News - iPhone 6 Plus costs $16 more to produce, demands $100 premium

Quote:

---

But there are reports of several of these phablets becoming bent in general use.

---

Read more.

Just standard fare with apple !

I'm quite surprised if that issue with the bending phones, especially after such a short time. Would have thought that testing would have produced the same issue.

An android user myself, but any company would love to be able to sell for such a high profit margin.

Quote:

---

Despite less than $16 in cost differences between the two 16GB models Apple charges a premium of $100 for the Plus. ... There are several stories around the internet offering various photos of bent iPhone 6 Plus models.

---

It's not "bent", it's "curved" - Apples charging the $84 extra because you're getting a large screen and a curved model in one phone - Samsung has to do two separate models.
:p or rather ;)

My 5.5" G3 is fine as is, I strongly suspect, those folks with Galaxy Note's. Speaking of my G3, is a 5.5" screen'd phone now officially "a phablet" then? Just curious, although in the case of the G3 it's maybe arguable since there's a stylus-equipped version of the same size.

I bought the iPhone 6 (non-plus) and I have to say; I love it. I personally don't understand the lure of enormous phones that resemble tablets - surely that can't be comfortable to carry in your pocket.

To each their own, I suppose.

Quality of the Plus seems a bit worrying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znK652H6yQM

Seems the iPhone 6 Plus can bend pretty easily.

Apple will probably launch a man bag so hipsters can carry their iphones rather than bending them in their skinny jeans. Coming to a store near you - only £79.99

i own a note 3 and its fine in my pocket, no bent phone at all. the trouble with really thin phones is they are bound to eventually bend as the pastic/metals are not strong enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexKitch

I bought the iPhone 6 (non-plus) and I have to say; I love it. I personally don't understand the lure of enormous phones that resemble tablets - surely that can't be comfortable to carry in your pocket.

To each their own, I suppose.

---

Before I make any comment, regarding this article, it's not unexpected really, just a reinforcement of poor value for money that some Android uses benefit from. Some premium model Android phones can be just as expensive so it's just whatever works for yourself.

Regarding the iPhone 6+ bending, it's just a disappointment as whilst I've never bought an iphone out of personal preference, I have recognised them as a company of often well built products. They have there issues ( phone signal with hand placement on the 4? and the finish on the metal being at best temporary on the 5 ) but structurally very well built. I think Apple could face some serious problems regarding this and look forward to how they manage these complaints.

And finally, a small story.

About a year and a half ago I purchased a HTC One M7 (IMO, a beautiful, well built, well specced phone with some very nice features) it has a 4.7 inch 1080p display. At this time the iPhone 5 was about six months old but most of my friends still had the iPhone 4s. One friend in particular, we will name him Karl, scoffed at my phone when he asked what I'd upgraded to from a busted up old samsung galaxy ace. And all he did for the next 2/3 months whenever I saw him was throw digs about my 'stupidly large' phone. On launch day he got an iPhone 6 (...with a 4.7 inch screen). He came over to my house a couple days ago and wouldn't stop talking about his lovely new phone, I don't blame it, it's a nice phone. My girlfriend showed up and had to send a text on her phone ( her Nexus 4 had been stolen ages ago so she was using a Z1 compact from her insurance ) and he banged on for another 10 minutes about how her 'stupidly small' phone looks like a toy. I had great delight in reminding him of earlier discussions about phone sizes.

And then he started on his retina display vs my 'stupid cr@ppy' lcd. It was fun whilst he remained but he got annoyed at me for arguing with him after a while so he left.

Moral of the story, I've finally worked out Karl is a d****e-bag. Iphone users, enjoy your phone, just don't be Karl!

I can see why they bend. My Z1 would bend if it didn't have a glass back as its sits flat in my front pocket.

What's interesting is to see whether apple replace the bent phone or if they say it's due to miss-handling

Surely Apple should have foreseen that a large part of their customer base inexplicably enjoys making their legs resemble drainpipes? Or perhaps it's because of that they continue with this fruitless (ha) obsession with thinness; who really wouldn't trade a few mm for better rigidity, battery life, and no camera protrusion?

I'd trade thinness for better battery life, grip, camera and rigidity every day without question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRockliffe

I'd trade thinness for better battery life, grip, camera and rigidity every day without question

---

+1 on that front. Perhaps QOTW? 3 or 4 mm for a days heavy use would be fantastic. I only get about 6-7 hours if hammering my phone :(

On my z1 I get a full day with heavy use. Medium use today and I've currently got 54%

Karl really sucks.

Reminds me of the genius will it blend adverts. Will it bend?

My old Note 1 (5.3" screen) lasted a good two years in my pockets without any bending and I wasn't particularly careful with it (use to have a large wallet with a large coin pocket next to it most days). Seems quite poor to me for a £600+ phone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowsey

Moral of the story, I've finally worked out Karl is a d****e-bag. Iphone users, enjoy your phone, just don't be Karl!

---

Ooh, that's a meme that could have legs... LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spl

Karl really sucks.

---

See, it's not just me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexKitch

I bought the iPhone 6 (non-plus) and I have to say; I love it. I personally don't understand the lure of enormous phones that resemble tablets - surely that can't be comfortable to carry in your pocket. To each their own, I suppose.

---

5.5" G3 for me, and I don't have problems sticking it in either fleece or trouser pockets. As you say, each to their own - e.g. my eldest kid slags off my slabphone compared to her svelte HTC One M8 Mini

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowsey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRockliffe

I'd trade thinness for better battery life, grip, camera and rigidity every day without question

---

+1 on that front. Perhaps QOTW? 3 or 4 mm for a days heavy use would be fantastic. I only get about 6-7 hours if hammering my phone :(

---

Definitely QOTW material, although why am I reminded of:
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/07/0719a...bb3e7362b6.jpg

Ha ha.

Bendgate makes me laugh. How can a company like Apple make such a mistake like a device that bends in your pocket. I would fire the quality and design departments. One for designing a bad phone and the other for letting it slip through the net and making it to consumers.

My note 3 has been in my pocket daily for nearly a year and has no signs of it bending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deejayburnout

My note 3 has been in my pocket daily for nearly a year and has no signs of it bending.

---

Of course, you haven't been able to sit down in that time! :D

They can spin it so that a "non-bendable" iphone is a premium feature :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

Of course, you haven't been able to sit down in that time! :D

---

Lol.

Very true. It's like sitting on a brick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowsey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexKitch

I bought the iPhone 6 (non-plus) and I have to say; I love it. I personally don't understand the lure of enormous phones that resemble tablets - surely that can't be comfortable to carry in your pocket.

To each their own, I suppose.

---

Before I make any comment, regarding this article, it's not unexpected really, just a reinforcement of poor value for money that some Android uses benefit from. Some premium model Android phones can be just as expensive so it's just whatever works for yourself.

Regarding the iPhone 6+ bending, it's just a disappointment as whilst I've never bought an iphone out of personal preference, I have recognised them as a company of often well built products. They have there issues ( phone signal with hand placement on the 4? and the finish on the metal being at best temporary on the 5 ) but structurally very well built. I think Apple could face some serious problems regarding this and look forward to how they manage these complaints.

And finally, a small story.

About a year and a half ago I purchased a HTC One M7 (IMO, a beautiful, well built, well specced phone with some very nice features) it has a 4.7 inch 1080p display. At this time the iPhone 5 was about six months old but most of my friends still had the iPhone 4s. One friend in particular, we will name him Karl, scoffed at my phone when he asked what I'd upgraded to from a busted up old samsung galaxy ace. And all he did for the next 2/3 months whenever I saw him was throw digs about my 'stupidly large' phone. On launch day he got an iPhone 6 (...with a 4.7 inch screen). He came over to my house a couple days ago and wouldn't stop talking about his lovely new phone, I don't blame it, it's a nice phone. My girlfriend showed up and had to send a text on her phone ( her Nexus 4 had been stolen ages ago so she was using a Z1 compact from her insurance ) and he banged on for another 10 minutes about how her 'stupidly small' phone looks like a toy. I had great delight in reminding him of earlier discussions about phone sizes.

And then he started on his retina display vs my 'stupid cr@ppy' lcd. It was fun whilst he remained but he got annoyed at me for arguing with him after a while so he left.

Moral of the story, I've finally worked out Karl is a d****e-bag. Iphone users, enjoy your phone, just don't be Karl!

---

I would have pointed out that your old phone had a 4.7 full hd screen to his new 4.7 screen that's only hd ready, you would have had a higher poi screen and at the end of the day the retina display is still only an lcd screen, it's not as though it's an amoled like samsung displays. That shoulda put him in his place.

Not a dig at Apple fans owner of 4,4s,5.5s and will probably get the six

Just to put this whole bending thing in perspective..

It's a fairly uncommon problem that affects a range of smartphones made out of metal, and is in no way unique to Apple (nor are they the first to suffer). Google will give you all the links, but it's been widely reported to happen to all of these:

iPhone 5/5s
Samsung Galaxy S4
HTC One
HTC evo (very common)
Sony Xperia Z1
Some of the newer Lumias

This is just being blown out of all proportion because it's Apple. I've no interest in the iPhone 6, but the Apple bashing is a little unfair as usual!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

Just to put this whole bending thing in perspective..

It's a fairly uncommon problem that affects a range of smartphones made out of metal, and is in no way unique to Apple (nor are they the first to suffer). Google will give you all the links, but it's been widely reported to happen to all of these:

iPhone 5/5s
Samsung Galaxy S4
HTC One
HTC evo (very common)
Sony Xperia Z1
Some of the newer Lumias

This is just being blown out of all proportion because it's Apple. I've no interest in the iPhone 6, but the Apple bashing is a little unfair as usual!

---

Are you just pulling those phones out of thin air?

In our company we have a mix of all of the above and out of 250 users none have had bending problems.

My Z1 doesn't bend without me trying to bend it. In fact, I bet if you didn't try to none of those phoned would bend. The 6+ bends from general use as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

Are you just pulling those phones out of thin air?

In our company we have a mix of all of the above and out of 250 users none have had bending problems.

---

No, thats a qualified list and if you google each of those phone names and "bending" you'll find countless examples. Even Sky news featured the story this morning and made the point that this happens to any metal phone and is not restricted to the iPhone 5/6.

While I have a LOT of problems with Apple, this isn't one of them.

We all buys CPUs and GPUs that are sold "defective" so that they can charge a premium for the "working" ones. I see this as no different. A premium model that essentially costs the same as the basic model to make.

I do find it utterly hilarious how Apple made the U-turn on large phones though. The amount of Apple fanboys that used to take the piss at anyone who had a phone larger than a 3S and are now walking around the the iPhone 6 "Dom Joly edition" (Plus)........a phone must be fully usable within the reach of the thumb! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowsey

Moral of the story, I've finally worked out Karl is a d****e-bag. Iphone users, enjoy your phone, just don't be Karl!

---

To be fair to Karl, Apple have been the ones ensisting that you dont need a big phone.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/j...025.1408354560

http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-...hone-5-1127147

People are consistently victims of Apples BS marketing. Otherwise intelligent people seem to adjust their attitude to be in line with whatever the attitude of Apple is and I cant wrap my head around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

Just to put this whole bending thing in perspective..

It's a fairly uncommon problem that affects a range of smartphones made out of metal, and is in no way unique to Apple (nor are they the first to suffer). Google will give you all the links, but it's been widely reported to happen to all of these:

iPhone 5/5s
Samsung Galaxy S4
HTC One
HTC evo (very common)
Sony Xperia Z1
Some of the newer Lumias

This is just being blown out of all proportion because it's Apple. I've no interest in the iPhone 6, but the Apple bashing is a little unfair as usual!

---

How is it unfair? If you market the phone as the best thing in the world since man invented the wheel then you better deliver something that surpasses all other devices in every aspect. Apple repeatedly get bashed because in reality, they are behind the times in terms of technology, features and their build quality is bang average time and time again.

The level of 'bashing' is directly proportionate to the amount of hype Apple creates.

That was back then - and Jobs was right. I didn't read the whole statement, but unless he said sort of in the next few years then I'd have been inclined to agree with him. At the time, no one would have since all phones were small but now they're slowly getting bigger (unfortunately).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrRockliffe

That was back then - and Jobs was right. I didn't read the whole statement, but unless he said sort of in the next few years then I'd have been inclined to agree with him. At the time, no one would have since all phones were small but now they're slowly getting bigger (unfortunately).

---

He was way off, even back then. He was saying 3.5" is sufficient and even 4" and 4.5" was too big and people wouldnt buy into it... they did!
Besides this, peoples hands haven't changed significantly in the last... few thousand years so his statement doesn't really have a time limit.
Its like when Ballmer was saying people wouldn't buy an iPhone because it would be too expensive. Its just a dumbass statement to make because if you are wrong, you are guaranteed to be forced into making your business take a hypocritical, 'me too' direction when you have to catch up. Fortunately for Apple, they have a whole internet full of reviewers with their tongue's fighting for a spot in Apples posterior so it doesn't matter what they do, its always right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

No, thats a qualified list and if you google each of those phone names and "bending" you'll find countless examples. Even Sky news featured the story this morning and made the point that this happens to any metal phone and is not restricted to the iPhone 5/6.

---

Really? Check this out....other phones being put to the test, end of story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IROcoJeVfSI#t=105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

Really? Check this out....other phones being put to the test, end of story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IROcoJeVfSI#t=105

---

Makes the new Moto X seem quite appealing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

How is it unfair?

---

It's unfair as the vast majority is complete unsubstantiated rubbish that is spouted just because it's Apple. Or it's a common problem in competing products which are suddenly defended en-mass, again just because it's Apple. They are not the only company to market their devices as being the best in the world - all the big brands do it..every company markets their products as "the best". You would never create a product and try to sell it as "its just OK". It happens every year - people pour over their devices and look for the tiniest potential weak point and then go crazy on the internet kicking up a huge fuss over nothing. The antenna issue with the iPhone 4 was just as bad - and again the vast majority of competing phones exhibited an identical problem but it was largely ignored as they were not Apple.

Apple just seem to get the worst of it, probably because they position themselves as more premium than the rest with their pricing and general quality, admittedly much more so in the earlier days than now when they are really starting to fall behind imo and have not done anything interesting at all since the iPhone 4, which was their last "good" phone. That really was the best device on the market at the time and no other phone has come close design wise since then..from anyone.

It's kind of ironic really as non-apple fans constantly harp on about the "sheep" that buy their products, without realising that they are just as bad by following the Apple Bashing trend ;)

I don't remember any other phones having the reception problems the 4 had.

Echoing what someone else said previously, criticism is not 'Apple-bashing' if it has reason. To produce a phone, put it on a pedestal as a wonder of wonders, then find it bends in people's pockets, deserves criticism. Why didn't they test it for bendiness as part of the pre-production phase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

It's unfair as the vast majority is complete unsubstantiated rubbish that is spouted just because it's Apple.

---

Awwwww poor Apple. poor disgustingly wealthy Apple, why doesn't everyone just leave them alone and stop picking on them...
There is clear evidence for all of the issues, so they are far from unsubstantiated. The main ones being the Antenna, the scuffing and now the 6+ bending.
The video posted above, whilst not completely scientific, is pretty clear that there is a weakspot on the 6+ but many other current flagships dont suffer from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

Or it's a common problem in competing products which are suddenly defended en-mass, again just because it's Apple.

---

As far as the bending goes, its not a common problem on competing products, see the video. Perhaps devices from other companies have suffered from it before, but all we have seen is images of people with bent phones, not a video where they were all tested side by side in similar conditions. For all we know they could have stood on it, drove over it in a car, hit it with a mallet... who knows. THE VIDEO IS VERY VERY CLEAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

They are not the only company to market their devices as being the best in the world - all the big brands do it..every company markets their products as "the best". You would never create a product and try to sell it as "its just OK". It happens every year

---

Indeed, and other companies do get bashed. As i said before, the level of bashing is directly proportionate to the scale of the advertising and hype. Apple generate more so they get more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

- people pour over their devices and look for the tiniest potential weak point and then go crazy on the internet kicking up a huge fuss over nothing. The antenna issue with the iPhone 4 was just as bad - and again the vast majority of competing phones exhibited an identical problem but it was largely ignored as they were not Apple.

---

It wasnt an identical problem at all. The iPhone 4 reception was bad, even in the best of conditions, and we actually did a test in our office as we were all curious about this deathgrip issue.
We were all on vodaphone, all within a few meters of each other, there was HTCs, Blackberrys, Samsungs and even a couple of Nokia symbian phones. The iPhone reception dropped off incredibly easily with normal pressure, wheras all the other devices (after experimenting and finding the antenna location, this was much easier with the dumbass, 'external antenna' on the iPhone) you had to really grip the devices hard to make them drop bars, and where the iPhone would drop to no signal, the others just lost some signal and could still phone. For a device that was twice the price of the others, this is not acceptable in my opinion.

The real problem here is the people saying, 'well it doesn't affect my iPhone so it must have just been that one'. People should demand to get what they pay for, which in the case of Apple with their marketing methods and high cost, should be the absolute best. Instead they just accept it and ignore the flaws until the next device comes out when suddenly everything is fixed and the new features are added... now all of a sudden these things are relevant?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

Apple just seem to get the worst of it, probably because they position themselves as more premium than the rest with their pricing and general quality...

---

Which is why they deserve it, they sell 'premium and quality' but what people receive, is often not up to the standards it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

admittedly much more so in the earlier days than now when they are really starting to fall behind imo and have not done anything interesting at all since the iPhone 4, which was their last "good" phone. That really was the best device on the market at the time and no other phone has come close design wise since then..from anyone.

---

Well thats your opinion and you're entitled to it, but from where im sitting, every generation of iPhone has been behind in terms of features, value, build quality and technology.
The best iPhone i have ever used is the 5c. Loses none of the 'style and quality' but gets given a really solid feel from the unibody plastic shell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spud1

It's kind of ironic really as non-apple fans constantly harp on about the "sheep" that buy their products, without realising that they are just as bad by following the Apple Bashing trend ;)

---

Perhaps we should all just shut up and allow Apple to continue to shaft the world with their questionable, overhyped, hypocritical products? I think i would rather criticise them and push them to more more competitive.
Apples products are flawed, and they will continue to get called out over it, no matter how hard they, or anyone else, tries to persist that its just jelous anti-hype.

Spud1, you have failed to produce evidence for your claims, in fact the videos I posted counter your claims yet you are still going on about how other phones suffer the same issue.

Just to reiterate what biscuit said, this is not about bashing Apple, it's about setting out the facts and not falling for the marketing spiel - they are marketed and priced as the highest quality mobile phones but time after time they fail to properly test their devices before releasing them, once with the antenna issue which they initially handled poorly and now the bending issue which they haven't addressed yet, why would anyone associate the words high quality with Apple? If a company repeatedly fails to test their devices properly why would you buy from them?

I can answer that question, maybe its for the same reason one would purchase a Ferrari or a Lamborghini instead of a Mercedes, all three can get you from A to B, the Mercedes engine will probably handle a couple of hundred thousand miles, it's probably safer in an accident, probably more reliable, cheaper too, but a Ferrari is a Ferrari, no one is going to look at you in your C Class Mercedes, but they will look at your Ferrari and this is what Apple have tried to do, they want to be a Ferrari.

Maybe it's nonsense.

I don't know where Spud is coming from here, there was an interesting thread on reddit which had engineers rushing to defend the 6000series of alluminium. Someone had made a simple model showing why the Samsung didn't have a bending problem, but if he moved the volume control, all of a sudden it did.

You can see that the iPhone bends around the volume rocker, so there is probably a lot of truth that it's a unique design flaw to apple.

This reminds me of when they were defending the iPhone 4, I had a UK launch day model, and if you touched the outside antenna, it dropped the call. No other phone I'd ever owned did that, no phone I've owned since has done that. Apple directly tried to spin it as a problem all phones have, this is nonsense, but you could even see on the videos they did of competitors phones, that they were squeezing so hard the plastic was discolouring.

Yes, other phones will bend, but not from normal use. The idea you shouldn't use your front pocket, is beyond retarded, the fact BBC had advisors spouting this, again, insane. I've had touch screen smart phones for 8 years now, I've always kept it in my front right pocket, I've never had any deformity, or failure from fatigue.

The guy who did the original bend video was having none of this '9 users' BS

iPhone 6 Plus: The Bend Uncut: http://youtu.be/gJ3Ds6uf0Yg

COME ON MAN! That is appalling, doesn't even look like it bent on the typical weak point that time.

The title of this forum thread led me to think that there'd be posts about Apple's flagrant profiteering, made all the more obscene by the company's already huge cash pile (bigger than the GDP of many small countries) and use of international cross border tax tricks to pay next to no tax to anyone.

Well, more fool me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

The title of this forum thread led me to think that there'd be posts about Apple's flagrant profiteering, made all the more obscene by the company's already huge cash pile (bigger than the GDP of many small countries) and use of international cross border tax tricks to pay next to no tax to anyone.

Well, more fool me...

---

Osbourne (in his Tory party speech yesterday) has said about "aggressively" going after technology companies who "actively avoid tax". I'd assumed he was meaning Google and Amazon, but I guess that TCAAX (Technology Companies Actively Avoiding Tax) label also applies to Apple. Don't they do the "base in Eire" trick same as Dell and others?

After all we all pay our Apple-related tax - VAT when we buy the latest gadget.

Although my most recent Apple gadget was secondhand from eBay, so no VAT for me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Osbourne (in his Tory party speech yesterday) has said about "aggressively" going after technology companies who "actively avoid tax". I'd assumed he was meaning Google and Amazon, but I guess that TCAAX (Technology Companies Actively Avoiding Tax) label also applies to Apple. Don't they do the "base in Eire" trick same as Dell and others?

After all we all pay our Apple-related tax - VAT when we buy the latest gadget.

Although my most recent Apple gadget was secondhand from eBay, so no VAT for me. :)

---

On Osbourne, given that the public outcry about the tax position of the likes of Starbucks and Amazon happened over two years ago he has done very little about it to date - and I'd treat anything said by him to the media and a party conference a few months before a likely tight general election with a spade full of salt.

As for the VAT thing - remember that VAT is a transaction tax which is ultimately only paid by the end consumer -

e.g. Co. A buys widget for £x plus VAT adds value to it and sells to Co. B for £y plus VAT. Co A then pays HMRC the it VAT charged to Co. B on £y less the VAT it paid on £x. Consequently, Co. A doesn't actually pay anything, it merely adds the tax man's slice and passes it on.

When Co. B converts the widget and sell it to the public for £z plus VAT it claims back the VAT it has paid but the public can't claim it back at all and so takes the hit.

So, the VAT issue is one of us being ripped off by companies using corporate structures to allow them to claim back VAT they incur whilst not charging it to their customers. That rips us all off as it reduces the public purse - remember, it's not the government's money, it's ours.

The real tax dodge is the use of offshore corporate structures, centuries old Corporation of the City of London rules, transfer pricing and trust ownership structures to pay no corporation tax. That's the real issue, and something Apple is adept in exploiting.

A really good book about this is 'Treasure Islands' by Nicholas Shaxton. Very well worth a read!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

On Osbourne, given that the public outcry about the tax position of the likes of Starbucks and Amazon happened over two years ago he has done very little about it to date - and I'd treat anything said by him to the media and a party conference a few months before a likely tight general election with a spade full of salt.

As for the VAT thing - remember that VAT is a transaction tax which is ultimately only paid by the end consumer

---

Firstly, what can you do? One big issue (as an amazon stock watcher) is Amazon genuinely makes sod all profit anyway. Secondly, who do you think pays corp tax? If the VAT is paid by the consumer, who do you think really pays for corporation tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Firstly, what can you do? One big issue (as an amazon stock watcher) is Amazon genuinely makes sod all profit anyway. Secondly, who do you think pays corp tax? If the VAT is paid by the consumer, who do you think really pays for corporation tax?

---

I really don't know where you're looking for your Amazon stock information then or whether you understand it (and I really have no wish to be insulting).

It's most recent figures, as found on it's 2013 Form 10A as released to NASDAQ, showed that in 2013 it had net sales of $74,452 million, Operational Income of $745 million and net income of $274 million (i.e. a lot more than sod all profit). As a matter of policy it does not pay dividends on standard shares and is a clear 'growth' stock, rising from $39 to $322 over the last 10 years.

Also, I am well aware that corporation tax is paid on the taxable earnings of companies (which are legally distinct entities), net of any VAT. But how those profits are calculated for tax purposes is crucial. For instance, employees of companies (and that includes directors who may be significant shareholders) can be paid salaries and get stock options - both of which are deducted from profits before they are taxed.

As an example, and as a matter of fact, Amazon's founder, chairman, CEO and president is Jeff Bezos, has personal net worth of $82 Billion. So again, to say that Amazon does not make money is incorrect.

But to get to the real nub of your post - what can you do?

Well, in our country, which is something of a tax haven and controls most of the tax havens in the world (Corporation of the City of London, Channel Islands, the Carribean Overseas Dependent Territories etc.), you could simply stop things. With thanks to Nicholas Shaxton (mentioned in my last post), we could:

1. Pursue transparency - under current accounting rules the 60% of world trade that happens inside multi-national companies like Apple and Amazon need only be reported in aggregated form and so cannot be examined for all the international movement of profits and costs (hence you thinking Amazon makes sod all). This could be changed.
2. Reform on-shore taxation so that taking money offshore is less attractive.
3. Tackle the intermediaries in the spiders web of off-shore tax avoidance, including the private users of it (such as Jimmy Carr and Robbie Barlow).
4. Reform the financial sector significantly more.
5. Re-think corporate responsibility.
6. Change the culture of fawning over the rich who got there by abusing the system, getting around tax and regulation and forcing everyone else (us) to shoulder the risk and taxes (corporate bankers being a good example).

All of these things need political will - which will only arise if we the people make them realise that we are seriously unhappy about these things. So, get up and shout!

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

I really don't know where you're looking for your Amazon stock information then or whether you understand it (and I really have no wish to be insulting).

---

You are welcome to question my methodology. Many people on this forum know my background on this, and whilst it's more applied than academic, it's certainly not in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

As an example, and as a matter of fact, Amazon's founder, chairman, CEO and president is Jeff Bezos, has personal net worth of $82 Billion. So again, to say that Amazon does not make money is incorrect.

---

On paper, I'm £0.5M richer than I was this time last year... I've got considerably less cash in my bank account, and I'll probably be getting a tax refund, rather than paying anything. Do not get too concerned with these measurements. The liquidity of that £0.5M is pretty moot.

The fact is Amazon at best makes sod all profit, considerably less than half a percent, heck at best we're talking about one third of a percent, as Bezos famously said, your margin is my opportunity. They are a growth stock as you mention, that often means posting no profit, often just losses.

None of your solutions actually get to the issue. How can a government say what is a fair price, and what isn't. Take coffee. Brand is so damned important, people flock to a brand they know. How much is it worth to pay for a franchise for a famous brand? Who gets to decide that?

Even just simply say I started my own coffee place, I buy my cups from China. I pay 15p per cup. Is that tax avoidance? I mean it could just be really nice artwork I'm buying. Is my 10p more than other cups ok, or dodging?

What about software? What's a fair price? I've seen something that I replaced in 4 hours, being billed at £15k per month. Market value is in utility after all.

Would the government start inspecting every trade? How can this realistically work.

It would be so much simpler just to tax income the same as capital gains, and abolish corporation tax altogether. That won't happen, as it would require political will, people love corporation tax, it's a victimless tax, like punching someone in the dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

On paper, I'm £0.5M richer than I was this time last year... I've got considerably less cash in my bank account, and I'll probably be getting a tax refund, rather than paying anything. Do not get too concerned with these measurements. The liquidity of that £0.5M is pretty moot.

---

You really didn't need to let me know so much about you! :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

None of your solutions actually get to the issue. How can a government say what is a fair price, and what isn't. Take coffee. Brand is so damned important, people flock to a brand they know. How much is it worth to pay for a franchise for a famous brand? Who gets to decide that?

---

I don't think its a matter of the fair price at the point of sale of something. In a free and appropriately regulated market (theme for another thread perhaps) the parties to the transaction will agree that. What I'm talking about is the manipulation of the framework of international rules so that multinational corporations, like Apple and Amazon, can avoid paying tax on the profits they make where they make them.

At present such corporations save paying tax by shuffling money between jurisdictions to create artificial paper trails that shift profits into low zero-tax havens and their costs to high tax countries. That, alongside the use of secrecy in tax havens to hide profit altogether (like in Liechtenstein where you can set up an anonymous company called an 'Anstalt' with a single secret shareholder, which may be another company). So, given the extent of reporting you simply can't know whether Amazon makes little ROI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Would the government start inspecting every trade? How can this realistically work.

---

No, that would be silly - that's what accountants and auditors do, under the rules and regulations that I'm saying need to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

It would be so much simpler just to tax income the same as capital gains, and abolish corporation tax altogether. That won't happen, as it would require political will, people love corporation tax, it's a victimless tax, like punching someone in the dark.

---

No it wouldn't be simpler - for a start the concepts are completely different. Income is generated cash revenue in the short term whereas capital gains are increases in asset value over the long term. Corporate and non-corporate business tax uses systems of deduction for costs incurred generating income before tax is paid. Capital taxes sometimes allow for asset development costs or inflation. They are separate concepts of accounting and taxation and so its not a matter of political will, just one of common sense.

And I'd also suggest that it's important for businesses to pay tax - they depend on the investment of the state in providing a stable environment to do business in as well as educated and healthy employees and customers and so should pay their fair share to support that.

Also, tonight, here's Apple's latest 'problem' to tarnish its sheen further: http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...nment-tax-deal

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

As for the VAT thing - remember that VAT is a transaction tax which is ultimately only paid by the end consumer

---

The "end consumer" was the person I bought the device from, so he'd had to absorb VAT and the depreciation hit too. :) I did say it was secondhand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

A really good book about this is 'Treasure Islands' by Nicholas Shaxton. Very well worth a read!

---

Thanks, I'll give it a look if I can find an inexpensive copy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Thanks, I'll give it a look if I can find an inexpensive copy.

---

Perhaps you'll find one on Amazon....:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

You really didn't need to let me know so much about you! :/

---

Why not, it illustrates precisely why your views are so wrong. I am 'richer' than I was, yet my actual cash flows are so low, I'll not be paying much tax if any. This is because I co-founded a new company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

I don't think its a matter of the fair price at the point of sale of something. In a free and appropriately regulated market (theme for another thread perhaps) the parties to the transaction will agree that. What I'm talking about is the manipulation of the framework of international rules so that multinational corporations, like Apple and Amazon, can avoid paying tax on the profits they make where they make them.

---

But in my example you can just do it on that transaction. How would you stop that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

At present such corporations save paying tax by shuffling money between jurisdictions to create artificial paper trails that shift profits into low zero-tax havens and their costs to high tax countries. That, alongside the use of secrecy in tax havens to hide profit altogether (like in Liechtenstein where you can set up an anonymous company called an 'Anstalt' with a single secret shareholder, which may be another company). So, given the extent of reporting you simply can't know whether Amazon makes little ROI.

---

This is a kind of fun prisoners dilemma type thing, however it's even more interesting to a game theorist because many of the places are democratic and will have quite open indications as to how they will behave. Hence why I very much doubt that no one will betray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

No, that would be silly - that's what accountants and auditors do, under the rules and regulations that I'm saying need to be changed.

---

Changed how? Prove my software license isn't worth £10M....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

No it wouldn't be simpler - for a start the concepts are completely different. Income is generated cash revenue in the short term whereas capital gains are increases in asset value over the long term. Corporate and non-corporate business tax uses systems of deduction for costs incurred generating income before tax is paid. Capital taxes sometimes allow for asset development costs or inflation. They are separate concepts of accounting and taxation and so its not a matter of political will, just one of common sense.

---

But I am talking on an individual level, not businesses accounting for different kinds of costs. If you have a trust fund you'll just be paying CGT, but if you have a job, you'll be paying a higher rate of tax, hardly fair.

Also I'd really like to just get back to the original point. Amazon make sod all profit. Sod all. I wouldn't be surprised at all if their silly phone results in a massive mark down. The amount of corporation tax that they are not paying in the UK is really tiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

But I am talking on an individual level, not businesses accounting for different kinds of costs.

---

I think that's where we're coming unstuck - as a past stockbroker and tax inspector and now a company director of two businesses (funnily enough one of which runs a coffee shop!), I suspect we have different perspectives, perhaps even different paradigms.

In reality, to skin this cat you need to look at all the legal entities that undertake trade, from individuals to offshore trusts. It makes no sense to me for you to simply base your argument on the individual's position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Also I'd really like to just get back to the original point. Amazon make sod all profit. Sod all. I wouldn't be surprised at all if their silly phone results in a massive mark down. The amount of corporation tax that they are not paying in the UK is really tiny.

---

Yes, the point of our debate. My argument, again, is that the accounts show that Amazon makes profit. In fact, note 11 to the financial statements shows it made a total of $506 million pre tax profit in 2013, net of a $198 million loss on international trade.

The accounts also simply don't provide enough information available to be able to say where that loss was made or how, other than it was "outside Europe" - it could be start up costs in new markets in the far east, for example.

Also, I'd point you to that Amazon's 10A submission also details Amazon's two non-US 100% owned subsidiaries - both of which are registered in that well known tax haven, Lichtenstein.

There's loads more you can pull out of the accounts to support my argument that Amazon is a profitable business, but I'm sure that would bore the pants off everyone else here!

Cheers matey! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

I think that's where we're coming unstuck - as a past stockbroker and tax inspector and now a company director of two businesses (funnily enough one of which runs a coffee shop!), I suspect we have different perspectives, perhaps even different paradigms.

In reality, to skin this cat you need to look at all the legal entities that undertake trade, from individuals to offshore trusts. It makes no sense to me for you to simply base your argument on the individual's position.

---

It's more I don't like the suggestion that the CEO is rich, he has a lot of paper assets, but these assets are not been sold, and realistically couldn't be at the market value.
[QUOTE=RobbieRoy;3384781]Yes, the point of our debate. My argument, again, is that the accounts show that Amazon makes profit. In fact, note 11 to the financial statements shows it made a total of $506 million pre tax profit in 2013, net of a $198 million loss on international trade. [/QUTOE]I dislike the amazon bashing because people look at gross revenue, neglect to include VAT, and then say they should be paying hundreds of millions in corp tax. The fact is, and for some reason investors are happy with, amazon making sod all profit.

For instance, the Guardian hypocritical bunch of little twonks they are, moan about this: http://www.theguardian.com/business/...azon-uk-tax-3m Apparently £4bn of gross, but we know that amazon like to do about 0.5-1% margin. So let's say 40M and cgt on that of £3M doesn't look at all out of place to me. At most it's a couple of million quid they are screwing us by. Hardly worth getting worked up over considering how much other taxes they've raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

Also, I'd point you to that Amazon's 10A submission also details Amazon's two non-US 100% owned subsidiaries - both of which are registered in that well known tax haven, Lichtenstein.

---

Which to be honest with, I don't see the issue, they have a duty to their mostly international share holders after all to maximise their profits, everything they do is legal, and as I said before, a prisoners dilemma for the global nations to stpo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

There's loads more you can pull out of the accounts to support my argument that Amazon is a profitable business, but I'm sure that would bore the pants off everyone else here!

---

More that I don't think they are misleading their investors in terms of hiding profits from the parent entity. I genuinely believe what Jeof says about your margin, his opportunity, the fact they are growing and investing money heavily in new areas and infrastructure. It makes sense to me they pay sod all CT, not just because it's a silly tax, but because they make sod all money. For a 150bn business 0.5bn is sod all in my book.

[QUOTE=TheAnimus;3384801]It's more I don't like the suggestion that the CEO is rich, he has a lot of paper assets, but these assets are not been sold, and realistically couldn't be at the market value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I dislike the amazon bashing because people look at gross revenue, neglect to include VAT, and then say they should be paying hundreds of millions in corp tax. The fact is, and for some reason investors are happy with, amazon making sod all profit.

---

I also feel that criticism of Amazon based on a fundamental misunderstanding of accounting and tax is wrong. Tax is paid on profit, not turnover (which excludes VAT as it is a sales transaction tax).

Investors like Amazon because they like the business model, like the return on investment and see it as a good growth story. As in all stock investment, buy quality and hold for the long term - which I presume you have done. They don't want 'profit' as they want all that generated money to be reinvested in growth.

As for the VAT point and use of overseas companies - some of the criticism is that the arrangements (which are quite legal) allow Amazon to reclaim input VAT but not charge output VAT. So, if they buy something for £100 but pay VAT of £20 the total cost is £120. But they then reclaim the VAT and so the net cost is £100 so if if they then sell at £120 and charge no VAT they have made a £20 profit for no other reason but the VAT refund.

You may think the Guardian twonks are hypocrits but is there anything factually wrong with that article? The issue, as I have been arguing in terms of cross border financial manipulation, is that companies like Amazon can move profits to places where taxes are low or non existent and costs to places where they can be set against profits. The old retail model, for instance, was that the sale price of an item was 1/3 stock cost, 1/3 overheads and 1/3 profit. Amazon's apparent profitability is therefore questionable.

BTW, companies don't pay CGT they pay CT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

More that I don't think they are misleading their investors in terms of hiding profits from the parent entity. I genuinely believe what Jeof says about your margin, his opportunity, the fact they are growing and investing money heavily in new areas and infrastructure. It makes sense to me they pay sod all CT, not just because it's a silly tax, but because they make sod all money. For a 150bn business 0.5bn is sod all in my book.

---

Well, our opinions remain some way apart then and I suspect our views on the role of international companies in our society are quite different too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

I also feel that criticism of Amazon based on a fundamental misunderstanding of accounting and tax is wrong. Tax is paid on profit, not turnover (which excludes VAT as it is a sales transaction tax).

Investors like Amazon because they like the business model, like the return on investment and see it as a good growth story. As in all stock investment, buy quality and hold for the long term - which I presume you have done. They don't want 'profit' as they want all that generated money to be reinvested in growth.

---

Yeah that is my criticism, in the linked article, they used revenue.

Also I'm not opposed to growth stocks per say, I find them fine when they are say Tesla, but not so cool when they are say Apple back in 2011...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

As for the VAT point and use of overseas companies - some of the criticism is that the arrangements (which are quite legal) allow Amazon to reclaim input VAT but not charge output VAT. So, if they buy something for £100 but pay VAT of £20 the total cost is £120. But they then reclaim the VAT and so the net cost is £100 so if if they then sell at £120 and charge no VAT they have made a £20 profit for no other reason but the VAT refund.

---

But any net VAT left over on UK Vattable trading, they have to pay. They could not even be registered in the UK but after a certain threshold they have to still comply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

You may think the Guardian twonks are hypocrits but is there anything factually wrong with that article? The issue, as I have been arguing in terms of cross border financial manipulation, is that companies like Amazon can move profits to places where taxes are low or non existent and costs to places where they can be set against profits. The old retail model, for instance, was that the sale price of an item was 1/3 stock cost, 1/3 overheads and 1/3 profit. Amazon's apparent profitability is therefore questionable.

---

But this is the point, Amazon have razor thin margins, this is what they tell their investors, if this is not the case I think the SEC would be more concerned...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

BTW, companies don't pay CGT they pay CT.

---

I know, the argument often for CGT been lower than normal income taxation is because of CT, hence the relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

Well, our opinions remain some way apart then and I suspect our views on the role of international companies in our society are quite different too!

---

I have more of a view that it's futile to try and think you can turn the tide, hence my use of the prisoners dillema as an example of this situation from game theory. We know morally what is obviously the best solution, but realistically we know it won't happen because people are flawed. I think it's churlish to pretend otherwise, as the damage that can cause is significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Yeah that is my criticism, in the linked article, they used revenue.

I have more of a view that it's futile to try and think you can turn the tide, hence my use of the prisoners dillema as an example of this situation from game theory. We know morally what is obviously the best solution, but realistically we know it won't happen because people are flawed. I think it's churlish to pretend otherwise, as the damage that can cause is significant.

---

I don't accept that its futile to try. Yes we're all flawed, subjective individuals carrying enormous in-built biases (evolved traits that helped our species become so dominant) but all our current practices were started somewhere by someone, and evolve as people's experience and attitudes change. Thus, we all have an opportunity (I suggest an obligation) to effect change in order to move to a better world. The prisoners dilemma remains just part of game theory.

Oh, and one last thing friend Animus - if you don't believe that people can't set up ethical, moral and socially fair businesses and effect change just look at food wholesaler, Suma: http://www.suma.coop/

Gotta love apple tax