August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 28, 2013 · 00:09

I miss the cold war

It is a line from a movie, yet at times that is how I feel. Most of the elderly who served will likely feel the same. We had a common goal and a common enemy. We ‘feared’ the values that would be given to us by the Iron curtain. Then something happened, they seemingly went bankrupt. Not unlike India, Russia now has the fastest growing numbers of billionaires on the planet. Yet, the numbers do not add up. This relates to what happens today in Syria. No matter how the events in Syria began and I will admit, I know not when that premise there changed, but it had. The roughest of estimations would be that somewhere in September 2012 the game changed. I believe that it was before the UNHRC statements of September 28th (now exactly a year ago). Those against were China, Cuba and Russia. China seems to have been ‘sincere’ in their deliberations and Cuba did what Russia asked. Russia changed the game. In their minds this would be the beginning of a new cold war. There is one massive difference. This time we would likely lose!

The factors involved are a nothing less than an incompetent American administration. As the banking issues had hit them, their inability to solve or reacquire anything, with in addition two very expansive and expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had depleted the American coffers to less than nothing. When two parties are not in agreement, then the winner hits when the other party is down for the count, words spoken before by several parties and ignored or silenced by greed driven parties. Edward Snowden was not part of this in any way. I think this is the one lucky break both Russia and China never expected to see. You see, there are ripples connected to that. If the NSA has breaches to this extent, there would be a chance or even nothing less than likely that GCHQ (UK) might have similar flaws. Unlike their building, the donut, which has a hole in the middle, they will have a hole somewhere. If it does exist, then it is in the technology and not likely in the people they have. I reckon that I count myself to that cause where we protect and preserve the monarchy, even if I am just an Australian. The fact is that if technology was unable to stop Snowden, then it is not unrealistic that GCHQ has similar flaws, especially as GCHQ is given a mere fraction of resources the NSA gets on an annual base.

There is supporting evidence to these thoughts. The ALLEGED hacking of the UN building might count. If the alphabet groups were aware that there are issues with any upcoming cold war, then knowing as much as possible is essential. This could have driven the events if the hacking of the UN was a fact. Why the video conferencing? It was not about getting the voice feed, which is not too hard; it is however to find and identify people through the video link(s). If there is a new cold war brewing, knowing where certain people are is an actual must. If we can believe ‘Der Spiegel’ then staff members from the NSA had been tracking their wives. Leave it to some idiotic American to use these resources to keep an eye on his wife instead of giving her the orgasms she was entitled to (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-spying-europe-claims-us-eu-trade)

Yet back to the Syrian chess pieces. Assad, or as he should be known now as ‘Pinocchio 2’ has been doing the things that Russia wanted them to do. Slowly moving him and whatever reasoning he has (whether valid or not), to instil the safety and security of his current position. Yet that part is actually slowly but surely being forfeit. Russia needs the UK, France and US to intervene. Consider that this intervention will drain troops and costs in excess of 200 billion Euros. After that Pinocchio’s strings can be cut, his role will have been played out. This will not be a quick step and a likely aftermath of no less than 2 additional years. That is all they need to stop economic restoration. It is all they need to ensure an upcoming advantage.

Russia has been handed a massive advantage by several parties involved.

Are we considering suspending humanitarian laws in the UK? In the UK it is Home secretary Theresa May who stated “Britain should consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights because it interferes with the government’s ability to fight crime and control immigration, Home Secretary Theresa May said on Saturday (9 March)”. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights does not mean that the UK is abolishing Human rights all together, yet, taking into account the dwindling support for legal aid is a clear second part of this. For Russia it will be the flag they raise to state that Western values are flawed, to be suspended when times get hard. They would be correct. Instead of stopping greed driving consumption and acquisition we enabled it for too long.

Back to Syria!

At present the game has changed. We see carefully phrased denials, the game to postpone. In addition we saw an interview with an Assad loyalist, claiming he was a victim of a chemical attack by the Syrian opposition. Did anyone notice that the video’s from the Syrian opposition were people hardly able to speak and hardly able to breath. The Syrian soldier was in a hospital looking no worse than someone going there for a broken toe. Interesting that this was not that illuminated by the journalist. The fact that one soldier seemed to be in the crossfire whilst dozens of dead civilians, children and Syrian opposing troops on the other side. Let’s call a spade a spade shall we?

The conference by Walid al-Muallim did not help the Syrian cause either. They went one step further by now implying that Israel is now a likely strike point. Now let’s disseminate their ‘statements’. From Fox news we see the statement by Mohammed Javad Zarif: “We are in close contact with the Syrian government and they have reassured us that they had never used such inhumane weapons and would have the fullest cooperation with the U.N. experts to visit the areas affected.” (At http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/25/us-naval-forces-move-closer-to-syria-hagel-suggests)

Really? Then why were these investigators stopped for a week? Their promises are hollow for the simple reason that whatever attack the opposition made would be a danger to any chance the opposition has, whatever attack Syria made on these investigators would condemn them. Not reporting anything is in Syria’s interest. The simple truth at present is that both Israel and Jordan prefer to stay out of the way as much as possible. Israel needs to wait whether Hamas or Hezbollah will start attacking Israel first. If Israel is part of the attack to Syria, then both Hamas and Hezbollah will launch strikes on Israel, this is why Walid al-Muallim adds Israel to the mix. In addition, Russians next puppet is about to enter the field. In an age where we thought that the tension between Iran and the west would lighten up, the Iranian news reported the following: “The Iranian ambassador to Russia says the Islamic Republic can play a ‘constructive role’ in the Geneva 2 conference which is expected to be held on the Syrian crisis.” Of course Russians motive is simple, whatever happens they win. If Iran fails, then the tension on Iran versus West lights up again, if they win America looks weak and in addition Russia makes another billion for loads of concrete for a ‘power plant’ (and then some more including a dozen 7 figure bonuses). In addition, these talks will show initial failings and weaknesses for the Americans as the west will not interfere with Syria and the ‘red line’ Syria crossed.

These are the facts behind certain strategies and in addition most of them are public. The parts that are not that visible were those that were brought to light by Wikileaks. We could argue that those illustrated involving Brown Lloyd James were to be investigated, yet, is that an actual truth? If we consider their mission statement which is “BLJ crafts high-impact communication strategies that move diplomacy forward.” then it might not be the pure smell of Lavender, yet, we should not forget that Assad is still the sovereign ruler of Syria, if BLJ keeps diplomatic channels open, then that is not a bad thing.

How are these events linked?

That is part of the issue. Even though the UK wants and could enter the field to intercept Syrian chemical war abilities, PM David Cameron will go via Parliament (even though not officially needed). When the vote is up, consider who will oppose this and how many of them have had dealings with BLJ. It might make for an interesting picture. The other part where BLJ becomes visible through one of its executives (Mike Holtzman) was an article that goes back to 2003. In that part it was the quote “A solid majority of Americans-over fifty percent-believe the U.S. should lift restrictions on Americans’ freedom to travel to Cuba, allow U.S.-produced food and medical products to be sold to Cuba unimpeded and take steps toward normalization with Cuba as a matter of America’s national interest.” At present the Cuban travel embargo still exists. There are more connections that Mike Holtzman had, and many of them in his work serving both Syria and Cuba, so where does he truly stand? Let me be clear! This man broke no laws, is doing his work and chose his customers as he is allowed to choose them (even though many would call the choice questionable). Yet, in the light of Russia-Cuba and the issues at play we must wonder whether a second cold war has started, or is about to start. That evidence can be seen in several places, many of them public newspapers. The issues that the US has in regards Edward Snowden as well as the issues many nations have with Russian’s anti-Gay approach do not help to diminish tensions (its not like the Russians actually cared about them tensions).

They (the Russians) do play this type of chess game well. As they stated “In connection with this, the Russian side calls for [Washington to] refrain from the threat of force on Damascus, to not fall for provocations and to try to help create normal conditions to give the UN chemical experts’ mission, which is already in the country, the possibility of conducting a thorough, objective and impartial investigation” the foreign ministry statement said (as published by the Guardian), we see that the delays from snipers and administration, the only outcome is that the UN inspectors will now be unlikely to uncover evidence to point to a clear transgressor. No matter who wins that part, no action will only show weakness on the American shores, which serves Moscow, Havana and Beijing just fine.

So is there an actual second cold war? I honestly do not know, but plenty of events are there to turn my ‘Do not know‘ into a very strong ‘likely‘.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 24, 2013 · 14:41

Fair trade or trade fairy?

Cavendish Elithorn was on Sky news today. As the speaker of the office of fair trading, who is now coming out in regards to the practice that people see all over the world. We saw several issues in the news. There are mentions of ‘reference pricing’ where we see the ‘was’ and ‘now’ price, which in some cases is 50% less, or the after sale price where it is now 50% less, until the sale ends, where at that moment you will pay twice the price. The news casts speaks that at the higher price only 5% was ever made.

My issue is that even though it is great that this is done, yet is it a fair trade issue? Do not get me wrong, I think in one part it is, yet, can we act on this? This issue is especially questionable when we are hit through the internet with these same practices on a daily basis? Then there are for example the infomercials like Rapid Loss where we heard again and again to ‘respond within 15 minutes because this could be the last time this offer appeared‘, which of course is not the case as the same offer is given weeks later. The final example is the one that really gets my goat. We are talking about Ethical Nutrients when they claim on TV “You would need to eat 1.23 kg of snapper, or 1.1 kg of tuna, or take nine standard2 fish oil capsules every day or one teaspoon of Ethical Nutrients to get the required dose.” That pretty much implies that Arthritis correlates 100% to the population has NO ONE can afford that much fish. Even their web page title is ‘debatable’ It stated “How Much Omega-3 Fish Oil Do You Need For Arthritis?” (at http://www.ethicalnutrients.com.au/content/how-much-omega-3-fish-oil-do-you-need-arthritis) is this to get Arthritis, or to prevent it? These matters are not a case for fair trade?

We are getting in a field where many of these shops are going on a slippery marketing path to stay afloat, especially to survive against certain on-line presence that can change or reword visibility at a moment’s notice. Many of the smaller dealers might not like the fact that these mega houses, who can set prices of retail reference and actual price all by themselves, yet, consider the fact that this path had been walked by many of the A-brands for a very long time (several have been doing this for over 30 years). Consider the pricing in shops dealing in items from places like Lenovo, Sony, Samsung, Philips, Blaupunkt and that list goes on. So, when (or likely if) we see this case going forward we need to ask certain questions.

How will Cavendish Elithorn police the other areas too?

If not, he might not have a case. Not because of the reason quoted as “They are doing it, so why can’t we“, because if a small group is guilty of speeding, the rest is not allowed to speed either. The issue is that the small group that is speeding do not seem to be dealt with at all. There are often too many complications to these kind of cases, like the complications of dealing with internet cases to name but one, the fact that they are doing it short term and by the time the office of Fair Trade gets around to them they retract (or rephrase) the campaign and as such there would be no prosecutable case to begin with.

Do not think that the OFT (Office of Fair Trade) is a toothless tiger, or that they are fighting windmills. That part is clearly shown by the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22109188

A situation where kids are pressured into buying extras on web games that are now pushed through smartphones, Facebook and stand-alone games that are played on tablets. This is a dangerous situation where parents get confronted with hundreds (some even thousands) of dollars in unwanted bills. There is even a new danger developing. As some makers publish several games, the fact that they now link to one another, stating that you get a special reward in ‘game 1’ if you get to a certain level in ‘game 2’ and so on. I found a maker linking 5 games to each other in that way. How long until children suddenly purchase certain amounts in several games, or even in 5 games? Let me be clear here. This is not about a few who are addicted to gaming, but the bulk who do not realise the consequence of certain costs and pressing ‘OK’ in certain places. Part of this goes beyond just ‘fair trade’, not unlike your daily required need of 1Kg of tuna; this is about levels of ‘miscommunication’ where children and at times adults where pressing ‘OK’ would end up having severe financial consequences. This issue is even more unacceptable as these makers seem to point to iTunes as a policing authority (or enabling authority) for in-app spending, instead of standard disabling in game purchasing from the start and requiring specific acts to enable spending money for these special in-app forms of currency. However, that is likely to be regarded as ‘bad’ business.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , ,

August 19, 2013 · 22:11

Tax evasion, copyrighted by Vodafone?

If we look at copyright in the UK, then according to the UK copyright service, which states that “In the case of business ideas, it is again the recorded work rather than an intangible idea that is protected. Copyright would apply to items such as written documents, artwork, etc. – i.e. a Business plan, promotional literature, website, logo, and such items could certainly be registered.”

From that point of view, the creative tax efforts by Vodafone could be seen as an original work of ‘art’ (by lack of a better word), yet are they alone and are they really the first?

Yes, there is so much frustration in voices of people all around me as I hear them complain about the too fast rising cost of living. The fact that I saw an article last week in a newspaper stating that the minimum income for getting a mortgage in London now exceeds a million pounds, which I reckon is some new record to fight. So as many, who dream of a place around Swiss Cottage or Bond street (to keep the Lord’s Cricket grounds within walking distance), we see that this new price tag makes London an affordable place, mainly for Bankers and dealers in amphetamine based chemicals and that is pretty much it. So when these realities hit us and we see that a deal is struck with Vodafone for hundreds of millions of revenue (for the goal of non-taxability) made by what was described as an empty office in Ireland, waves of anger hit many people. This could be seen as a sign that the rich will get richer, at the expense of everyone else.

But is that the actual truth? It seems more a sign of the time than anything else. Vodafone is in pretty good company. They are actually one of the smaller players when we consider grocery shop sized companies like Google and Amazon. It gets to be a lot more hilarious listening to MP Margaret Hodge complaining about it to Google (in May 2013), whilst she is directly connected through family to Stemcor who is having the very same artistic approach to the payment of taxation (or lack thereof). The Telegraph in November 2012 reported that Stemcor, which reported revenue around 2.1 billion with a reported profit of 65 million paid a mere 163,000 pounds in taxation.

Whoever came up with that idea was worth his weight in gold and gemstones in the eye of these corporations.

It does not end there and it goes far beyond the borders of the UK. Consider the following. A software company has an item prices at ‘X’ and then adds consultancy valued at ‘Y’ and the total being ‘Z’ is charged.

So let us take a basic approach. The customer wants the package which requires software and a consultant and is willing to pay 100, consultancy is set at the basic price of 80, which means if the disc could be valued at 20, the price is met, and as such the customer is a new and happy customer. Yet, the books would reveal that even though 100 is truly placed in the books (as a package deal), the disc value is now set at 70 and the consultants at 30, 100 remains the fixed set price. It is interesting that the 70 is set towards the foreign owner of the program and a value of 30 remains behind. Of course the consultant was more (a lot more) expensive, and as this is all within one corporation the consultant will get his monthly income. Yet, was there a case of tax evasion?

It becomes an interesting debate, more important, it becomes the environment of global corporations and even more interesting is where the revenue and taxable revenue should be placed. I would share the view that this is more than a sign of the times; it is now fast becoming THE sign of the future.

In the age of technology today, many government types (PM, MP’s and exchequers alike) might look at certain developments of ‘new technology’ moves, as corporations go to the cloud and digital distribution, yet there seems an apparent lack of ‘comprehension’ is not the right word, perhaps it is ‘realisation’ that all these revenues would no longer be taxable and Microsoft is not even close to being a frontrunner. At present Adobe is far in the lead there. Consider all these advertising and publications houses, they are in abundance in the UK and those houses have moved to some extent, or are largely moving to the Adobe creative cloud, software, that is no longer sold in the UK, costs that are paid for in the UK and are therefore tax deductable revenue, which is shrinking the UK government revenue pie chart by a lot, especially as revenue from the other side of that equation is no longer in the UK for any level of taxation.

Whether we realise it or not, the old tax deduction scheme was designed on some level of equilibrium. We had tax deductions on one side, because we bought certain items like hardware and software. Hardware is now no longer the expensive post it used to be and the software part that is still steep in some cases is no longer bought, it is leased. As such the equilibrium is gone and a nation cannot continue on one side to hand out deductions as the other side of the scale no longer exists. This gives us two dangers. The first is that certain parts would lose deductibility as the other side stops existing; this should be seen in the light that the cost of business is going up, whilst revenues will not get better. This approach is set by the bulk of cloud providing ‘solutions’ and that group is growing really fast. If the UK government (not just them) loses out on taxable revenues exceeding 15 billion pounds on software alone, where will they get the money from? When we consider the trillion pound debt, then we should worry about such changes and it is not just the UK who is facing them. These companies as mentioned before are doing this on a global scale, which means that Europe is getting hit hard all over the place and it is not unlikely that as cloud servers are placed all over the planet these companies will move into new group that could be labelled as ‘the global non-taxable core of corporations’.

In the past I proclaimed strongly that when we saw the information about Microsoft with their Xbox One approach and the cloud was not about gamers. Gamers do not warrant the implementations of over 300,000 servers. Yet, add the earlier mentioned events to the equation and we end up with a global customer base of software and as Microsoft stated it themselves, an entertainment provider of TV, Movies and Software, all in the cloud! As we see the situation now, likely less than one tenth of a percent might end up being taxable. In that same light should you wonder why NTT DoCoMo was so happy to get into the Indian market, then here is the evidence. Out of a very rough estimation (by me) of a total value of entertainment products that is cloud distributable which exceeds 350 billion (business and entertainment products), consider that these products would in future yield less than 0.5 billion in tax revenue on a global scale. This means that national infrastructures on a global scale are about to get hit really hard (unlikely before 2014). So as NTT DoCoMo starts streaming 4G based entertainment solutions, a massive amount of taxable revenue would no longer end up being taxable at all. So long Tax department of India!

It was exactly for these reasons that I advocated an approach where taxability of services are charged on the consumers side, to avoid the pitfall many governments are about to get faced with. That approach would end the dangers of Google, Amazon, Vodafone et al to walk away with a ‘non-taxability’ based commission solution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 18, 2013 · 11:56

Milking a global event again

Sky News reported during the night a new ‘revelation’ involving the death of the late Princess Diana. If we consider the clinical part, then it makes every bit of sense that the police do not throw information away at a moment’s notice. Yet, here I think the time has now come to take a critical look at certain events.

What pushed these events to come forward now? It is time that certain individuals are held accountable for acts they undertake and the time has come to hold certain choices accountable for prosecution.

I would even go as far as to make this now a mandatory actionable situation for both MI-5 and MI-6, taking this beyond the scope of normal parties like the Metropolitan police (or their special units) and those involved in operation Paget.

The article at http://news.sky.com/story/1129902/dianas-death-police-passed-new-information states “It was passed to the police by the former parents-in-law of a former soldier, according to Sky sources.” Operation Paget had taken 3 years and costed 3 million pounds. Personally, I think that the 3 million pounds are not the issue, the fact that in those days, the press was so happy to get every nut job with a new conspiracy theory their 15 minutes in the spotlights to fuel more and more publications. I believe that family and friends of Miss Diana Spencer have suffered for far too long and as such I hope that the following happens.

If the information is strong enough, then the parties involved MUST be prosecuted for perverting the course of Justice.

The elements are:

  •      does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
  •      which has a tendency to pervert and
  •      which is intended to pervert the course of public justice.

For the UK the precedence is Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58

The allegation gives weight that a member of the British military was involved in the killing of a former member of the Royal family, which means that the accusation alone brings shame to members of the military forces and even a wider group of other parties.

Do these in-laws realise that if proven intentionally brought wrongly that their act holds a possible life sentence in prison?

considering the case Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762, where at [10] was stated “How could the jury infer, in particular, that what the defendants embarked upon was likely to lead to any sort of criminal proceedings or investigation which would have a tendency to pervert and bring about an injustice?”

I believe that there should be in addition the investigation whether the press had ANY involvement in this. The simple truth is that this is no longer about ‘freedom of the press‘, this could now become an issue regarding ‘conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice‘, if any member of the press would be found involved then this becomes an entirely new deck of cards to deal with.

There are others who would have a case if the information is proven to be fabricated.

There are the family members of Sir David Rolland Spedding who passed away in 2001. Sir David was running MI6 at that time and in view of the importance of the deceased, MI6 would have had to have investigated this for the reason that if the event was not an accident, then it stood to reason that there could have been a danger to the Royal family.

The three year investigation through Operation Paget led by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington as well as a truckload of members of Scotland Yard, all working hard to find out what had happened. Even though I reckon that they wasted months and months disproving hundreds of fabricated stories that fuelled the press. The fact that this is happening again should be unacceptable to anyone connected to the United Kingdom in any way.

All these persons could have a case of defamation under the UK Defamation act 1996.

If the information is genuine then it must be investigated, if proven that the allegations were false, there must be a prosecution. I personally belief that the CPS has no option to ignore this, consider that under common law ‘perverting the course of Justice’ has the attached label of a maximum life in prison means that this is a crime as seriously regarded as murder. This circus has gone on long enough and in the end it is important that a clear message is given.
The message is “Enough is enough!“

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 16, 2013 · 13:16

Political ego and their costs

I recently wrote a little about the Dutch Fyra train, a high speed billion Euro train that is still not functioning. There have been several pointing fingers, yet why is this such a complicated project?

You see, a project is basically a simple thing. It has a goal, it has requirements, it has noted milestones and if the project manager is a clear communicator, then that person has the easiest and best paid job of them all. That is the theory!

The reality is less clear. It becomes an increasing mess, when those in charge make oral promises and not follow them up, or even better, in some commercial corporations where sales executives make so many changes on the fly to wear the project manager down, so when things are asked, those sales executives respond with “where is it written down?” and the problem of it all remains in the clear. This latter example happens in several situations where the Sales department and not the project manager is in charge.

With Fyra there is a third tier, namely the politicians. The NOS reported last night that this group had been putting pressure on the Fyra project. Even though the testers reported massive amounts of events, flaws and even clear malfunctions and design flaws, they seem to have been ignored. These issues add up to a system that should not have been implemented. The political pressure that required ‘high speed train revenues’, in the light of spending was getting louder and louder. So over the heads of those people in charge stating that there are issues, the Fyra was implemented against the technical proven flaws.

I discussed the fyra in a previous blog called ‘Multi billion train ride’ on June 5th.

Now they have a situation where a train was accepted in this light of events and in that same light must be paid for. The Dutch rail roads do not want to pay and AnselmoBreda is telling them to pay. Even though it was never completely a fault by AnselmoBreda, there are more and more clear indicators that political interfering by approving something that was not ready seems to have been a clear interfering factor. So apart from the 7 billion in rails, they are looking at an additional half a billion for 19 additional trains that do not do what they are supposed to do. Basically, they would end up being regarded as VERY expensive non hi-speed trains. Then there are the annual interest and maintenance costs on 7 billion of rails, the list grows on and on. Consider these costs whilst the government needs to push 6 billion in cut-backs. Are you having fun yet?

So basically, a multi-billion Euro push, by politicians, who were guided by ego and a misguided sense of profit, the second factor was never a reality to begin with. If we consider this and see that under current conditions the Hi-Speed trains are not an option, then an additional 7 billion has been wasted. I personally wonder how many people will become non-accountable and in addition will be reason for a massive bill to the tax payer. Considering these events, the upcoming parliamentary committee might take a lot longer than many bargained for, which additional costs to boot.

So why are incompetent politicians getting in the way of sound business?

This claim is in this instance not about the present group, it was the previous groups interfering with this process, yet overall when we read some of the current statements on capping banking incomes, and then when it is decided that the new head of Robeco must get 30 million a year, nothing can apparently be done. Ah, the joy of claim versus reality!

There are several indicators that the UK’s version the HS2 is on similar tracks. As reported by the Guardian in July, there have been voices that the high speed North-South line, which will cost to the scope of 40 billion Euro is going in a not dissimilar direction. Even though the UK government is claiming a 20% nett return, the additional factors might have not been weighted enough. Consider that the current issues involving price hikes for train rides are growing between 4% and 9%, the group that can no longer afford these kinds of prices is growing fast. More important, these price hikes are now pushing people away from rail and towards buses for the sheer cost of it. This is an entirely opposing reaction to what the UK government needs it to be.

Those in favour of HS2 claim in the quote “This is a massively misleading oversimplification because it doesn’t take into account the significant financial returns that will be generated from an investment in high-speed rail.”

Even though it is given that unlike the Netherlands, the distances in the UK make for a much more viable need, we should not negate that this is about connecting London to Birmingham. I agree that it is too simple to state that this line is for all those Ashton Villa fans in London, yet the same flaw is shown, when we consider the actual issue. If the distance is 119 miles, then a normal train at 125Mph does it in just under an hour, then why add 40 billion to install a train doing 155 Mph? Getting there 10-15 minutes faster does not warrant such expenses, more important, considering the economic charges, the group willing to pay such an extra amount to get so little extra time would be dwindling a lot faster than some might think, which beckons the question “What significant financial returns?” it is not until the train goes beyond 200Mph that this all becomes a more interesting issue, which means a 20-25 minute saving on that part alone. Here I agree that some (not all) will consider it. The question becomes how much extra will people have to pay until the 50 billion returns is begotten? In my mind that requires a commuting population a lot higher then it seems to have, or the tickets will become extremely pricey to say the least. In my mind, the wisdom is in the middle, it takes a massive amount of traveller, all paying top pound a day. Considering that the economy is nowhere near that strong in the UK until past 2016, the costs involved might be way too high. This all in the end gives weight to the statement made by the Institute of Economic Affairs calling it a “political vanity project“.

So which cheques are underwritten by a political ego and can people afford the consequences of such amounts?

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 15, 2013 · 23:35

My Prediction was spot on again

On August 14th the NOS reported exactly what I expected them to do. The economy was again slightly worse of then they thought it was going to be. This time they finally go one step further, they are now stating that it will not be that good either next year. Really?

According to Minister Dijsselbloem it was a structural problem and he points at the housing market as one of the reasons and 8.7% of the population is now unemployed. They expect now a 1.25 shrinking of the economy, which is not that much of a surprise! However, they do predict a slightly better economy for 2014. Which is not really true, but as they keep on bringing the same wrong news, they will get it partially right in 2015. So, I wonder how quick the bad news will hit the Dutch population, and in addition get more bad news before the budgets have been completed. They have 2 weeks to make a decision on what happens to SNS (which is due before the governmental budget is set) and with the 6 billion in cut backs they will then, not unlike actors come with a tear on their cheeks to ‘sell’ this bad bank option and voilà! The Dutch tax payers get another added 2.4 billion Euro in debts.

This option had been on the forethought of their minds considering the confidential paper they left open on the internet (at http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/02/27/07-non-paper-financien/07-non-paper-financien.pdf)

The NOS did mention that the negative steps are getting smaller and smaller. They state “the worst is over“; I personally think there is pretty much nothing left to shrink at present. The Dutch must start to realise that they are getting to some extent a ‘baked’ level of information. They mention some options to finding creative solutions and interesting enough, they steered clear from pensions. According to the NOS the government is pretty much ready with a presentable solution and the Dutch present their annual budget on ‘the day of princes’, which is on the 3rd Tuesday of September, some might think soon enough, yet the options left to them might be less then they expect with the impending bad bank shifts and a possible rehash of regulations opening up pension funds for what I would negatively call ‘waisted spending’, especially when you consider that this will be the third administration that is unable to keep a budget.

Considering these facts is why I believe that the current opposition has no right to complain, especially considering the words of Sybrand van Haersma Buma (CDA). Let us not forget that cutbacks were needed in 2009 when the government was in the ‘majority’ hands of the CDA in those days and when Germany tightened the belt when needed, Dutch politicians decided not to follow, as their projected economy did not warrant it. If they had stepped up to the plate then, the Dutch would not be in this bad a predicament today. Yet, even now their bad news is not complete. When we consider the British predicament, then they should consider, that even though their economy seems to be picking up, George Osborne admitted to the quote “the chancellor accepted for the first time that the UK’s debt would continue rising until 2016/17” (from political.co.uk). This means that with a Trillion plus in debt, the economy is in for hefty austerity measures until 2020, from that view we need to realise that hefty cutting costs in the Netherlands are essential, should they consider any decent level of growth before 2015, simply because both nations have been unable to properly budget their spending.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2013 · 12:31

Bankrolling a politician

The guardian made me aware of an interesting twist in Australian politics (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/singleton-funds-sporting-candidates-election). The information as presented yesterday evening is that the overly wealthy John Singleton will be ‘bankrolling’ (perhaps sponsoring should have been a better word) two sportsmen Nathan Bracken (Cricket) and Lawrie McKinna (Coach of the Central Coast Mariners). Let’s take a look at the two.

To be honest, supporting Lawrie McKinna makes sense from the fact (even though I have no personal knowledge of the man), that he currently is the Mayor of Gosford, which for my non-Australian readers is a Town to the north of Sydney between Sydney and Newcastle. So, he has experience in the political field being the mayor and as a coach the man knows how to deal with a bunch of ruffians, which pretty much makes him ready to become the next Australian PM. Nathan Bracken is another story. He does not seem to have any real experience; however, that in itself is not an issue. As this is an election year in Australia, we see all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork, with the odd politician not having the ability to identify any issues he stands for. The latter part was quite the giggle for the Australian Facebook community. So there is no way that Nathan Bracken would do any worse and we all have to start at some place and some time. John Singleton will be sponsoring these two new contenders for the Independent party.

How bad is this idea?

John stated that he is fed up with the central coast being ignored. He was quoted in the guardian article stating “someone has to keep the bastards honest” and when we consider politicians on a scale slightly larger than just Australia, there is a genuine support for that statement.

The issue does remain if there is not more in play. Singleton has massive interests in the Central coast, which are after all his own stomping grounds. Real Estate, resorts and a race horse operation. So we are talking an investment value that is running deep into the 8 figures. In a business mind having 2 politicians on your side is good business, which is why I as the devil’s advocate am wondering whether there is not more in play.

To be honest, he is not hiding his involvement (like that was ever an option), yet there will forever be a little shiver in my spine when politicians are knowingly funded by a ‘party of one’ and to whisk such that feeling can never be good. Singleton might have stated “It can do no harm and it can only do good”, but that is one part I feel, which is too often never the case.

Still, we have had several remarkable exceptions. Dick Smith for one, who has put his money where his mouth is, donated tons of money on all kind of good causes, whilst not cashing in on it in the past. Singleton too has been involved in charity events from the early 90’s. Australians are for the most, not that greed driven like we see all over Europe and America. These people made their fortunes long before 2004 and they survived the financial crash without a too much of a hitch. They have more than enough money and they likely realised that they can’t take it with them where they are going to go in the end (a lesson the greedy never learn).

Still, there is a dangerous precedence here. I am all for people getting into politics, especially if they are bright enough and when their past (sports, movies) give visibility to causes and goals the people really need. The issue I have is when one sponsor becomes deeply involved, even when the person involved does do this openly, it keeps me worried.

The article does however seem to speak true on some issues. The Central coast seems to be ignored too often, not unlike Sydney it has youth unemployment. Not unlike the NHS, they have their healthcare issues, which seems to affect all of Australia and the youth suicide numbers are rising all over the place, which includes the Central Coast. So the fact that Singleton wants this dealt with on his stomping grounds is fair enough, yet no matter how fair it is, I remain to some degree sceptical for the simple reason that in the majority it is too naive to believe that large political donors will not expect certain favours, a view that is held by a lot more people than just silly old me.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 11, 2013 · 13:48

The Soccer ball and other sports

This morning, I was woken up with the information in regards to ‘concerns’ in regards to the world championship soccer. I have never been much of a soccer fan, even though I was born in the Netherlands. It was never my cup of cacao.

When I heard of the concerns, I thought that made perfect sense, then my eyes saw the pictures of the stadium. I think they are concepts, not unlike other images that Google showed. No matter which one will be build, these stadiums are amazing pinnacles of design. It left with me that sparkle I had when I saw the first images of the Munich Olympics in 1972. It was overcast by events that will remain a black page on sporting events forever, but the stadiums looked amazing.

So is this about the stadium? Not quite!

As we introduce sports to other parts of the worlds, the sports will take on a new dimension, this is equally the case now that soccer will be hosted by Qatar (in 2022). It brings small changes. I saw the concerns and I do not disagree, yet what are the alternatives? Play a game at dawn and a game at night? Play only late at night?

Are those not alternatives? The nights can be cool in the Middle East, I experienced that first hand for months, so moving the cup date until late autumn, or perhaps early summer/late spring?

These are all options, yet the first thing I heard stated when the winter option was given, was that it could interfere with the FA Cup. (The Dutch are likely to state the KNVB cup). So is all this about the cup itself or the issues surrounding advertisement revenues?

The World cup is only once every 4 years, it’s not like it is a daily exercise. Qatar is also the consequence for growing the sport. They won fair and square and it was voiced (and I do not disagree) that it should be held there. Yes, player safety need to be on the forefront of considerations, which is why moving the event to a non-summer month is a good idea in my mind. If we look at www.weatheonline.co.uk we see that March to May, if the matches are early or late in the day seems to be the best, after that it is likely to be October to December (which might not be ideal for others). The days might be warm in these instances, yet the nights are definitely not warm, so there should be quite the cooling when the sun goes down.

I do find this situation interesting, with 209 FIFA nations, this is the first time that players will be subjected to these tropical conditions. Consider these tropical nations playing under what they would consider Arctic conditions? These players in a rare twist of fate will have the home weather advantage, and if in the end Scotland or Sweden take home the cup? What a party that would be!

In the article I disagree with the quote “His predecessor David Bernstein said in June that any plans to move the World Cup to the winter were ‘fundamentally flawed’.” (At http://news.sky.com/story/1126848/fa-boss-summer-world-cup-in-qatar-impossible)

Flawed by what reasoning? It is a given that his concern was the FA cup, that is fair enough, but this is the FIFA world cup! Yet, in all honesty, I cannot truly oppose his statement as it would disrupt national cups in many European nations, which is a truth. Yet, the idea becomes, why must we tailor to get it all? Should these players be subject to 64 additional games at all cost? Seems to be a little one sided. However, moving it to spring could be an idea too. I reckon that this could work if we take the sport into mind. Many cup officials in several nations are now playing with Excel to see the advertisement and sponsor ‘damage’ that is a direct consequence of these events.

That part seems not to be too ‘illuminated’ at present. Yet when we read the Telegraph (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8552114/McDonalds-joins-Coca-Cola-and-Visa-in-calling-for-Fifa-change.html) we read “McDonald’s joins Coca-Cola and Visa in calling for Fifa change“.

It seems that these three are adamant in maximising their view at every expense (bang for the buck approach), even at the expense of sports. If Jamie Oliver is to be believed, then the hamburgers from McDonald are not for human consumption, so why are they a party to sport advice at all? In the article by David Warner at http://politicalblindspot.com/hamburger-chef-jamie-oliver-proves-mcdonalds-burgers-unfit-for-human-consumption/ the quote is: “After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise finally announced that it will change its recipe, and yet there was barely a peep about this in the mainstream, corporate media.” This can be proven with the Google search terms ‘Jamie Oliver on McDonalds‘. There is no guardian or other large newspapers and the one result link from Google mentioning the Telegraph states “Jamie Oliver praises McDonald’s – Telegraph“.

You might wonder how this is all connected. The answer is simple: ADVERTISEMENTS! (aka revenue)

There are issues on several levels and these companies have so much pull that through advertisements they have pull with what is written. Consider the fact that the large players (Guardian, Washington Post, LA Times) are not for, or against, they just don’t seem to appear in the first load of result pages at all (according to the Google search).

The issue I am raising is that this all seems to be no longer about the sport. If it was then those ‘big players’ would accept the elected choice and accept the unfortunate event of one year less advertisement revenue (yeah right!).

The next issue is actually entirely the opposite. I am disgusted on the horror Russians perform on the Russian Gay community. The fact that these people get tortured and murdered and the torturers take pride in publishing pictures of the event is utterly unacceptable. So I understand the fact that people speak out against this level of violence. Especially Stephen Fry made a clear case against the Russian Winter games. If you support this then give support him and follow him on Twitter (@stephenfry). I support him, but I am personally not in favour of banning or stopping the winter games. For me the view is that once we intertwine sports with political causes, no matter how just or correct they are, then the one door of change might close permanently. Yes, what happens in Russia is wrong, but if citizens who are going there as athletes can instil change where politicians fail, is that not a worthy cause? When I grew up I learned pretty much the origin of the Olympics as it was quoted on Wiki “It has been widely written that during the Games, all conflicts among the participating city-states were postponed until the Games were finished. This cessation of hostilities was known as the Olympic peace or truce.” Is that not how wars were resolved? In case we see America getting involved in this, let us not forget, that if one is gay and not living in San Francisco, often their rights are silently forgotten. The guardian had an excellent presentation of that at http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states

They might not show the barbarism that Russia is currently presenting, yet the political lobby has been using gay rights as a racquetball between Democrats and Republicans for decades. I still feel that in the end, sport will be at the centre of unification. If we see and accept (at least I do) that the African American athletes were at the centre of the equalising force between racial differences, then sports could also be the equalising force for sexual differences.

I just hope that it will be sooner rather than later, because persecution has never ever been good for any soul. That applies for both the persecutor and the persecuted.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 10, 2013 · 02:09

Look horny!

Seems an odd title to start with, but whenever I see certain reports by boards of directors as they make it to the press, then I am reminded of an old Dutch cartoon called ‘father and son‘ about the conservative father and the progressive son. It was a political cartoon by a man called Peter van Straaten. In one of these drawings a man is standing with a camera whilst the woman is standing not that dressed next to the fireplace, the by-line is ‘Look Horny’. It was hilarious! So was the published remark from the Apple board of directors “Apple’s (AAPL) Board of Directors has grown frustrated at the company’s lack of visible innovation.”

Be innovative in this light is as weird as being horny on command. We can all be innovative at times, but we are innovative with the means at our disposal. In his case this is about vision. Was Steve Jobs the visionary, or was he the man who could recognise it when it was shown to him? Let’s face it; we all have ideas at time. I remember coming up with something that is now called Facebook. Hold on, wait! I am not claiming I invented Facebook. In the late 90’s Warner brothers had these web spaces that were hosted through a provider called Angelfire. There was the Halliwell home, the Babylon 5 home, the Bat cave. All forms of addresses that linked the subscriber to their favourite series, or movie. It was free and it came with 20Mb space. However, it was completely static. I thought it would be a good idea to have something similar and to let these members talk to one another. Our benefit would be that we could talk to them all, a place for free advertising at the cost of one web server and a few additional costs. My boss stated that this was not our mission (which was true) and that this would never work (Really?). I think I still have the e-mail somewhere. I had no other means to pursue this idea and in the end it would never have been anywhere near Facebook, so it does not matter.

The moral is that if your boss lacks insight, things will never get pushed forward. It seems that Steve Jobs had this insight in abundance. Likely he was one of these true visionaries and the timing was right. Timing is all in that field, come a little too soon and it will not happen, come too late and you are a copycat at best.

Does the board of directors at Apple comprehend this?

Perhaps Tim Cook has part of these abilities, perhaps not. Perhaps there is no real innovation to be gotten. Let’s just face that between the cassette, the mini-disc and the iPad there were many years of waiting. The origin of the cassette recorder was around the 1930’s, which was PRE WW2 and would not be a consumer item until decently after WW2. So it took almost half a century to get to the Mini-Disc and almost a decade to get to the iPod. Will it take that long for the iPod to evolve to something truly new? There is no way to tell, innovation comes in many forms and a real breakthrough is needed to shape innovation.

I reckon the new Mac Pro is sure sign that innovation is not dead, this is however nothing more than displayable innovation with to a smaller extent an engineering level of innovation, yet, this is nothing more than a new step forward, not a leap forward onto a new train. As for ‘new’, let’s not forget that Cray had the round professional computer (read mainframe) first, the Cray CDC8600, which was released in the late 60’s, so is the idea Apple had truly innovative? The Cray version came with a bench around it, so where’s my chair Apple!

There is also a downside to innovation the way Apple does it. That part is becoming more and more visible with the iPad. There is now the iPad2 and iPad3. My iPad1 is great, I bought it to use in University and it does exactly what it needs to do and I was until recently quite happy. Developers make applications for the device and I have bought a decent amount of them. However, recently, more and more applications can no longer be updated. Even more irritating is that some updated applications will no longer work and crash as these developers only seem to consider the new iPad’s for testing and not the old ones. More important, new software often no longer works on the old models, so from that we could come to the thought that the innovation of Apple comes at the price where a device like the iPad, must be replaced after two years, which seems an expensive approach for consumers.

Now let’s take a step back. Innovation should not be a hype word. The dictionary states it as: “the act of innovating – introduction of new things or methods.”

So Apple is not really adding anything truly new to their cascading fleet of devices. There is even the idea that in the end this step like approach is a really bad idea. They seem to forget that the economy is in a slump and most of us cannot afford a steplike replacement of our devices.

I reckon the board of directors should also realise that the ‘innovative’ track of Apple has been an expensive one for its consumers; I lost close to $8000, whilst Apple was all too eager not to step forward on their failings and I am not alone. How is that related? Well, when you lose money, until something TRULY innovative comes, why would you purchase that brand? In my case my expensive laptop had to be replaced after only 14 months and as such I did not buy an apple. I am not alone; several around me had such an uncomfortable experience with the iPhone 4 that they have since moved to a non-Apple android solution.

So perhaps their board of directors need to focus on quality of the innovation, not quantity of innovations. In the end, they have nothing valid to complain about. Apple is in the bulk of the homes in one way or another. Whether it is through desktop (iMac), laptop (Macbook Air/Pro) or handheld (iPad/iPod/iPhone). If you talk to 10 of your friends then it is likely that 5 out of 10 have at least one Apple device and 2 out of these 5 are likely to have more than one device. Plenty of CEO’s would sell their first born into slavery for such returns. So in plain words, what are these board members bitching about? Is it truly about innovation or is it about simple greed?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,