Apple - najbogatija firma na svetu

[Meho Krljic]

Ovo je moglo i na neki drugi topik, al evo ga ovde:

The Techtopus: How Silicon Valley's most celebrated CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers' wages


In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple's Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google's Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other's employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. On February 27, 2005, Bill Campbell, a member of Apple's board of directors and senior advisor to Google, emailed Jobs to confirm that Eric Schmidt "got directly involved and firmly stopped all efforts to recruit anyone from Apple."

Later that year, Schmidt instructed his Sr VP for Business Operation Shona Brown to keep the pact a secret and only share information "verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?"

These secret conversations and agreements between some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley were first exposed in a Department of Justice antitrust investigation launched by the Obama Administration in 2010. That DOJ suit became the basis of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered — an estimated $9 billion effectively stolen by the high-flying companies from their workers to pad company earnings — in the second half of the 2000s. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied attempts by Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe to have the lawsuit tossed, and gave final approval for the class action suit to go forward. A jury trial date has been set for May 27 in San Jose, before US District Court judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the Samsung-Apple patent suit.

In a related but separate investigation and ongoing suit, eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government and the state of California for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period.

The secret wage-theft agreements between Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, and Pixar (now owned by Disney) are described in court papers obtained by PandoDaily as "an overarching conspiracy" in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, and at times it reads like something lifted straight out of the robber baron era that produced those laws. Today's inequality crisis is America's worst on record since statistics were first recorded a hundred years ago — the only comparison would be to the era of the railroad tycoons in the late 19th century.

Shortly after sealing the pact with Google, Jobs strong-armed Adobe into joining after he complained to CEO Bruce Chizen that Adobe was recruiting Apple's employees. Chizen sheepishly responded that he thought only a small class of employees were off-limits:

I thought we agreed not to recruit any senior level employees.... I would propose we keep it that way. Open to discuss. It would be good to agree.

Jobs responded by threatening war:

OK, I'll tell our recruiters they are free to approach any Adobe employee who is not a Sr. Director or VP. Am I understanding your position correctly?

Adobe's Chizen immediately backed down:

I'd rather agree NOT to actively solicit any employee from either company.....If you are in agreement, I will let my folks know.

The next day, Chizen let his folks — Adobe's VP of Human Resources — know that "we are not to solicit ANY Apple employees, and visa versa." Chizen was worried that if he didn't agree, Jobs would make Adobe pay:

if I tell Steve [Jobs] it's open season (other than senior managers), he will deliberately poach Adobe just to prove a point. Knowing Steve, he will go after some of our top Mac talent...and he will do it in a way in which they will be enticed to come (extraordinary packages and Steve wooing).

Indeed Jobs even threatened war against Google early 2005 before their "gentlemen's agreement," telling Sergey Brin to back off recruiting Apple's Safari team:

if you [Brin] hire a single one of these people that means war.

Brin immediately advised Google's Executive Management Team to halt all recruiting of Apple employees until an agreement was discussed.

In the geopolitics of Silicon Valley tech power, Adobe was no match for a corporate superpower like Apple. Inequality of the sort we're experiencing today affects everyone in ways we haven't even thought of — whether it's Jobs bullying slightly lesser executives into joining an illegal wage-theft pact, or the tens of thousands of workers whose wages were artificially lowered, transferred into higher corporate earnings, and higher compensations for those already richest and most powerful to begin with.

Over the next two years, as the tech industry entered another frothing bubble, the secret wage-theft pact which began with Apple, Google and Pixar expanded to include Intuit and Intel. The secret agreements were based on relationships, and those relationships were forged in Silicon Valley's incestuous boards of directors, which in the past has been recognized mostly as a problem for shareholders and corporate governance advocates, rather than for the tens of thousands of employees whose wages and lives are viscerally affected by their clubby backroom deals. Intel CEO Paul Otellini joined Google's board of directors in 2004, a part-time gig that netted Otellini $23 million in 2007, with tens of millions more in Google stock options still in his name — which worked out to $464,000 per Google board event if you only counted the stock options Otellini cashed out — dwarfing what Otellini made off his Intel stock options, despite spending most of his career with the company.

Meanwhile, Eric Schmidt served on Apple's board of directors until 2009, when a DoJ antitrust investigation pushed him to resign. Intuit's chairman at the time, Bill Campbell, also served on Apple's board of directors, and as official advisor — "consigliere" — to Google chief Eric Schmidt, until he resigned from Google in 2010. Campbell, a celebrated figure () played a key behind-the-scenes role connecting the various CEOs into the wage-theft pact. Steve Jobs, who took regular Sunday walks with Campbell near their Palo Alto homes, valued Campbell for his ability "to get A and B work out of people," gushing that the conduit at the center of the $9 billion wage theft suit, "loves people, and he loves growing people."

Indeed. Eric Schmidt has been, if anything, even more profuse in his praise of Campbell. Schmidt credits Campbell for structuring Google when Schmidt was brought on board in 2001:

His contribution to Google — it is literally not possible to overstate. He essentially architected the organizational structure.

Court documents show it was Campbell who first brought together Jobs and Schmidt to form the core of the Silicon Valley wage-theft pact. And Campbell's name appears as the early conduit bringing Intel into the pact with Google:

Bill Campbell (Chairman of Intuit Board of Directors, Co-Lead Director of Apple, and advisor to Google) was also involved in the Google-Intel agreement, as reflected in an email exchange from 2006 in which Bill Campbell agreed with Jonathan Rosenberg (Google Advisor to the Office of CEO and former Senior Vice President of Product Management) that Google should call [Intel CEO] Paul Otellini before making an offer to an Intel employee, regardless of whether the Intel employee first approached Google.

Getting Google on board with the wage-theft pact was the key for Apple from the start — articles in the tech press in 2005 pointed at Google's recruitment drive and incentives were the key reason why tech wages soared that year, at the highest rate in well over a decade.

Campbell helped bring in Google, Intel, and, in 2006, Campbell saw to it that Intuit — the company he chaired — also joined the pact.

From the peaks of Silicon Valley, Campbell's interpersonal skills were magical and awe-inspiring, a crucial factor in creating so much unimaginable wealth for their companies and themselves. Jobs said of Campbell:

There is something deeply human about him.

And Schmidt swooned:

He is my closest confidant...because he is the definition of trust.

Things — and people — look very different when you're down in the Valley. In the nearly 100-page court opinion issued last October by Judge Koh granting class status to the lawsuit, Campbell comes off as anything but mystical and "deeply human." He comes off as a scheming consigliere carrying out some of the drearier tasks that the oligarchs he served were constitutionally not so capable of arranging without him.

But the realities of inequality and capitalism invariably lead to mysticism of this sort, a natural human response to the dreary realities of concentrating so much wealth and power in the hands of a dozen interlocking board members at the expense of 100,000 employees, and so many other negative knock-off effects on the politics and culture of the world they dominate.

One of the more telling elements to this lawsuit is the role played by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who emerges as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the wage-theft scheme. It's almost too perfectly symbolic that Lucas — the symbiosis of Baby Boomer New Age mysticism, Left Coast power, political infantilism, and dreary 19th century labor exploitation — should be responsible for dreaming up the wage theft scheme back in the mid-1980s, when Lucas sold the computer animation division of Lucasfilm, Pixar, to Steve Jobs.

As Pixar went independent in 1986, Lucas explained his philosophy about how competition for computer engineers violated his sense of normalcy — and profit margins. According to court documents:

George Lucas believed that companies should not compete against each other for employees, because

't's not normal industrial competitive situation.' As George Lucas explained, 'I always — the rule we had, or the rule that I put down for everybody,' was that 'we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing.'
Translated, Lucas' wage-reduction agreement meant that Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to a) never cold call each other's employees; b) notify each other if making an offer to an employee of the other company, even if that employee applied for the job on his or her own without being recruited; c) any offer made would be "final" so as to avoid a costly bidding war that would drive up not just the employee's salary, but also drive up the pay scale of every other employee in the firm.

Jobs held to this agreement, and used it as the basis two decades later to suppress employee costs just as fierce competition was driving up tech engineers' wages.

The companies argued that the non-recruitment agreements had nothing to do with driving down wages. But the court ruled that there was "extensive documentary evidence" that the pacts were designed specifically to push down wages, and that they succeeded in doing so. The evidence includes software tools used by the companies to keep tabs on pay scales to ensure that within job "families" or titles, pay remained equitable within a margin of variation, and that as competition and recruitment boiled over in 2005, emails between executives and human resources departments complained about the pressure on wages caused by recruiters cold calling their employees, and bidding wars for key engineers.

Google, like the others, used a "salary algorithm" to ensure salaries remained within a tight band across like jobs. Although tech companies like to claim that talent and hard work are rewarded, in private, Google's "People Ops" department kept overall compensation essentially equitable by making sure that lower-paid employees who performed well got higher salary increases than higher-paid employees who also performed well.

As Intel's director of Compensation and Benefits bluntly summed up the Silicon Valley culture's official cant versus its actual practices,

While we pay lip service to meritocracy, we really believe more in treating everyone the same within broad bands.

The companies in the pact shared their salary data with each other in order to coordinate and keep down wages — something unimaginable had the firms not agreed to not compete for each other's employees. And they fired their own recruiters on just a phone call from a pact member CEO.

In 2007, when Jobs learned that Google tried recruiting one of Apple's employees, he forwarded the message to Eric Schmidt with a personal comment attached: "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this."

Within an hour, Google made a "public example" by "terminating" the recruiter in such a manner as to "(hopefully) prevent future occurrences."

Likewise, when Intel CEO Paul Otellini heard that Google was recruiting their tech staff, he sent a message to Eric Schmidt: "Eric, can you pls help here???"

The next day, Schmidt wrote back to Otellini: "If we find that a recruiter called into Intel, we will terminate the recruiter."

One of the reasons why non-recruitment works so well in artificially lowering workers' wages is that it deprives employees of information about the job market, particularly one as competitive and overheating as Silicon Valley's in the mid-2000s. As the companies' own internal documents and statements showed, they generally considered cold-calling recruitment of "passive" talent — workers not necessarily looking for a job until enticed by a recruiter — to be the most important means of hiring the best employees.

Just before joining the wage-theft pact with Apple, Google's human resources executives are quoted sounding the alarm that they needed to "dramatically increase the engineering hiring rate" and that would require "drain[ing] competitors to accomplish this rate of hiring." One CEO who noticed Google's hiring spree was eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who in early 2005 called Eric Schmidt to complain, "Google is the talk of the Valley because [you] are driving up salaries across the board." Around this time, eBay entered an illegal wage-theft non-solicitation scheme of its own with Bill Campbell's Intuit, which is still being tried in ongoing federal and California state suits.

Google placed the highest premium on "passive" talent that they cold-called because "passively sourced candidates offer[ed] the highest yield," according to court documents. The reason is like the old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to belong to a club that would let you join it — workers actively seeking a new employer were assumed to have something wrong with them; workers who weren't looking were assumed to be the kind of good happy talented workers that company poachers would want on their team.

For all of the high-minded talk of post-industrial technotopia and Silicon Valley as worker's paradise, what we see here in stark ugly detail is how the same old world scams and rules are still operative.

Court documents below...

October 24, 2013 Class Cert Order

[Meho Krljic]

Apple je izgubio poziciju najvrednije firme na svetu. Sada je to Google. Tim Cook će sigurno morati da izvrši hara-kiri.

[ridiculus]

Ček', ček', da ne bude zabune: ti ovde u stvari misliš na brendove, ne na firme... Apple nikad nije bio najvrednija firma na svetu, a kamoli najbogatija.

Pratim Forbes već nekoliko godina, i ne mogu da se setim da sam ikad video Apple na vrhu njihovih godišnjih lista firmi. Imali su najveću tržišnu vrednost, istina, ali ona nije jedini pokazatelj ekonomske moći. Imaš i prihode, profit i imovinu, i tu Apple zaostaje za nekima.

Inače, poslednje dve godine Kinezi RAZVALJUJU. ICBC pre svih.

[Meho Krljic]

Da notiramo najavu novog ajFouna sa par dana zakašnjenja ovim udobnim slešdot samarijem:

Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

Today at Apple's September press conference, they announced the new iPhone 6 models. There are two of them — the iPhone 6 is 4.7" at 1334x750, and the iPhone 6 Plus is 5.5" at 1920x1080. Both phones are thinner than earlier models: 5S: 7.6mm, 6: 6.9mm, 6 Plus: 7.1mm. The phones have a new-generation chip, the 64-bit A8. Apple says the new phones have a 25% faster CPU, 50% faster GPU, and they're 50% more energy efficient (though they were careful to say the phones have "equal or better" battery life to the 5S). Apple upgrade the phones' wireless capabilities, moving voice calls to LTE and also enabling voice calls over Wi-Fi. The phones ship on September 19th, preceded by the release of iOS 8 on September 17th.

Apple also announced its entry into the payments market with "Apple Pay." They're trying to replace traditional credit card payments with holding an iPhone up to a scanner instead. It uses NFC and the iPhone's TouchID fingerprint scanner.  Users can take a picture of their credit cards, and Apple Pay will gather payment information, encrypt it, and store it.  (Apple won't have any of the information about users' credit cards or their purchases, and users will be able to disable the payment option through Find My iPhone if they lose the device.) Apple Pay will work with Visa, Mastercard, and American Express cards to start. 220,000 stores that support contactless payment will accept Apple Pay, and many apps are building direct shopping support for it. It will launch in October as an update for iOS 8, and work only on the new phones.

Apple capped off the conference with the announcement of the long-anticipated "Apple Watch." Their approach to UI is different from most smartwatch makers: Apple has preserved the dial often found on the side of analog watches, using it as a button and an input wheel. This "digital crown" enables features like zoom without obscuring the small screen with fingers. The screen is touch-sensitive and pressure sensitive, so software can respond to a light tap differently than a hard tap.  The watch runs on a new, custom-designed chip called the S1, it has sensors to detect your pulse, and it has a microphone to receive and respond to voice commands. It's powered by a connector that has no exposed contacts — it magnetically seals to watch and charges inductively. The Apple Watch requires an iPhone of the following models to work: 6, 6Plus, 5s, 5c, 5. It will be available in early 2015, and will cost $349 for a base model.

[дејан]

саће се нагледамо и наслушамо како је њи'ов смартњоч суперкул и диван и најбољи и....то све.

[Father Jape]

Meni se već smučilo po FB i Tviteru što gledam poslednjih nekoliko dana ljude kako iznova ismevaju Apple i iPhone. Mlate mrtvu ragu.

[Meho Krljic]

Zanimljivo je i to što ovaj smartwatch makar deluje kao značajno bolji od bilo čega što do sada postoji na tom tržištu. Možda Apple podigne ovaj segment industrije na neki ozbiljniji nivo?

[дејан]

па то може да се деси, несумњиво....али колика је вероватноћа?!

Meni se već smučilo po FB i Tviteru što gledam poslednjih nekoliko dana ljude kako iznova ismevaju Apple i iPhone. Mlate mrtvu ragu.

требало би да промениш друштво!

[дејан]

саће се нагледамо и наслушамо како је њи'ов смартњоч суперкул и диван и најбољи и....то све.

почело је

гизмодо - ево шта експерт за сатове мисли о новом епловом смартњочу

They Nailed The Feel


The overall level of design in the Apple Watch simply blows away anything – digital or analog – in the watch space at $350. There is nothing that comes close to the fluidity, attention to detail, or simple build quality found on the Apple Watch in this price bracket.


They Respected Tradition


The Apple Watch, in its own way, really pays great homage to traditional watchmaking and the environment in which horology was developed. We have to remember that the first timekeeping devices, things like sundials, were dictated by the sun and the stars, as is time to this day. The fact that Apple chose to develop two faces dedicated to the cosmos shows they are, at the very least, aware of the origins and importance of the earliest timekeeping machines, and the governing body of all time and space – the universe.


But It's Still Just Not the Same


My watches will last for generations, this Apple Watch will last for five years, if we're lucky. On an emotional level, you can't compare them, and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this.

цео преглед ође


(морам признати профи - за све паре)

[ridiculus]

Apple prijavio zaradu od 18 milijardi dolara u prethodnom kvartalu!

[Meho Krljic]

Apple se sprema da uleti u privrednu granu striminga muzike:
Apple, The Record Label?

You better believe that when Apple's streaming music service comes out later this year, it's going to come hard. Apple's MO is to arrive late but with superior firepower, as it did with the iPhone and will with the upcoming Apple Watch. What does that mean for its quest to steamroll Spotify, Google Play, Deezer, and everyone else in streaming? I'd bet part of it will be big exclusives, offering music you can't stream anywhere else.

Apple denied unsubstantiated rumors that it would acquire Taylor Swift's label Big Machine this weekend, but that idea doesn't seem so far-fetched. Yes, The Beatles' label happened to be called Apple Records, but what if Apple Computer got into the business of owning music itself?


Swifty is already a staunch iTunes ally. She famously pulled her catalogue from Spotify last year because she disagreed with their royalty payment structure, while managing to get her new album 1989 featured for sale on iTunes. I've heard that that actually gave a ton of mainstream press exposure to Spotify, along the lines of "Wait, there's a free way to listen to all of music except for Taylor Swift? I'm in."

But this situation looks a lot worse for Spotify if it faces a competing streaming service where people can shake it off on repeat. Taylor Swift got even more popular tonight thanks to the Grammys.

Spotify and the other existing streaming services are going to have a hard enough time competing with Apple's play already. iTunes is said to have over 800 million credit cards on file and is available in nearly 150 countries. Compare that to the Spotify's 15 million paying subscribers and roughly 60 countries of operation.

Oh, and then there's those 1 billion iOS devices sold. If iTunes' streaming app comes pre-installed in the next generation of iPhones and iPads, it could leapfrog Spotify's user base over night.

The always well-sourced Mark Gurman of 9To5Mac says the new Apple streaming service will be deeply integrated into iOS, iTunes, and Apple TV, plus will be available on Android. And to make it even harder on competitors, Gurman says the price point under consideration is $7.99 a month, which would undercut the $9.99 a month cost of Google Play Music and Spotify's paid tier.
For Your Ears Only
And then there's the potential for exclusives. Music execs tell me that artist managers and labels are constantly trying to pitch exclusivity deals to iTunes in return for being featured in its store. They'll do the same to get highlighted in Apple's streaming service.

The question is just how aggressive Apple will get with this strategy. Would it buy artists, their master recordings, or entire labels to box out its competitors? The risk is that other artists or labels might think Apple is playing favorites with people it has deals with. But Apple arguably already does this in the app world, pre-loading its own media and productivity apps on iOS and promoting them when possible.


Imagine if Apple could lock up exclusive streaming deals with Taylor Swift or Coldplay, two artists it's been very chummy with in the past, or its own employee Dr. Dre? Apple already has an exclusive digital sales deal with The Beatles for iTunes. If Apple can convince their representatives to let iTunes be the first and only ones to stream the fab four's masterpieces, it could go a long way to attracting mainstream listeners. 
Luckily, Apple's got music industry legend and super-connector Jimmy Iovine to convince artists its the smartest move. The company has also staffed up with many former label execs Being the sole place to stream these musicians could lure plenty of fans to an on-demand iTunes service.

Spotify has already used a similar strategy to seduce rock'n'roll fans. It struck deals to get streaming hold-outs like Led Zeppelin, Napster-haters Metallica on its platform. Perhaps it will be the one to go the next step and sign artists. Spotify incubating a set of indie artists on the cusp of popularity seems plausible. To fend off Apple, Spotify will have to rely on its free ad-supported tier, focus on product and personalization, and its burgeoning ecosystem of third-party apps that piggyback on its legal music subscription.

Despite its advantages, Apple will likely have to navigate the complication of simultaneously offering music download sales and streaming. To many more casual listeners, the idea that they're slowly amassed MP3 collection will suddenly be devalued in the face of limitless streaming will be a shock. It's efforts with iTunes Radio didn't pan out so well in part because teaching new tricks to its audience of old dogs isn't easy. Music listening is a huge market too, so there's likely to be room for multiple players with different focuses, like catalogue, product features, and curation that appeal to different segments.

Still, Apple revolutionized the music biz, for better or worse, with the songs a la carte model of iTunes, and it has the leverage to do it again.
Apps Over Labels
The value that record labels provide is dwindling. The last two crucial services they provide are distribution to physical stores and FM radio promotion. Artists need both to become superstars today, but online alternatives to those channels are quickly growing.

That's placing more of the value creation around record music in the hands of full-stack management agencies like Red Light and Zeitgeist. They handle merchandise, touring, digital, and brand sponsorship where the big bucks get earned as recorded music becomes a promotional vehicle for other revenue streams.

The shifting role of record labels could make artists more open to experimenting with an idea like signing directly with a streaming service, or getting their label to cut a significant exclusivity or acquisition deal with one.

Music is game where Apple could get a lot out of throwing its money around, while the relatively tiny, private Spotify lacks the cash and Google seems to lack the will to keep up. Plenty have joked that Apple could buy all of recorded music with its massive treasure chest. But to win streaming, it might just need control of a fraction of it.

[Meho Krljic]

Heh, svinje ostaju svinje:



Apple Shines Spotlight On Unsigned Artist... Who Doesn't Exist

Monday morning's Apple Keynote address brought the usual high production value we're used to from these events.  After two hours of operating system demos, explanations of updates to Apple Maps, developer software and Apple Pay, Tim Cook wrapped up the keynote with Steve Jobs' classic "One More Thing" moment.  He announced Apple Music by exclaiming, "It will change the way you experience music forever."
Interscope Records / Beats by Dre co-founder and all around music industry mogul, Jimmy Iovine, was welcomed to the stage to introduce Apple Music.  Just over a year after Apple bought Beats for $3 Billion (ushering Iovine and Dre into the Apple family), Apple finally unveiled their subscription streaming service – nearly 7 years after Spotify launched.
Apple Music will include many of the features Spotify and Tidal recently unveiled like video and artist profiles, exclusives and content (they previewed hand written lyrics, a studio tour by Bastille, and a live performance video by Alabama Shakes (who just put out my favorite album of the year, Sound and Color...seriously stop what you're doing and go check this incredible piece of art out)).
Drake came on stage and fumbled through a speech about nothing that was only meant to show the Tidal crew that they have heavy hitters on their side as well.  In addition to the aforementioned acts, they highlighted other huge artists like Pharrell, Florence and the Machine, Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars, Bruce Springsteen, Aretha Franklin, and ended with a performance by The Weeknd.
One of the biggest criticisms of the botched Tidal Launch was that the superstar, millionaire "owners" who include Jay Z, Beyonce, Coldplay, Arcade Fire, Rihanna, Calvin Harris, Jack White, Kanye West, Madonna and deadmau5, asked fans to pay them more money exclaiming that artists will get a bigger cut of the streaming revenue than their competitors.  But, and this is a big Kardashian but, unsigned, independent artists were completely absent from the presentation.  The artists who are working their asses off every single day, on their own, attempting to make a living with their art (who actually NEED higher streaming royalties), did not have a place at the Tidal table.  Only after the uproar, did Tidal launch "Tidal Rising" to attempt to correct its ways.
+Apple, Spotify and Tidal All Miss The Point. This Is The Future Of Recorded Music
Well, Apple was listening and senior VP of Intel Software and Services, Eddy Cue, stood on stage and proudly proclaimed that "even unsigned artists" will be able to upload their content to Apple Music profiles (kind of like they already do for Instagram, Twitter and Facebook).  Then he did something amazing, he highlighted an unsigned artist on stage and played a snippet of his new song.  Finally, a major tech company is looking out for the unsigned artists who are working tirelessly to make a full-time music career a reality!
Except, the "unsigned artist" the Apple senior VP played during the 2015 Keynote, Loren Kramar, doesn't actually exist. Well, maybe there's a guy named Loren Kramar who kinda plays guitar and has written a song or two.  But this is not a working musician.  And definitely not the unsigned artist they should have featured.  With such a large stage at one of the most pivotal moments in Apple music history, Apple chose not to feature one of the thousands of unsigned, full-time musicians from around the globe with an actual music career, but some 26 year old visual artist (and magazine editor) from NYC who has zero existence as a musician on the web.  No videos on YouTube.  No Facebook Page.  No releases on Spotify or iTunes.  No history of performing live.  And a Twitter account which launched two hours ago.  Impeccable timing.


Turns out Loren Kramar's friend/manager (?) is Joe Weinberger, who used to be an A&R rep under Jimmy Iovine at Interscope.  So Jimmy went to his old friend Joe and said "hey buddy, find me an unsigned artist we can feature at WWDC to make us look like we care about unsigned artists."  And then Joe went to Loren and said, "yo dude, you got that song written yet? Let's quickly get it recorded so Jimmy can get it played at WWDC and then we turn you into a star. How bout it?!"


The only thing worse than omitting unsigned artists from the discussion, is showcasing an unsigned artist who doesn't yet exist – then patting yourself on the back for it. Apple has long been criticized for being out of touch – especially after the horrendous U2 album debacle where they forced it into everyone's album collection whether they liked it or not.  But this is beyond being out of touch.  This is flat out deceptive.
And it just goes to show that Apple, in fact, doesn't care about unsigned artists. Jimmy Iovine cares about making his friends, his company and himself rich.  And that's it.  Because if Apple (or Iovine) actually cared about helping unsigned artists, they would have chosen any of the thousands, literally thousands, out there who are incredible artists with loyal fan bases, but still unsigned.
Hell, you could have gone to venue owners or arts and entertainment weekly newspapers in any major city around the globe and asked them who their favorite new acts are.  You could have checked in on Hypem.com to see who's trending.  You could have popped into any number of your small San Francisco music venues (just an hour from Cupertino) hosting great local music every night of the week.  Or you could have gone to the various management companies who are working to get their new acts traction.
Why not feature metal-pop band out of Milwaukee, Lost In A Name, who are hitting a 10 state tour this Summer and just released an incredible new song (self recorded and self released)?  Or how about Philly's retro-hillbilly-rock act Low Cut Connie who just got a favorable review in Rolling Stone and regularly tours the country.  Or Nina Storey, who has performed with Etta James, Sara Bareilles and Keb' Mo' and has 6 albums under her belt.  Or YouTube star David Choi (with a million YouTube subscribers) who regularly tours independently to packed clubs around the world.  Or Ron Pope, who has sold over 1.5 million downloads on iTunes, has 60 million Spotify streams and 50 million YouTube views. Or NYC's Secret Someones, now on tour supporting Ingrid Michaelson, or Minneapolis' Rogue Valley, who had a song featured on The Secret Life of Walter Mitty soundtrack and also tour regularly.
See, as a truly "unsigned artist" who has built my career on my own, touring relentlessly and navigating the ever-changing music industry (and has followed the careers of or played with the above artists), it's a direct insult to us when you slap us in the face with this "artist" who hasn't put in the blood sweat and tears like we have (or even released just a single song). Who doesn't know what it's like to put up posters in the dead of winter, forgo eating out (or eating much at all) so we can pay for 1,000 replicated CDs to sell on tour.  To book a 60 date tour, without a booking agent, and then promote that tour (without a promoter) and actually turn it into a success.  To spend most of our days not just writing, recording and creating, but emailing blogs, music supervisors, venues, managers, agents, promoters, labels and music tech companies to attempt to get a feature (or a better understanding of how to advance our careers).  To self fund (or crowdfund) albums and music videos only to see them bounce around the local music scenes or blogosphere because we don't have the marketing budget to compete with the labels.
But the great, unsigned artists who are doing this, who are putting in the work, are doing it because they want to have a career in music.  They know that if they don't do this, no one else will (initially) and they won't get out of their garage.  And it's working.  Poo poo their numbers all you want, but they're making a living doing what they love and have a fan base who love what they do.
But the executives at Apple don't realize this.  They (just like everyone else completely out of touch with the NEW music industry) believe that you go from working a day job and playing guitar in your bedroom, to a record deal, topping the charts.  That's what American Idol would like us to believe.  They don't see the movement of TRUE unsigned artists ACTUALLY making it work – on their own (or with kickass managers by their side).
+Rock Musicians: Click here if you want to reach Rock and College Radio Stations! Spotify includes unsigned artists in their official curated playlists (with millions of playlist subscribers) which boost the artists' followings (and bank accounts).  They also include merch on artist profiles and are rumored to unveil fan connectivity and analytics in the near future.  Tidal has their "Tidal Rising" program to feature new, unsigned artists and has also publicly stated they will give artists complete access to their analytics and fan data.  Pandora has their "Amp" platform which allows artists to see their complete fan analytics (however they don't have ways to connect with those fans), and Rhapsody now sends out concert push notifications.
+BandPage and Rhapsody Usher In "...The New Era Of The Music Industry"
What are you actually doing for unsigned artists, Apple?  Are you going to give us our listener analytics like play counts, locations (to help route tours), email addresses (like BandCamp does), merch offerings (like Spotify and Rhapsody do)? Are you going to notify our fans when we're coming to town with ticket links?  Are you going to give us ways to sell experiences (like meet and greets) to help buffer ticket sales for our initial money losing tours?  Are you going to give us crowd funding features?  Other than asking us to give you MORE content like photos, in studio sneak peaks, videos, behind the scenes footage, lyrics, etc, what are you you going to do for us?  Besides paying us a (most likely) incredibly low streaming royalty rate?
That's something else Apple failed to mention.  How much are you paying artists (not labels) per stream?  So Apple users can sign up for Apple Music for $9.99 a month or $14.99 a month for a family plan.  What do we see from that?  Is it the same black box pot of money divvied up amongst major labels first, independent labels second and unsigned artists last (if there's anything left) that has become standard in the streaming world?  Or are you going to treat every artist the same?  Fairly.
I am the first to encourage fellow independent artists to look long term and not make every decision based on immediate financial gain, but artists will cease to become artists if we can't make enough to live on.  So, Apple, I ask again, how are you truly going to help unsigned artists sustain a music career?  Besides showcasing one at your keynote and hope people don't notice what you just did.
Ari Herstand is a Los Angeles based singer/songwriter and the creator of the music biz advice blog, Ari's Take. Follow him on Twitter: @aristake

[Meho Krljic]

Idemo dalje sa Apple Music šenaniganima.

  Apple Music: The 5 big problems it needs to fix before launch

Apple Music's launch is just 11 days away.

When Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine revealed the streaming service at WWDC last week, it generated considerable excitement.

And why not?

Finally, Spotify was going to get some real streaming competition.

Apple clearly showed it still believes in the pulling power of music and its stars, which could only mean one thing: a ginormous marketing push from one of the world's biggest corporations – with the sole aim of reminding people of the power of songs.

http://youtu.be/Y1zs0uHHoSw

But then, the backlash began.

As we stand today, less than two weeks before Apple Music pops into the hands of Johnny Public, it has some serious problems.

Problems that could mean the difference between the biggest launch in digital music history... and not that.

Problems that could confuse and annoy consumers.

Problems that must make Daniel Ek say: 'Oh. Ok.'

Here are five of the worst offenders:
1) Adele
Let's cut to the chase.

Yes, independent labels from around the world are understandably aggrieved that Apple is, so far, refusing to compensate them for its three-month free trial. (A trial worth somewhere in the region of $4bn in would-be royalties.)

And, yes, that could feasibly mean that albums representing a frightening 30% of the market simply aren't available at launch.

Jamie XX and Caribou would be much-missed. Arctic Monkeys would sting. The Prodigy would leave a sizeable hole.

But let's not pretend that one name doesn't stand out above all others.

She's the biggest music star on the planet – and she just happens to be signed to an independent.

Adele, whose 21 and 19 are on XL/Beggars' roster – and whose third album is due, well, whenever she likes, really – will be one of most searched-for names on Apple Music's first day.

What if she's not there?

That's exactly what could happen should Beggars boss Martin Mills (in consultation with his labels and artists) decides that Apple Music's three-month trial isn't worth his catalogue.

Here's the really scary thought: How could Apple even risk Adele not being on its service?

Could it plausibly be true that Apple simply didn't understand this could happen?

Speculation amongst the indies suggests that the majors have received a softener (or a 'bung', depending on how emotive you want to be) for use of their entire catalogue during the three-month free window.

It makes sense. Remember, conspiracy theorists, this doesn't have to be cold, hard cash.

It could be promotional pledges, or some other form of payment in kind.

Surely, surely, surely, surely Jimmy Iovine et al weren't duped into thinking that – because she is licensed to Columbia in the US – Adele is a Sony artist?

A $780bn company has to be smarter than that.

Has to be.

Right?


  2) Everybody else
Here's the troubling truth when it comes to the fallout from this royalty-free three-month window: it's not only indie labels who are unhappy.

Independent music publishers are just as aggrieved, and just as reticent to sign up.

And the publishers not playing ball is even more of a danger sign for Apple Music than the will-she-won't-she Adele story.

MBW understands that at least two of the major music publishers, UMPG and Warner/Chappell, have licensed Apple Music.

These negotiations were probably led by commercial reps of their parents, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group.

(At Warner, that likely fell to COO Rob Wiesenthal... who left the company a fortnight after the major inked Apple Music's contract. Interesting.)

As for Sony/ATV, they're a more autonomous unit: 50% owned by Sony Music Entertainment, but 50% owned by other parties. As such, that's less of an obvious story. (Marty Bandier will want the best deal for Marty Bandier's songwriters; of that we can be sure.)

But here's a shocker of which we're more certain: Apple hasn't reached any agreements with any European collection societies for Apple Music.

You read that right.

This is effectively why Cupertino's finest is striking licensing deals direct with the major publishers and the major labels. On the surface, it's a simpler way to do things.

(As for what counts as mechanical rights and performance rights when Apple is boasting about running a live worldwide radio station... it's complicated. CMOs will likely have to get involved at some point.)

But where, you inevitably ask, does that leave the indie publishers?

Surely they need some kind of collective representation to do a neat and tidy deal?

Precisely.

In the UK, for instance, IMPEL – through PRS For Music – is locked in negotiations with Apple right now. And its members are every bit as peeved about getting no royalties for three months as their label counterparts.

These members include the publishing operations of Beggars, Mute, Warp, Kassner, Wixen (UK) and many more.

(Kobalt, something of an independent even amongst the independents, is also yet to sign – although it's understood to be optimistic of striking a deal before launch).

The problem for Apple when it comes to indie publishers is that, unlike record companies, their rights are scattered throughout the world's biggest hits like shrapnel.

So, for instance, without UK indie Bucks Music – a member of IMPEL – you can't technically license all of Ed Sheeran's material, because their writer Amy Wadge deserves a say.

The same goes for other indies when it comes to albums from Adele, Ellie Goulding, Emeli Sande and many, many more: all beneficiaries of the work independent songwriters, who in turn own a slice of their copyrights.

Shorthand: the day the music industry started encouraging its chart stars to use behind-the-scenes professional songwriters, organising (and clearing) rights became much more complicated.

Apple is finding out just how much more complicated as you read this.

"The really worrying thing is that Apple simply might be forced to launch unlicensed," one indie publisher told MBW.

"We're not going to risk the lights going off on our business because Apple wants to do something for free."

Eeek!


  3) Apple Connect
"We have just licensed SoundCloud after years of back and forth.

"What, exactly, do Apple reckon we make of them encouraging our artists to give stuff away for free?"

That's what an independent label boss told MBW yesterday.

It echoes slightly less flagrant commentary from Beggars Group, which told its partners in a statement this week:

"We have reservations about both commercial and practical aspects of the Artist Connect area...

"It is a mistake to treat these rights as royalty free, especially in the light of recent licenses with services like Soundcloud."

As MBW noted a couple of days after Apple Music launched, photos, song lyrics, videos from the studio, snippets of new tracks, demos... it's all 'cool stuff' which Apple wants artists to give away to their fans for free.

But to labels, it isn't just 'cool stuff'.

It's assets. And assets have value.

On this count, you have to suspect Apple knows what it's doing.

It wants to get closer to artists, because people love artists.

Apple just wants to be loved. Pesky record companies must not be allowed stand in the way of true romance!

It also wants to sell some phones.

Yet if Apple Connect infuriates rights-holders the way SoundCloud did (before attempting to go a bit legit) – if artists give away 'cool stuff' to fans which record company execs see as 'bonus content' – then Apple may well have a war on its hands.

And so, just like with SoundCloud, recordings and assets may start to magically disappear from Apple Connect once they've been posted.

Apple may have to publicly atone.

The words 'takedown policy' may be uttered on tech sites.

Not a good look for anyone.


  4) Sonos
Apple Music won't work properly with Sonos devices.

You knew that, right?

Go and read the blog Sonos boss John MacFarlane posted on MBW yesterday.

His views might make a bit more sense now.

Apple owns Beats devices. It paid $3bn for them. Beats is a Sonos rival.

What a hot and spicy little conundrum.

"Only those music services that provide a true home solution will be successful in the long term," said MacFarlane.

Ahem.


  5) The small matter of The Beatles and Taylor Swift
Remember when Jimmy Iovine said the music industry had pathetically tied itself in knots?

What was his exact phrasing? Oh yes: "The music industry is a fragmented mess."

Well if that's true, how's about launching a music service without:

   
• (a) The most popular artist (album) of now;
• (b) The most popular artist of the past decade;
• (c) The most popular artist of all time?

Because that's what appears to be happening with Apple Music.

No Taylor. No Adele. No Beatles.

Pretty messy.

Pretty fragmented.

People accept it from Spotify. People don't expect it from Apple.

For fun proof of just how much this could deflate Apple Music's streaming platform, let's play the "but you don't have The Beatles" game.

Jimmy Iovine will recognise it because – as a man who worked with John Lennon – it must have reverberated around his mind every time he got pumped up at WWDC.

"Guys, can we build a bigger and better ecosystem with the elegance and simplicity that only Apple can do?"

"Yes Jimmy, but you don't have The Beatles."

"One complete thought around music!"

"A complete thought without The Beatles."

"That's why we're at Apple; to help artists' dreams be realised."

"The best dreams sound like The Beatles."



So... if Apple wants to make Apple Music as brilliant as it can be, it needs to fix all of these problems in 11 days.

That seems like a super-human task.

If only there was a simple, one-hit solution that would make all of these headaches go away.

What's that? Apple has just under $200bn in cash reserves?

There must be a way Apple can sort all of this out.

There's just got to be.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.Music Business Worldwide

[Meho Krljic]

Appleova odluka da svoj Apple Music striming servis omili konzumentima tako što će im ga dati prva tri meseca za dž deluje velikodušno...


...osim što se onda setite da je Apple rešio da ni umetnici zastupljeni na tom servisu neće za ta tri meseca dobiti ni pare. Lukavo.

Tejlor Svift se uključila u bekleš koji je ovo izazvalo.



Taylor Swift denigrates Apple Music as 'shocking, disappointing'

There are only a few days until Apple Music launches, but already there is quite a backlash against the music streaming service. It's not just smaller, independent labels that are complaining about Apple's refusal to pay artists any royalties during the initial three month free trial period. Taylor Swift has added her voice to the growing number of complainants, writing an open letter to Apple in which she says she will withhold her new album 1989 from the service.
In the letter, entitled "To Apple, Love Taylor", the singer says that the company's decision not to make royalty payments is "shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company". Swift is an artist who could afford to shoulder the cost of three months of not being paid by Apple, but she has chosen to make a stand and stick up for those who are less fortunate.


She acknowledges that Apple has been an important partner in helping her to sell her music, but feels that the financial arrangements that will be in place during the free trial period of Apple Music are unacceptable. While recognizing that Apple is ultimately aiming towards paying artists through the paid-for streaming service, Swift says that the current business model is harmful to smaller, up and coming artists.
Writing on her Tumblr blog, she said:

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field...but will not get paid for a quarter of a year's worth of plays on his or her songs.

She took to Twitter to spread word of the letter:
Echoing sentiments expressed by independent record labels, Swift writes, "three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing". She calls for the company to rethink its policy before musicians are badly affected by it. She ends the letter by saying:

We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple je na kraju poklekao pred lobističkim moćima Tejlor  Svift i platiće umetnike i tokom perioda besplatnog striminga.

[дејан]

или је све то била добро организована кампања?
на много места, чак и на бизнис инсајдеру се говорило о томе. с'обзиром да никако не успевам да будем довољно циничан колико је овај свет покварен помишљам да је ово био још једна од лукавих манипулација ПР магова.

[Meho Krljic]

Imajući na umu da se svakom živom marketing-profesionalcu ekstremno diže na viralni marketing, naravno da ovo ne treba odbaciti kao mogućnost.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple conspired to fix e-book prices: U.S. appeals court

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a judge's ruling that Apple Inc (AAPL.O) had conspired with five publishers to increase e-book prices, in a win for the U.S. Justice Department.By a 2-1 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the conspiracy violated federal antitrust law, and that the judge acted properly two years ago in imposing an injunction to prevent a recurrence. The ruling would force Apple to pay consumers $450 million under a 2014 settlement of a class action with 33 state attorneys general and lawyers, unless it files another appeal and wins. The settlement was contingent on Apple's civil liability being upheld."While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values," Apple said in a statement. "We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next steps."Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston said Apple's actions "unreasonably restrained trade," rejecting arguments that the company acted independently with its own business interests in mind."The district court did not err in concluding that Apple was more than an innocent bystander," Livingston wrote.


Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer welcomed the ruling, which he said "confirms that it is unlawful for a company to knowingly participate in a price-fixing conspiracy, whatever its specific role in the conspiracy or reason for joining it."The appeal followed a July 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan that Apple played a "central role" in a conspiracy with publishers to eliminate retail price competition and raise e-book prices.The Justice Department, which secured the ruling following a non-jury trial, said the scheme caused some e-book prices to rise to $12.99 or $14.99 from the $9.99 price charged by market leader Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O). The publishers that the Justice Department said conspired with Apple include Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group Inc, News Corp's HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Penguin Group Inc, CBS Corp's Simon & Schuster Inc and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH's Macmillan.Professor Keith Hylton of Boston University School of Law said Tuesday's ruling endorsed an "expansive view" of the law by allowing Apple to be held liable under a less-stringent standard than it advocated."The DOJ could feel emboldened in pursuing those cases with this theory of conspiracy," he said. In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said he would have reversed Cote's 2013 ruling, finding that Apple's behavior was pro-competitive in taking on Amazon, which controlled 90 percent of the market."Apple took steps to compete with a monopolist and open the market to more entrants, generating only minor competitive restraints in the process," Jacobs wrote.But Livingston said Jacobs' theory "endorses a concept of marketplace vigilantism that is wholly foreign to the antitrust laws."The case is U.S. v. Apple Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-3741.

[Meho Krljic]

Woz se sada, kada Jobsa već godinama nema na zemlji, odvažio da kaže:

Steve Jobs played no role at all in any of my designs of the Apple I and Apple II computer and printer interfaces and serial interfaces and floppy disks and stuff that I made to enhance the computers. He did not know technology. He'd never designed anything as a hardware engineer, and he didn't know software. He wanted to be important, and the important people are always the business people. So that's what he wanted to do.
The Apple II computer, by the way, was the only successful product Apple had for its first 10 years, and it was all done, for my own reasons for myself, before Steve Jobs even knew it existed.
He does however point out that his partnership Jobs was important. A great product wouldn't do anyone any good unless it sells - and for that you need a company:
"So it's very important, even if you are not a business man, find someone who is."

[Father Jape]

Dakle Džobs je bio Džo Makmilan. :3

[Meho Krljic]

Videćemo da li će Makmilan iu drugoj sezoni da razvije Džobsove moći socijalne prekognicije i odnosnog dizajniranja. Ali u suštini, ovo i jeste nešto što se zna i što Apple sledbenici manje-više smatraju za kanonsko znanje - Woz je bio inženjer, Jobs prodavac. Vele da je Jobs i posao u Atariju dobio kada im je pokazao Wozovu ploču sa njegovim klonom Ponga, a Bushnell pomislio da je Jobs ovo sam dizajnirao itd. No, fakat je da je Jobs pokazao da razume socijalnu komponentu dizajna i inženjeringa bolje nego praktično iko na svetu i da Apple ne bi bio tu gde jeste bez njega.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple je najavio ajFoun 6 ali to znate. No, još koješta je tu najavljeno:

iPad Pro: Everything You Need to Know About Apple's New 12.9-Inch Mega Tablet

Apple TV Is Getting A Gaming Remote

The New Apple TV Is an App-Powered Fun Machine

i 

Apple's So-Called Gaming Console Is A Major Bust

[ridiculus]

Samo da ukažem da sam u jednom članku iz Forbes-a, od pre više meseci, pročitao argument da "rich" i "wealthy" nisu isto. Nešto u vezi razlike izmedju kontrole i posedovanja, ali više se ne sećam šta je šta. Pokušaću da pronadjem citat.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple Purchases AI company Emotient to read users' expressions

In its first acquisition of 2016, Apple has purchased an artificial intelligence company called Emotient for an undisclosed amount.


Emotient, a San Diego-based company, presents themselves as 'the leader in emotion detection and sentiment analysis', which can be used to help organizations understand audience reactions to their products, services, and marketing.
Emotient uses facial expressions to analyze people's emotions; then converts this analysis to quantitative data to gauge consumer reactions to marketing and media. This offers a more statistically comparable alternative to the standard focus group, which relies heavily on feelings and impressions to measure consumer reactions. With software that can translate a mushy emotion into a quantifiable KPI (key performance indicator), people's reactions to a specific input can be broken down and then compared to others in a measurable way.
Emotient does two specific things: it uses AI software to break down micro-emotions shown on each face in a video frame, then they quantify that into three indicators: is the subject  paying attention to the advertising, are they emotionally engaged, and are they showing a positive or negative emotion?
Second, last September they received a new patent which anonymizes individual faces before they are processed for emotions and reactions, thereby protecting consumer privacy. A co-founder of Emotient who was an author of the patent stated, "Our goal is to provide avenues for people to express their feelings about content in an anonymous, effortless and scalable manner." The patent covers "sophisticated pixelating or blurring of an individual's features while retaining the expressive information before transmitting, so identity is never seen or captured, let alone transmitted."
There are some obvious applications of Emotient technology for Apple. First, it could improve analytics through its existing iAd program, using the front-facing camera on a mobile device to capture consumer input and custom-tailor advertising.  But Apple could also use emotional recognition in its Health app; as facial expression has long been a valuable indicator of pain in a hospital setting. Or the Emotient technology could be used in Apple's retail locations, to hone on-site marketing as well.
This isn't Apple's first foray into facial recognition marketing plans. In January 2014, Apple submitted a patent application for targeted content delivery by inferring a person's mood, and tailoring content based on that inferred mood.

[Meho Krljic]

Da sam ja neka vlast, Apple bi kompjutere pravio u Americi a ne u tamo nekim Kinama... kaže Donald Tramp, čovek koji se pravi da ne zna kako stoje stvari:



Donald Trump says he's going to make Apple build computers in the US

If elected, presidential candidate Donald Trump plans to make Apple start "building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."
Trump's ultimatum to the most valuable company in the world was made towards the end of a 45-minute speech he gave at Liberty University in Virginia on Monday.
The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States, as noted by Gizmodo.
Apple has manufactured its Mac Pro at a factory in Texas since 2013, but the vast majority of its products (including the iPhone) are largely made and assembled in China.
How Trump would force Apple's supply chain, which relies heavily on a vast network of suppliers and large factories throughout Asia, to be brought stateside remains unknown. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently called the U.S. tax code "awful for America."
You can watch Trump's full speech at Liberty University on C-SPAN.

U svemu ovome je najslađe kako se Tramp ni ne trudi da diskutuje zašto američke kompanije prave stvari u Kini, dok se Kuk, šatro, poziva na poreze (koje većina kompanija veličine uporedive sa Appleom ionako izbegava na briljantne načine). Jeftina - često dečija - radna snaga i mnogo labavija regulativa rada sa tim nemaju nikakve veze, naravno 

[Meho Krljic]

Appleove svinjarije o kojima je ovih dana pisala i Politika svode se na to da, ako ste popravljali telefon negde drugde a ne kod ovlašćenog Apple servisera (koji je skup i često ništa i ne popravlja) a instalirali ste novu verziju operativnog sistema, sad u rukama imate  ekstremno fensi dizajniranu ciglu. Naravno ,sasvim je moguće da ovo nije iz zle namere već da se radi o brljotini, no ostaje da Apple ovde svoje korisnike propisno urpopasti.

'Error 53' fury mounts as Apple software update threatens to kill your iPhone 6

It's the message that spells doom and will render your handset worthless if it's been repaired by a third party. But there's no warning and no fix

Thousands of iPhone 6 users claim they have been left holding almost worthless phones because Apple's latest operating system permanently disables the handset if it detects that a repair has been carried out by a non-Apple technician.

Relatively few people outside the tech world are aware of the so-called "error 53" problem, but if it happens to you you'll know about it. And according to one specialist journalist, it "will kill your iPhone".

The issue appears to affect handsets where the home button, which has touch ID fingerprint recognition built-in, has been repaired by a "non-official" company or individual. It has also reportedly affected customers whose phone has been damaged but who have been able to carry on using it without the need for a repair.

But the problem only comes to light when the latest version of Apple's iPhone software, iOS 9, is installed. Indeed, the phone may have been working perfectly for weeks or months since a repair or being damaged.

After installation a growing number of people have watched in horror as their phone, which may well have cost them £500-plus, is rendered useless. Any photos or other data held on the handset is lost – and irretrievable.

Tech experts claim Apple knows all about the problem but has done nothing to warn users that their phone will be "bricked" (ie, rendered as technologically useful as a brick) if they install the iOS upgrade.

Freelance photographer and self-confessed Apple addict Antonio Olmos says this happened to his phone a few weeks ago after he upgraded his software. Olmos had previously had his handset repaired while on an assignment for the Guardian in Macedonia. "I was in the Balkans covering the refugee crisis in September when I dropped my phone. Because I desperately needed it for work I got it fixed at a local shop, as there are no Apple stores in Macedonia. They repaired the screen and home button, and it worked perfectly."

He says he thought no more about it, until he was sent the standard notification by Apple inviting him to install the latest software. He accepted the upgrade, but within seconds the phone was displaying "error 53" and was, in effect, dead.

When Olmos, who says he has spent thousands of pounds on Apple products over the years, took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.

"The whole thing is extraordinary. How can a company deliberately make their own products useless with an upgrade and not warn their own customers about it? Outside of the big industrialised nations, Apple stores are few and far between, and damaged phones can only be brought back to life by small third-party repairers.

"I am not even sure these third-party outfits even know this is a potential problem," he says.

Olmos is far from the only one affected. If you Google "iPhone 6" and "error 53" you will find no shortage of people reporting that they have been left with a phone that now only functions as a very expensive paperweight.

Posting a message on an Apple Support Communities forum on 31 December, "Arjunthebuster" is typical. He/she says they bought their iPhone 6 in January 2015 in Dubai, and dropped it the following month causing a small amount of damage.

They carried on using the phone, but when they tried to install iOS 9 in November "error 53" popped up. "The error hasn't occurred because I broke my phone (it was working fine for 10 months). I lost all my data because of this error. I don't want Apple to fix my screen or anything! I just want them to fix the 'error 53' so I can use my phone, but they won't!"

Could Apple's move, which appears to be designed to squeeze out independent repairers, contravene competition rules? Car manufacturers, for example, are not allowed to insist that buyers only get their car serviced by them.

Apple charges £236 for a repair to the home button on an iPhone 6 in the UK, while an independent repairer would demand a fraction of that.

California-based tech expert Kyle Wiens, who runs the iFixit website, says this is a major issue. "The 'error 53' page on our website has had more than 183,000 hits, suggesting this is a big problem for Apple users," he told Guardian Money. "The problem occurs if the repairer changes the home button or the cable. Following the software upgrade the phone in effect checks to make sure it is still using the original components, and if it isn't, it simply locks out the phone. There is no warning, and there's no way that I know of to bring it back to life."

He says it is unclear whether this is a deliberate move to force anyone who drops their phone to use Apple for a repair. "All along, Apple's view is that it does not want third parties carrying out repairs to its products, and this looks like an obvious extension of that," he says. "What it should do is allow its customers to recalibrate their phone after a repair. Only when there is a huge outcry about this problem will it do something."

The Daily Dot website features an article by tech writer Mike Wehner headlined "Error 53 will kill your iPhone and no one knows what it is". He relates how his own iPhone 6 Plus was left "effectively dead to the world".

Meanwhile, an article by tech writer Reuben Esparza, published in November by iCracked, a phone repair service, states: "When pressed for more information about the error, few, if any Apple employees could offer an explanation. There was no part they would replace, no software fix, and no way to access the phone's memory. The fix was a new iPhone." It continues: "Though still largely a mystery to most, we now know that error 53 is the result of a hardware failure somewhere within the home button assembly."

A spokeswoman for Apple told Money (get ready for a jargon overload): "We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired to the touch ID sensor. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS features related to touch ID remain secure. Without this unique pairing, a malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure."

She adds: "When an iPhone is serviced by an unauthorised repair provider, faulty screens or other invalid components that affect the touch ID sensor could cause the check to fail if the pairing cannot be validated. With a subsequent update or restore, additional security checks result in an 'error 53' being displayed ... If a customer encounters an unrecoverable error 53, we recommend contacting Apple support."

[lilit]

sve to stoji ALI!
juče u radnji videh 27-inch iMac sa Retina 5K display
i
majko
sve im je oprošteno
želim

[Meho Krljic]

Mrzelo me je da uredno pratim celu ovu operetu oko toga da je FBI od Applea tražio da pomogne u dekripciji ajfouna osobe optužene za terorizam, pa Apple odbio jer Tim Kuk ima velika muda a i nije zgodno, privatnost je bitna itd. ali ipak da se to pomene.

Evo Appleove verzije događaja:

A Message to Our Customers  The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
Answers to your questions about privacy and security
    The Need for Encryption Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers' personal data because we believe it's the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
       The San Bernardino Case We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government's efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that's in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we've offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
       The Threat to Data Security Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today's digital world, the "key" to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
       A Dangerous Precedent Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by "brute force," trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government's demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone's microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI's intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
       Tim Cook

tl;dr verzija: FBI traži od Applea da kreira novu verziju operativnog sistema koja se može instalirati na korisnikov uređaj bez njegove dozvole, zaobilazeći enkripciju i time otključavajući sve njegove, jelte, tajne. Apple kaže da je davanje podataka koje oni već imaju (kada to traži sud) jedna stvar ali da je ovo druga stvar i da to naprosto nije korisno i bezbedno i predstavljalo bi opasan presedan i kreiranje ogromnih bezbednosnih rizika u budućnosti.


Mark Šećerbreg se svrstao uz Apple.

Ali statistička većina američkih građana, kao što se i očekivalo ne haje za poznatu krilaticu Bena Frankllina i svrstala se uz vlasti a protiv Applea.

Bil Gejc iskoristio priliku da poljubi skut FBI i opljune vječite rivale.

Kinezi su, pak uz Apple.


Ono što je možda interesantno imati na umu je da telefon o kome pričamo (da podsetim, radi se o Sajidu Faruku koji je sa suprugom Tašfin Malik pobio gomilu kolega/ prijatelja, prezjumabli u činu islamističkog ekstremističkog terorizma, prošlog Decembra) zapravo nije bio Farukov privatni telefon, već poslovni ajfoun koji je dobio na korišćenje od strane okružnih vlasti u San Bernardinu i da je zapravo samo za dlaku uzfalilo da svi podaci budu bekapovani u oblaku. Da Faruk nije promenio lozinku dan pred masakr, danas bi smo se svi smejali ovom incidentu. Dobro, ne bismo se smejali ali ne bi bilo ovog sukoba između Applea i FBI-ja...

...za koga mnogi tvrde da je samo Appleov PR ili čak FBIjev PR koji mudro biva korišćen da se podigne mnogo buke ni oko čega a da bi se onda promenio zakon čime bi se ubuduće olakšao pristup kritovanim podacima, jer, kako recimo ovaj tekst veli, obaveštajne i kontraobaveštajne agencije u SAD već imaju softver koji može da uradi ovo što FBI tako javno traži od Applea...


I zabave radi, da ukažemo i da je serijski ludak Džon Mekafi iz nekog razloga odlučio da mu je ovo odlična prilika da izreklamira sebe pa je (takođe javno) ponudio da FBI njemu i njegovom "timu najboljih hakera na planeti" donese taj ajFoun i da će ga oni krekovati "koristeći pre svega socijalni inženjering". Naravno, ne bi ništa naplatio jer ipak je Mekafiju Amerika na srcu (da li ste znali da je i on u predsedničkoj trci, kao kandidat Libertarijanske partije?). Vredi pročitati celo njegovo pismo jer... gaddemit.

[Meho Krljic]

I zabave radi, da ukažemo i da je serijski ludak Džon Mekafi iz nekog razloga odlučio da mu je ovo odlična prilika da izreklamira sebe pa je (takođe javno) ponudio da FBI njemu i njegovom "timu najboljih hakera na planeti" donese taj ajFoun i da će ga oni krekovati "koristeći pre svega socijalni inženjering". Naravno, ne bi ništa naplatio jer ipak je Mekafiju Amerika na srcu (da li ste znali da je i on u predsedničkoj trci, kao kandidat Libertarijanske partije?). Vredi pročitati celo njegovo pismo jer... gaddemit.

Pretpostavljamo da nikoga neće baš mnogo iznenaditi saznanje da je MekAfi lagao 

  John McAfee lied about San Bernardino shooter's iPhone hack to 'get a s**tload of public attention'

John McAfee isn't telling you the truth—but he says he's lying for a good cause.
McAfee has been on a media tour discussing a court order that directs Apple to write custom code to help the FBI access a terrorist's iPhone. The method McAfee says he would use to break open the phone, he admitted to the Daily Dot, is false.
McAfee, who founded of one of the first companies to offer antivirus software, claimed on CNN and Russia Today, as well as in a Business Insider column, that he could bypass the advanced encryption protecting the iPhone without Apple's help. But he lied in those interviews, he told the Daily Dot, to "get a shitload of public attention."
Further, the method McAfee says is real—the one he says he's lying to try to hide—is neither a secret nor feasible for anyone to accomplish without expensive tools and specialized skills. Even then, experts believe it would be difficult and would risk destroying the data the FBI is fighting so hard to access.

"Now, what I did not lie about was my ability to crack the iPhone. I can do it. It's a piece of friggin' cake."

Apple has the ability to write custom software that would allow the FBI to brute force its way into San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook's iPhone without triggering a self-destruct security feature. But it must do so by authorizing the specialized version of iOS with a signature Apple exclusively holds.
FBI Director James Comey said during a congressional hearing on Tuesday that his office had requested the help of the entire U.S. government but that he did not find a viable solution for breaking into the iPhone without demanding Apple's assistance.
McAfee said he bent the truth in order to push back against the official narrative.
"By doing so, I knew that I would get a shitload of public attention, which I did," McAfee said. "That video, on my YouTube account, it has 700,000 views. My point is to bring to the American public the problem that the FBI is trying to [fool] the American public. How am I going to do that, by just going off and saying it? No one is going to listen to that crap.
"So I come up with something sensational," he continued. "Now, what I did not lie about was my ability to crack the iPhone. I can do it. It's a piece of friggin' cake. You could probably do it."
McAfee first admitted to lying in
an interview
with Inverse.
The software company executive offered to tell the Daily Dot his secret method for cracking an encrypted iPhone, something that experts say cannot be done without Apple's authentic digital signature, but only if the Daily Dot promised to "not publish this publicly or tell anybody else."
The Daily Dot declined to make such a promise in order to keep the entire conversation on the record.
Later in the interview, McAfee described his method, which involves "decapping" the phone's processor and acquiring the device's unique identifier (UID), that may allow someone to brute force the phone's password—guess the password by flooding it with options—at a faster rate. Despite his insistence that the Daily Dot not publish this technique, McAfee has explained the method in previous media interviews.
Some experts believe, however, that McAfee's theory doesn't make much sense. Ars Technica explained why:

Thus far, the most plausible method for decrypting the San Bernardino iPhone without Apple's assistance involves manually inspecting the handset's processor using acid and lasers. Done correctly, this would let the FBI learn not the PIN, but the device's unique hardware ID. With that ID, they could combine it with each of the PINs in turn until they hit upon the right one. The cost and complexity of this technique would be extremely high, and it would be extremely risky: one wrong move and the hardware ID would be destroyed permanently, making the phone's data permanently and irrevocably lost.

When asked why he was discussing this method on the record, McAfee said, "Because I'm assuming, because you kept on asking, that you aren't going to publish it."
When the Daily Dot pointed out that McAfee had never secured such a promise, he said that the conversation was over and hung up.
"The lie was an exaggeration of simplicity," McAfee said in a text message after the interview. "As the Inverse article explained, it would have been impossible in the time allowed to explain the fullness of the truth. If you fault me for that, then you, and possibly your readers, will have been the only one on the planet to have done so."
McAfee also said, "I apologize for my anger." He added that it "seemed absurd to me to focus on a simplification of a technique, given the stakes at risk—a potentially Orwellian state initiated by the populace ignoring the truth of what the FBI is trying to do to us."

[Meho Krljic]

Rasplet:

  Justice Department cracks iPhone; withdraws legal action

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI said Monday it successfully used a mysterious technique without Apple Inc.'s help to hack into the iPhone used by a gunman in a mass shooting in California, effectively ending a pitched court battle between the Obama administration and one of the world's leading technology companies.
                 
The government asked a federal judge to vacate a disputed order forcing Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone, saying it was no longer necessary. The court filing in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California provided no details about how the FBI did it or who showed it how.
                 
The FBI is now reviewing the information on the iPhone, the Justice Department said in a statement.
                 
In response, Apple said in a statement that it will continue to increase the security of its products. While saying it will still provide some help to the government, "as we have done all along," the company reiterated its position that the government's demand was wrong.
                 
"This case should never have been brought," Apple said in its statement.
                 
Both sides left important questions unanswered: Who showed the FBI how to break into iPhones? How did the government bypass the security features that Apple has invested millions of dollars to build into its flagship product? Are newer iPhones vulnerable to the same hacking technique? Will the FBI share its information with scores of state and local police agencies that said they also need to break into the iPhones of criminal suspects? Will the FBI reveal to Apple how it broke its security? Did the FBI find anything useful on the iPhone?
                 
The surprise development also punctured the temporary perception that Apple's security might have been good enough to keep consumers' personal information safe even from the U.S. government — with the tremendous resources it can expend when it wants to uncover something.
                 
The FBI used the technique to access data on an iPhone used by gunman Syed Farook, who died with his wife in a gun battle with police after they killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December. The iPhone was found in a vehicle the day after the shooting; two personal phones were found destroyed so completely that the FBI couldn't recover information from them.
                 
U.S. magistrate Sheri Pym of California last month ordered Apple to provide the FBI with software to help it hack into Farook's work-issued iPhone. The order touched off a debate pitting digital privacy rights against national security concerns.
                 
Apple was headed for a courtroom showdown with the government last week, until federal prosecutors abruptly asked for a postponement so they could test a potential solution brought to them by a party outside of the U.S. government last Sunday. Technical experts had said there might be a few ways an outsider could gain access to the phone, but the FBI insisted repeatedly until then that only Apple had the ability to override the iPhone's security. FBI Director James Comey said the bureau even went to the National Security Agency, which did not have the ability to get into the phone.
                 
A law enforcement official said the FBI was successful in unlocking the iPhone over the weekend. The official spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to publicly comment. The official said federal law enforcement would continue to aid its local and state partners with gaining evidence in cases — implying that the method would be shared with them.
                 
First in line is likely, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who told a U.S. House panel earlier this month that he has 205 iPhones his investigators can't access data from in criminal investigations. Apple is also opposing requests to help extract information from 14 Apple devices in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York.
                 
The case drew international attention and highlighted a growing friction between governments and the tech industry. Apple and other tech companies have said they feel increasing need to protect their customers' data from hackers and unfriendly intruders, while police and other government authorities have warned that encryption and other data-protection measures are making it more difficult for investigators to track criminals and dangerous extremists.
                 
Apple CEO Tim Cook had argued that helping the FBI hack the iPhone would set a dangerous precedent, making all iPhone users vulnerable, if Apple complied with the court order. Cook said Congress should take up the issue.
                 
The withdrawal of the court process also takes away Apple's ability to legally request details on the method the FBI used in this case. Apple attorneys said last week that they hoped the government would share that information with them if it proved successful.
                 
The encrypted phone was protected by a passcode that included security protocols: a time delay and self-destruct feature that erased the phone's data after 10 tries. The two features made it impossible for the government to repeatedly and continuously test passcodes in what's known as a brute-force attack. Comey said with those features removed, the FBI could break into the phone in 26 minutes.
                 
The official said the method used to unlock the phone appears to work on the iPhone 5C operating a version of iOS 9. In late 2014, Apple updated its operating system so the passcode is linked to the phone's overall encryption. The Cupertino-based company said that made it impossible for it to access data on the phone.
                 
The Justice Department wouldn't comment on any future disclosure of the method to Apple or the public.
                 
The government's announcement was praised by Stephen Larson, a Los Angeles attorney who filed a brief in support of the Justice Department's case and represents seven families of those killed in the attack. "For this to have dragged out in court battles would not have served the interests of either" the victims or law enforcement, he said.
                 
Alex Abdo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief supporting Apple in its case, said the case is far from settled and it was "just a delay of an inevitable fight" about whether the government can force a company like Apple to undermine the security of its products to facilitate an investigation.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple should pay more tax, says co-founder Wozniak 

All companies, including Apple, should pay a 50% tax rate, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has told the BBC.
He said he doesn't like the idea that Apple does not pay tax at the same rate he does personally.
Apple, Google and Amazon have been criticised for not paying enough in tax and the firm is currently the subject of a European Commission tax inquiry.
Mr Wozniak, who left Apple in 1985, was also ambivalent at the prospect of the UK leaving the European Union.
Mr Wozniak - widely known as Woz - founded Apple along with Steve Jobs and Ronald Wayne 40 years ago. It has grown to become one of the most valuable businesses in the world, worth around $600bn.
He told BBC Radio 5 live: "I don't like the idea that Apple might be unfair - not paying taxes the way I do as a person.
"I do a lot of work, I do a lot of travel and I pay over 50% of anything I make in taxes and I believe that's part of life and you should do it."
When asked if Apple should pay that amount, he replied: "Every company in the world should."
He said he was never interested in money, unlike his former partner Steve Jobs. "Steve Jobs started Apple Computers for money, that was his big thing and that was extremely important and critical and good."
Apple channels much of its business in Europe through a subsidiary in the Republic of Ireland, which has a corporation tax rate of 12.5% compared to the UK's 20%.
In the US it's 35%, but three years ago the company admitted two of its Irish subsidiaries pay a rate of 2%. It has built up offshore cash reserves of around $200bn - beyond the reach of US tax officials.
Tax avoidance has been brought back into focus by the recent Panama Papers revelations.
Mr Wozniak said: "We didn't think we'd be figuring out how to go off to the Bahamas and have special accounts like people do to try to hide their money.
"But you know, on the other hand I look back any company that is a public company, its shareholders are going to force it to be as profitable as possible and that means financial people studying all the laws of the world and figuring out all the schemes that work that are technically legal. They're technically legal and it bothers me and I would not live my life that way."
'Not against secession' The UK should be free to exit the European Union, Mr Wozniak added.
"I don't care. I think that all the states of Europe - it's better if you have very easy transportation - like movement from one to another to another", he said.
"Like we drive in the US from 50 individual states that all have their own laws and customs and typical types of people - you just drive through, and there are no customs hang-ups or anything...
"I'm not against secession. If a state wants to leave the union let them leave. I don't think we should have even fought our civil war, we should have let the states leave."
Apple's cyber scrap Mr Wozniak, who was speaking at the Business Rocks technology summit in Manchester, backed Apple over its recent tangle with US authorities over access to data: "Apple has been the good guy.
"There are politicians who do not have a clue as to what cyber security is all about trying to pass laws saying that Apple has to make a product less secure.
"Why? That's a crime. That is just so horrible. I just cry! Why would Apple do it for such a weak case where the government were not going to get any valuable information at all - it's impossible."

[Meho Krljic]

Proročanstva propasti:

LeEco CEO Jia Yueting says Apple is outdated


Apple Has First Earnings Decline in More Than a Decade

[Meho Krljic]

2 thieves dressed as SoHo Apple store employees steal 19 iPhones: NYPD

SOHO, Manhattan — It took a "genius" to pull off this heist: two thieves put on Apple store employee t-shirts and headed past the Genius Bar to the repair room, grabbed what they could and walked out with more than $16,000 worth of iPhones, police said.
Police released two pictures of the thieves, one of whom appears to be caught in the act with an iPhone in his hands.
This brazen heist happened at the Apple store in SoHo on Prince Street. It was crowded with customers when they walked up the flight of stairs in their green Earth Day Apple t-shirts to the second floor repair room at 5:30 p.m. on June 1, according to police. They hid 19 iPhone 6 Pluses under their shirts, worth close to $16,000, and walked right out.
Police said an hour before, the same thieves may have stolen three iPhones 6's worth $1,900 from the Apple Store on 14th Street and Ninth Avenue in the West Village.
The stolen iPhones are believed to not have sensors and are unlocked.
Earlier this year, three thieves pulled off two similar but much more lucrative heists at the Upper West Side Apple Store at Broadway and 67th Street, a training center for Apple employees.
Once again, they dressed as Apple employees and stole a total of $49,000 worth of iPhones.
Police, at this point, can't say if any of the heists are connected.
PIX11 News reached out to an Apple spokesman, but had yet to hear back on if there is an effort to tighten security measures.

[Meho Krljic]

Ehhh, kao da nije već bilo dovoljno loše...


Apple is making life terrible in its factories – labor rights warriors

Manufacturers buckling under demands for cheaper iStuffs
Pressure from Apple to lower costs is driving worsening conditions for workers at the company's manufacturing partners.
This is according to watchdog group China Labor Watch, which says [PDF] that under CEO Tim Cook, the Cupertino giant has asked the companies that assemble its products to cut their own costs, and those demands have led them to cut back on worker pay and factory conditions.
Specifically, the group reports that Pegatron has been passing on financial pressures from Apple by committing multiple violations of Chinese labor laws on fair pay and workplace safety.
"Working conditions are terrible, and workers are subject to terrible treatment," China Labor Watch writes.
"Currently, Apple's profits are declining, and the effects of this decline have been passed on to suppliers. To mitigate the impact, Pegatron has taken some covert measures to exploit workers."
Among the issues cited in the report were workers being forced to put in excessive overtime and have their wages cut to $1.60 per hour. Additionally, the investigation found Pegatron interns being forced to put in hours almost as long as employees, and factory conditions where workers were operating without proper safety equipment.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment on the report.
The company has pushed a campaign to improve conditions at the plants that manufacture its products and has in the past cut ties with the worst offenders.
According to China Labor Watch, however, Cook and Co have at the same time been squeezing the manufacturers to reduce costs and keep profits up. This, in turn, makes them culpable when those partners pass the pressure on to workers.
"Apple has already subcontracted its production to suppliers such as Pegatron, however, these workers are making Apple products. Moreover, through outsourcing, Apple lowers its production cost, but this is only possible by exploiting workers," the report reads.
"Apple is the real reason working conditions are deteriorating." ®

[Meho Krljic]

Zavuče im ga Juncker:

Apple Ordered to Pay Up to $14.5 Billion in EU Tax Clampdown



Apple Inc. was ordered to pay as much as 13 billion euros ($14.5 billion) plus interest after the European Commission said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone maker's tax bill, in a record crackdown on fiscal loopholes that also risks inflaming tensions with the U.S.
The world's richest company benefited from selective tax treatment that gave it an unfair advantage over other businesses, the European Union regulator said Tuesday. It's the largest tax penalty in a three-year campaign against corporate tax avoidance. Apple and Ireland both vowed to fight the decision in the EU courts.  >

Irish tax rulings to Apple are illegal state aid. Effective taxation as low as 0,005 pct. #Apple has to repay up to €13 billion unpaid tax.
— Margrethe Vestager (@vestager) August 30, 2016

Ireland allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 percent in 2014, according to EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
"If my effective tax rate would be 0.05 percent falling to 0.005 percent -- I would have felt that maybe I should have a second look at my tax bill," she told reporters.
Click here to see a clip of Vestager's announcement.
The U.S. Treasury Department, which has pushed back hard against the EU state-aid probes, said the commission's actions "could threaten to undermine foreign investment, the business climate in Europe, and the important spirit of economic partnership between the U.S. and the EU."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Apple executives have shared concerns about the company's tax treatment overseas with officials in President Barack Obama's administration.

Administration officials are broadly concerned that what Earnest called the EU's "unilateral approach" doesn't undermine coordinated efforts to prevent an "erosion of the tax base." Also, he said, they want to ensure that any actions are fair to U.S. taxpayers and U.S. businesses.
Apple, which employs about 6,000 people in Ireland, was one of the first companies caught up in the EU's backlash against corporate tax-avoidance. The EU, like other global regulators, has targeted firms that sidestep taxes by moving around profits and costs to wherever they are taxed most advantageously -- exploiting loopholes or special deals granted by friendly governments.
"The most profound and harmful effect of this ruling will be on investment and job creation in Europe," Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said in a letter published on the company's website. "Every company in Ireland and across Europe is suddenly at risk of being subjected to taxes under laws that never existed."  >

Minister Noonan disagrees profoundly with Commission on Apple https://t.co/zim7k0NOQ4 pic.twitter.com/tRyR6c28HU
— Dept of Finance IRL (@IRLDeptFinance) August 30, 2016

Apple shares fell as much as 1.2 percent in New York trading and were down 0.6 percent at 12:13 p.m.


While the 13 billion-euro figure represents the EU's estimate of how much Ireland should claw back from Apple, the commission said the actual figure could be less if other nations used the information gleaned by the EU to claim a share of taxes.
Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said in an interview with Bloomberg TV that Vestager was advising countries to "in effect, form a queue and look for that tax."


The commission said the amount could be reduced if the U.S. required Apple to pay larger amounts of money to its American parent company to finance research and development efforts.
Ultimately, the EU courts also have the power to cut or overturn repayment orders if they find fault with the commission methodology during the appeals process.
But such challenges can take years to finalize, meaning that the final sum Apple may have to pay won't be known until then. The money clawed back can be held in escrow pending a ruling.

[Meho Krljic]

Cook on EU Apple tax case: "Total political crap" 

BRUSSELS—A war of words has erupted between Europe's competition chief and Apple CEO Tim Cook after Ireland was ordered to reclaim €13 billion (£11.1 billion/$14.5 billion) in back taxes from the company.
Cook, in an interview with the Irish Independent, labelled Brussels' competition chief Margrethe Vestager's decision as "total political crap." He claimed Ireland was being "picked on" and that he hoped to see the Irish government launch an appeal against the ruling.
On Tuesday, Vestager said that the European Commission's two-year investigation had found Apple guilty of receiving illegal state aid from Ireland thanks to so-called sweetheart tax deals in 1991 and 2007. She said that Ireland allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of one percent on its European profits in 2003, down to as low as 0.005 percent in certain years.
Apple, in a statement on Wednesday, said that the "number quoted by the European Commission is extremely misleading and deceptive." It added:

We paid $400 million in taxes in Ireland in 2014—considerably more than the commission's figure suggests. We were certainly one of the largest corporate taxpayers in Ireland that year, if not the largest.
In addition, we paid $400 million of current US taxes on those profits, bringing total current taxes paid to $800 million. Most importantly, the commission completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of those profits was subject to US taxation. Apple also accrued several billion dollars in US deferred taxes on those profits earned in 2014.

Vestager refuted that claim when quizzed by reporters on Thursday. "This is a decision based on the facts of the case. The figures that we used in our decision are the figures that we got from Apple themselves," she said.
"There are very, very few figures in the public domain. More transparency would be a good thing, for example, a country by country reporting. If it was up to me, the non-confidential version of the decision would have been published yesterday, because that is another way of enabling everyone to see what we have decided and on what basis we have made this decision. Right now the ball is in the hands of Apple and Ireland."
She also rejected Cook's claim that her decision was politically motivated. Vestager said: "The enforcement part of the competition portfolio does not really fit into any political picture. Even if it weren't like this, we always have the courts to keep us in line. Because I don't think the courts will hear any political opinions or feelings, they want the facts of the case and that is what we have to produce."
Apple has said it plans to appeal against the decision. However, despite previously insisting that Ireland's government would similarly challenge the commission's ruling in the courts, an agreement to do so wasn't made by the Irish cabinet during a special meeting convened on Wednesday.

The US has also weighed in on the case. Last week the treasury department warned that it would "consider its options." On Wednesday, treasury secretary Jack Lew said that he was concerned that the case was an attempt to reach into income that ought to be taxed in the US.
Ars asked Vestager to respond to Lew's claims about the distribution of Apple's coffers. The commissioner said: "The Apple case is about profits made by sale in Europe so obviously it is a question of tax being paid in Europe. It is a European matter and a matter for state aid rules." She added that she was looking forward to meeting Lew in person in Washington later this month.
Meanwhile, Brussels' competition officials continue to investigate a similar case about Amazon's tax arrangements in the European Union.

[Meho Krljic]

Android users more honest and humble than iPhone users: Study

[Meho Krljic]

Apple bi, ako je verovati Timu Kuku uskoro mogao da počne da izbegava plaćanje poreza u Americi umesto u EU 


Tim Cook: Apple may bring billions back to U.S. next year

In what seems to be a huge turnaround, Apple CEO Tim Cook says the company plans to bring back billions of dollars in profit to the U.S. next year.
Cook's statement, made during an interview with RTE radio Thursday, contradicts his previous public statements on the issue: He has said for years that U.S. corporate taxes are too high, and that the Silicon Valley company wouldn't be repatriating profit until its home country changed its tax code.
"Right now I would forecast that we repatriate next year," Cook said, saying that the company has "provisioned several billion" for that purpose.
The interview with Irish radio was about this week's European Commission judgment, which found that Ireland's tax arrangements with Apple were illegal. The commission found that Apple had paid as little as 0.005 percent to 1 percent in taxes there, and ordered Ireland to collect the equivalent of $14.5 billion in back taxes. Cook said Apple will appeal the decision, which he called "maddening."
Ireland — whose low corporate tax rates are a lure to other multinationals such as Google and Facebook — may also appeal the commission's decision.
The decision has rankled the United States, which wants its share of the tax pie. After all, U.S. corporations were holding more than $2 trillion in profit overseas in 2014, according to a 2015 study by Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. Apple had the biggest overseas stash then at $181 billion; the company said in July that its offshore pile had reached about $215 billion.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said this week that Europe's Apple judgment is effectively "a transfer of revenue from U.S. taxpayers to the EU."
The U.S. has a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, and state and local governments also want their share. In December, Cook said during a "60 Minutes" appearance that bringing profit back to the U.S. "would cost me 40 percent." He told interviewer Charlie Rose: "This is a tax code, Charlie, that was made for the industrial age, not the digital age. It's backwards. It's awful for America."
Cook did not indicate during this week's radio interview what had changed — a proposal by President Obama in 2015 to change the tax code and lower corporate rates was rejected by Republicans — and how much Apple plans to repatriate.
Cook also said that in 2014, Apple paid $400 million in taxes in Ireland and $400 million to the United States.
Apple has not responded to SiliconBeat's request for comment.

[Meho Krljic]

Paying Taxes Is a Lot Better Than Phony Corporate Courage, Apple

Every fall the internet and its resident tech mumblers congregate for The Apple Event, a quasi-pagan streaming-video rite in which Tim Cook boasts of just how much money his company is making (a lot) and just how much good it's introducing to the world (this typically involves a new iPhone). This is merely annoying most years; but in 2016, when Apple is loudly, publicly denying its tax obligations around the world, it's just gross.
Today's iteration of the ritual, which spanned roughly two hours and included about five minutes of news, began with a rundown of some very large numbers: Apple's streaming music service has over 17 million paying subscribers, its App Store has topped 140 billion downloads, and that store's revenue is double that of its Google counterpart. After a brief preview of an upcoming Super Mario game for the iPhone, sure to be a revenue blockbuster, Cook segued into a spiel about the importance of education and the necessity of providing proper resources to students. His solution: a new version of iWork, Apple's productivity software suite, that allows for multiple kids to edit the same document at the same time. It seems unlikely this will make a substantial difference in the quality of education for children around the world — particularly in countries where public schools are underfunded because companies like Apple deliberately avoid paying taxes.
Apple, despite (or more likely, because of) its recurring status as the most valuable company in the history of capitalism, funnels a huge portion of its profits overseas, particularly to Ireland, in order to avoid paying its fair share at home in the United States. This year, the company has come under fire from the EU for failing to pay what it should even in the zone where it's stashing its profits — the European Commission has demanded a $15 billion payment from Apple over unpaid Irish taxes, a sum Ireland is actually refusing to accept for fear it will lose its coveted status as Apple's unscrupulously convenient money dump. Meanwhile, the United States is condemning the EU's ruling because it's also battling Apple for unpaid taxes — it has apparently not occurred to either party that Apple is so unfathomably cash-rich that it could satisfy its tax obligations on two continents at once.


The official corporate position is now effectively We'll pay what we want, and you'll deal with it; Tim Cook himself has said Apple will only repatriate its vast billions to the U.S. if it's at a rate he considers "fair." Cook simultaneously claims Apple is already paying more in taxes than anyone else in the world, which as Bloomberg's Shira Ovide puts it, "has the benefit of possibly being true and impossible to verify."
Apple's tax schemes cannot be dismissed as merely matching the competition for reasons of corporate pragmatism. Yes, Google and Facebook engage in aggressive tax avoidance too. But Cook appears to be pushing for permanently lower corporate taxes. That's the best explanation for why he has helped raise money for Republican legislators despite sharp differences on social issues (Cook is the world's most prominent gay executive). This seems like as good a point as any to mention that Cook today boasted that Apple has sold over a billion iPhones around the world — the iPhone 7 will retail for $649.
And so it's hard to swallow Apple's use of the word "courage" to describe the corporate ethos that pushed the company to remove the headphone plug from the newest iPhone while offering a new pair of jack-free earbuds that will run you $160. Removing a headphone jack or adding 20 headphone jacks does not require courage; engineers are very smart, but their job does not typically require much bravery. Courage is more often found in, say, running into a burning school to rescue the students and class rodent. Or, maybe, you could call courageous the act of paying the many billions you owe around the world into the system that ensures those students have all of the resources they need in order to learn and grow. Just a hint: Collaborative spreadsheet software doesn't count.

[Meho Krljic]

 Apple's cord situation is completely out of control 

Apple's newest computer, the MacBook Pro, looks pretty great: It's got fast chips, a good screen, MacOS, and a new kind of touchscreen keyboard it's calling the Touch Bar.
But I'm personally worried that buying the new MacBook Pro will doom me to carrying around various dongles for years, or as long as I'm in Apple's ecosystem. And you should be worried about that too.
In the company's zeal to move to next-generation connectors and future-proof devices, Apple's created a morass of different cords, dongles, and standards.
Take a user who has an iPhone 7 and new MacBook Pro. That's Apple's core customer: someone with disposable income who wants the best computers.
This person needs to think hard about what cords they are going to carry from day to day. The iPhone and MacBook Pro use different chargers, so that person would have to carry both. iPhones use Apple's proprietary Lightning charger. The new MacBooks use the relatively new open USB-C standard.
(That's not a big deal, although it's worth pointing out that if this person had a Google Pixel phone instead of an iPhone, their phone and computer could use the same charger. That's not very elegant, Apple.)

Things get worse when you consider headphones. The new MacBook Pro has a headphone jack, so you can plug basically any pair of headphones into it. The iPhone 7, as you've probably heard, does not.
Customers can use the dongle that comes with the iPhone 7 to use their laptop headphones with their iPhone. But if someone wants to use the Lightning Earpods that come with the iPhone 7, there's no way to plug them into your laptop, unless Apple makes another dongle — some kind of male USB-C-to-female-Lightning adapter.
Of course, what Apple wants you to do is buy its new AirPods, which cost $159, and need to be charged too. AirPods haven't gone on sale yet because Apple says they're not ready.
And finally, just try to charge your phone from your laptop using the cord that comes with your iPhone. You can't — unless you have yet another adapter (this one USB-C to USB), which Apple will sell you for $19. A USB-C to Lightning Cable costs $25.

Apple's insistence on using Lightning as its proprietary standard on its phone makes its choice to commit to USB-C on Mac a confusing one.
I understand that ports change and technology has to change with it. But the whole reason to adopt open standards like USB-C is so things can be standardized. And USB-C can do a lot of different things, like power a monitor — so it can certainly charge a phone, handle headphones, or anything else Lightning does.
It's madness. Apple's head of design Jony Ive said last month that "we believe in a wireless future." But my immediate future — deciding whether or not I buy a new MacBook Pro — looks to be full of different cords and dongles.

[Meho Krljic]

A ima i ovo:
Apple's annual sales fall for first time since 2001

Apple's 15-year streak is officially over.  Apple (AAPL, Tech30) just posted its first annual sales decline since 2001, the year it launched the iPod and kicked off a tremendous run of groundbreaking products.
    The tech company revealed Tuesday that annual sales fell to $216 billion in the 2016 fiscal year ending September 30, from a record $234 billion in 2015.
The sales decline is closely connected to the falling sales for the iPhone, which remains Apple's largest source of revenue.
Apple sold 45.5 million iPhones in the September quarter, down from 48 million iPhones in the same quarter a year earlier. That marks the third consecutive quarter when iPhone sales and overall revenue have declined from a year prior.
Many analysts have raised concerns that the global smartphone market is saturated. Customers are taking longer to replace their phones. And Apple's latest iPhone is a dead ringer for the previous two models, eliminating some of the desire to upgrade.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said on a conference call with analysts that demand for the new iPhones is "outstripping supply in the vast majority of places, particularly on the iPhone 7 Plus."
Apple's sales in China, once a promising area of growth, fell 30% year-over-over year as the company faces competition from local smartphone makers like Xiaomi and Huawei. However, the company expects that to improve next quarter.
"We are very bullish on China," Cook said on the call, noting the vast number of "people growing into the middle class."
Related: Apple under Tim Cook: More socially responsible, less visionary
The good news is that this sales decline may prove to be a blip and not the new norm.
Apple is projecting that it will post sales of $76 billion to $78 billion in the upcoming quarter, up from $74.8 billion a year earlier.
The holiday quarter is typically Apple's largest as it represents the first full quarter when new iPhones are on sale. Apple's guidance suggests it is expecting greater demand for the iPhone 7 than its predecessor.
Katy Huberty, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, wrote in an investor note this month that Apple's iPhone sales would be helped in part by "Note 7 issues," a reference to Samsung's massive recall.
On the conference call, Apple's CFO Luca Maestri suggested that developments with other smartphone competitors are "not particularly relevant." The reason, he said, is demand for iPhones is already so high that "we are selling everything we can produce."
The earnings report comes two days before Apple is scheduled to hold a press event in California, where it is widely expected to unveil long awaited updates to its Mac product lineup that could help sales.
Apple stock was down 2.5% in after hours trading following the earnings release.

[Meho Krljic]

Cracked u humorističkom tonu ukazuje na sličnosti između Applea i Sajentološke crkve.

[Meho Krljic]

Apple owes $2 million for not giving workers meal breaks



Naravno za Apple je ovo prašina a većinu će verovatno da pokupe advokati....

[Meho Krljic]

Ahhh, uobičajeni "Nezgodno je to" odgovor koji svi mi dajemo poreskoj upravi kada nas opominju što nismo još platili porez. Naravno, u ovom slučaju nezgodnost dopunjava činjenica da vlasti Republike Irske pokušavaju na sve moguće načine da objasne da oni uopšte ne žele taj novac jer, eto, ako Epl bude moro da plaća porez, onda neće da zapošljava TOLIKI svet u Irskoj. Ne kažem da je neko tu potplaćen ali svakako deluje kao da je to slučaj...


'It's tricky': Apple has missed the deadline to pay $13.9 billion to Ireland in illegal tax benefits

  Apple has not fully paid the 13 billion euros ($13.9 billion) it owes to Ireland in illegal tax benefits even though the deadline has passed, the European Union's competition said on Tuesday. 
  "Well the recovery is not done yet but we have been working with the Irish authorizes and we can see that they are moving forward to do the recovery of the unpaid taxes," EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said during a press conference in response to a question by CNBC. 
  "It's a tricky thing to do because it's a large sum so of course you have to figure out how to do that. It's not as an escrow account in some of the other cases where it might be 25 or 30 million euros ... and therefore I do respect that it's a complicated matter and it may take a little more time."
  Last year, the Commission ruled that Ireland must recover 13 billion euros in "illegal tax benefits" from Apple. It found that the U.S. technology giant paid an effective tax rate of 0.005 percent in Ireland in 2014.

The deadline for Ireland to recover the money into an escrow account was January 3. But the money still has not been repaid.
"We are continuing to make progress of the recovery from Apple with the full cooperation of the company and the EU Commission," a spokesperson for Ireland's Ministry of Finance told CNBC by email.
"The Commission are satisfied with the progress we are making. We have committed to complying with the decision and we fully intend doing that."
Still both Ireland and Apple have pledged to fight the decision via the European courts. Vestager said at the press conference that she does not know when the court case will take place for Apple and Ireland to appeal the EU's decision.
Ireland's Finance Minister Michael Noonan, in response to a question from CNBC concerning Apple's taxes, said because of the legal hurdles it could be years before there is a conclusion to the case. 
"The appeal is in now and it'll go to a European ordinary court first and then whoever loses will probably appeal it to the European Court of Justice. So you're looking at a four-year time frame, five-year time frame. (A) slow bicycle race between the Apple case and Brexit seems to be emerging now. Let's see which will reach the destination first."
Apple has yet to respond to a request for comment when contacted by CNBC. But the company has spoken strongly about the decision. In an interview with the Irish Independent last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook called the ruling "total political crap" which has "no basis in law or in fact".
The Irish government has also been critical of the decision. Last year, Noonan slammed Brussels' interference in the country's tax matters.
"We stand by the legitimacy of what was done in the past ... we think the Commission is getting involved in what is the competence of sovereign governments in Europe.... This is an approach through the back door to try and influence tax policy through competition law," Noonan told CNBC in August.

[Meho Krljic]

Koliki porez Apple plaća na, recimo, Novom Zelandu? Ako ste pomislili da je trik pitanje bili ste u pravu: ne plaćaju ništa.

US Apple users urge company to 'do the right thing' and pay NZ taxes

American-based Apple users are weighing in behind Kiwi politicians who are calling for the US tech giant to pay its taxes in New Zealand.
Bryan Chaffin of The Mac Observer, an Apple community blog site founded in 1998, has urged Apple chief executive Tim Cook to "do the right thing" even though it would mean slightly lower profits for the  company's shareholders.
He was commenting on revelations today in the Weekend Herald that Apple paid zero tax to the NZ Government in the past 10 years in a period when its sales in this country totalled $4.2 billion.
The company's accounts show that its NZ branch paid $37 million in tax since 2007 - but all of it was passed on to the Australian Government because the NZ operation is run out of Australia.
Chaffin wrote that Apple was the largest taxpayer in the United States, but "pays next to nothing in most parts of the world".
"There are so many areas where Apple does enormous good - far, far more good than any other electronics giant, and probably any other for-profit company," he wrote.
"But local taxes matter. Roads matter. Schools matter. Housing authorities matter. Health care matters. Regulation enforcement matters. All of the things that support civil society matter. Apple's profits are made possible by that civil society, and the company should contribute its fair share.
"According to the New Zealand Herald, 'Had Apple reported the same healthy profit margin in New Zealand as it did for its operations globally it would have paid $356 million in taxes over the period.'


"That kind of money matters to countries the size of New Zealand. To me, Apple should kick in to help pay for the civil infrastructure it needs to make those profits.
"And I won't be silent about it."
Labour's revenue spokesman Michael Wood said Kiwi taxpayers had "every reason to feel outraged" by Apple's zero NZ tax bill.
"Nurses, cleaners, office workers, and small business owners, who pay their fair share of tax to support public services in our country, will be dismayed at these latest revelations," he said.
"We know that this is the tip of the iceberg for big multinationals being let off the hook by the National Government being completely asleep at the wheel."
On March 3 the Government announced a package of measures which will deem non-residents to have NZ permanent establishments if they sell goods or services to a person in New Zealand, and have related entities carrying out activities here to bring the sales about.
The package will also stop companies using interest payments to shift profits offshore. But it stops short of a diverted profits tax which has been introduced in Australia and Britain.
Revenue Minister Judith Collins declined to comment specifically on Apple yesterday, but said a "minority" of international companies were exploiting rules to avoid paying tax and "we do not consider the amount of tax paid by these multinationals is fair".
An Apple spokesperson in Australia told the Weekend Herald yesterday: "Apple aims to be a force for good and we're proud of the contributions we've made in New Zealand over the past decade. Because our products and services are created, designed and engineered in the US, that's where the vast majority of our tax is paid."

[Meho Krljic]

Exclusive: Apple just promised to give US manufacturing a $1 billion boost

Apple CEO Tim Cook said that his company will start a $1 billion fund to promote advanced manufacturing jobs in the United States.

"We're announcing it today. So you're the first person I'm telling," Cook told "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer on Wednesday. "Well, not the first person because we've talked to a company that we're going to invest in already," he said, adding that Apple will announce the first investment later in May.

The fund comes as President Donald Trump has made bringing back manufacturing jobs a big part of his agenda, and it fits into Apple's larger effort to create jobs across its spectrum, from its own employees to app developers to its suppliers.
 
As advanced manufacturing jobs are in high demand in the U.S., the sector was already high on Apple's list of priorities, and Cook hopes the investment will spur even more job creation.
"By doing that, we can be the ripple in the pond. Because if we can create many manufacturing jobs around, those manufacturing jobs create more jobs around them because you have a service industry that builds up around them," the CEO said.

Apple has already created two million jobs in the United States, and Cook showed no signs of shrinking the tech giant's reach.

"A lot of people ask me, 'Do you think it's a company's job to create jobs?' and my response is [that] a company should have values because a company is a collection of people. And people should have values, so by extension, a company should. And one of the things you do is give back," Cook said.

"So how do you give back? We give back through our work in the environment, in running the company on renewable energy. We give back in job creation."

[Meho Krljic]

Watch a 10-Year-Old's Face Unlock His Mom's iPhone X

[Meho Krljic]

Apple to start paying Ireland the billions it owes in back taxes

[Meho Krljic]

Apple announces plans to repatriate billions in overseas cash, says it will contribute $350 billion to the US economy over the next 5 years

[Meho Krljic]

Inside 'the reality distortion field': An early Apple employee told us what it was like having Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak as his bosses