the best thing they could have done; it allowed them to make an infinitely better 2nd-gen unibody MacBook Pro, without the thickness or weight associated with said optical drive. Apple's included optical drives were very faulty anyhow; and, these days, I rarely use DVDs. If I ever do, it's because I need to install some OS onto a machine which—for whatever reason—won't support booting from a flash drive.
There was also NuBus, PCI, ADB, SCSI, FireWire... Someone needed to take the lead in dropping old tech in favor of new to help promote more widespread usage. It just so happens that Apple always seems to be the ones who do it.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but the post I replied to wasn't referring to that.
Apple have already said they are going to take exactly these sorts of steps.
Throughout all of this, are there visual examples online showing real world differences in performance?
It would be interesting to see if it is even that noticeable for most things anyway, or if it only affects more demanding apps / games.
Cook will crater the company over the next 10 years. Once J Ive is gone, the company will totally lose direction as Cook panics looking for the next best thing. Or if Tmim doesn't panic, he will let his various engineering/design division run amok as he helplessly watches on. Tim is NOT a products guy. Even Jobs admitted that much.
*sigh* The sad truth... although, I think Apple is currently better than it was a few years ago. Once they can get a new Mac Mini and Mac Pro (and, hopefully they're good), perhaps their lineup will be much more interesting. Their software isn't what it used to be, but I think that their hardware is steadily improving. OSX itself is doomed, though.
BTW, why would Ive leave?
They won't get a new Mac Pro. I've already put money on it actually. The iMac Pro was the Mac Pro replacement because the Mac Pro enclosure could not contain all of Intel's new high power gear without taking off into orbit. Intel went from 8 cores at 3Ghz to 14 at 3.5. That's twice the draw so minimum of twice the heat (more due to current leak). The new Mac Pro would be much bigger to accommodate the extra fans needed, so apple put a screen on the front so it didn't seem like a backward step.
Did y'all notice that the Tube (MP 6,1) has a 450 watt power supply, and the Imac Pro upped that to 500 watts.
Doesn't sound like 500 is twice 450 to me....
And, BTW, the issue why the Tube failed was GPU power draw, not CPU.
I still think that Apple is gonna make something to replace the Mac Pro. It could possibly be something underwhelming, but I'll bet it's gonna help dig the cylindrical Mac Pro's grave.
Hey, if this waining company can release a new Mac Pro and Mac Mini, that'll be great. I'd say that they've already improved over how they were doing in around 2014 or so. I really was fed up with them when they botched the Mac Mini refresh, introduced Yosemite, etc.
I am not a fan of Mr. Cook, but his team has pinched hit for me more than once. I truly wish they'd stop spreading themselves so utterly thin and get serious about software and hardware. Services do not mean squat to me, I have no interest in iCloud, Apple Music, etc. I just want to be able to create and the mounting bugs and hardware glitches make that increasingly hard to do. The most money they get from me beyond hardware purchases are from iTunes and the app store.
Just bummed. I hope Cook and co. have actually listening to people and stop with the nickle and diming on parts while charging through the nose for stuff that no longer just works.
Just bummed. I hope Cook and co. have actually listening to people and stop with the nickle and diming on parts while charging through the nose for stuff that no longer just works.
Yes, and both totally use thier max TDP all the time too.... wait, what's the main critque of the new MBP i9?
/s
(i9 MBP spends 100% of it's life throttled below even base clock btw)
The problem for the Tube is not max power draw, it's average power draw. 14 cores IS twice the power draw at idle than 8 at idle due to power leakage making up the 2 core deficit (16 would be 2x8), and the fact that the last Intel gen isn't any more power efficient. Macs all warm up to a certain temp and throttle when at 100%, so the net positive cooling that happens is in the idle period.
The iMac Pro was a solution that didn't require Apple to admit failure in a very public fashion, whilst building a new Mac design that had better cooling. The existing MP can't be shelved due to contract guarantees with people they supply, but Tim himself has admitted more privately that Mac Pro redesigns were stalled due to the new 'Big Intel' leaning back toward high TDP chips. You must remember that 8 Cores was being done on Opterons in 2006, and TDP has basically only shrunk since. Everyone knew Intel was sitting on a lot of chops, and AMD made them reveal said chops last year with Ryzen and TR. Before that, when the Tube was made, the top of Intel's Enthusiast range was an 8 Core. Apple basically always get's around about what the best i7 consumer can get in Xeon flavour for entry MP.
Now the best is a 10 core, and with 4.5ghz clocks. A new Coffee iMac isn't really losing anything to a Tube but cooling.