PDA

View Full Version : Bain Capital is an LLC; no double taxation as corp



Soflasnapper
02-01-2012, 05:00 PM
From the Massachusetts corporate registry (http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/CorpSearchEntityList.asp?ReadFromDB=True&UpdateAllowed=)

So the people bleating about poor Romney's double taxation meaning that the money he got was taxable at first 35% (the corporate rate), and only then, his 13.9% (stated effective rate), for a total of OVER 50%!!!! DAMNIT!! (actually, 48.9%), are complaining about a situation that doesn't exist.

Ditto for Bain's various partnership spinoffs. Partnerships also are untaxed at a corporate level, and instead, partners pay their pro-rata shares of the profit at personal rates only.

Just checked the link, and after an error message, it returned me to the first search page. Use the first field (search by name), enter Bain Capital, and leave the 'starts with' button where it is.

LWW
02-02-2012, 03:56 AM
Too bad that you haven't a clue ... as the site claims this entity didn't exist until 2001.

Qtec
02-02-2012, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From the Massachusetts corporate registry (http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/CorpSearchEntityList.asp?ReadFromDB=True&UpdateAllowed=)

So the people bleating about poor Romney's double taxation meaning that the money he got was taxable at first 35% (the corporate rate), and only then, his 13.9% (stated effective rate), for a total of OVER 50%!!!! DAMNIT!! (actually, 48.9%), are complaining about a situation that doesn't exist.

Ditto for Bain's various partnership spinoffs. Partnerships also are untaxed at a corporate level, and instead, partners pay their pro-rata shares of the profit at personal rates only.

Just checked the link, and after an error message, it returned me to the first search page. Use the first field (search by name), enter Bain Capital, and leave the 'starts with' button where it is. </div></div>

This was the 'Inconvenient truth of the Day' but LWW and the rest ignore ignored it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Q

Soflasnapper
02-02-2012, 10:11 AM
Right you are as to Bain Capital, LLC. I noticed that Massachusetts mentions all the Bains are 'foreign' corporations, meaning they are domiciled outside of Massachusetts (they're all Delaware companies, or at least, some dozens are).

Checking Delaware then, there is an extensive list of named Bain companies, all of which are LLCs or LPs (limited partnerships), except for the original Bain Capital, Inc., which has the right incorporation date to show it was their original company.

So can an incorporated company ('Inc.') avoid double taxation by some method? Yes, by declaring the Subchapter S option, instead of C status for the corporation. Did Bain Capital, Inc. elect Subchapter S tax treatment?

Almost certainly. Why? Because Romney had a Harvard MBA, and the later status of all the companies as LLCs or LPs shows his and his partners sensitivity to the tax situation. So why would they not take advantage of the Sub-S status, originally? (The Subchapter S tax treatment became available mid- to late-'50s.)

And it's certainly true that if there are 30 Bain Capital companies or more from which Romney earned his money, all but one are provably relieved of any double taxation problem (and someone would have to explain why they didn't make sure the 1st one was as well).

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:21 PM
And you feel this has any relevance why?

Soflasnapper
02-02-2012, 06:41 PM
Because the WSJ and various righties and yourself have stated Romney 'REALLY' pays over 50% taxes, and it only appears to be under 15%.

That requires a 35% rate paid by the corporation(s) he gets the money from. If N is the number of such corporations, I have shown that AT LEAST N-1 carried no such corporate tax burden, and given the savvy of the party in question, likely that last one also carried no such double taxation.

Sometimes 13.9% is really 13.9%.

LWW
02-03-2012, 03:07 AM
It's a shame that neither of you have a basic comprehension of this issue.

cushioncrawler
02-03-2012, 05:08 AM
Taxation iz interesting.

Everybody pays tax one way or another.
Even if there iz no official tax, ie the system that King mac would endorse, ie 0% for everyone everywhere, everyone would pay tax anyhow, indirektly. But if u understand this then u are a smartee.

But getting back to the silly usofa tax system -- i am thinking that a tax rate of say 100% on the very rich would be fair.
This 100% might translate to an effektiv true rate of say 50% for some -- praps only 10% for some.
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 10:20 AM
No, I understand it fine.

There just doesn't appear to be any likely double taxation involved with Romney and his Bain Capital partnerships to credibly alibi him from his self-stated and now proven taxation rates, to say he's paying more than triple that rate in reality.

As you said was true, when you posted up some hack's published claim to that effect.

So what I understand now is that you should explain how you are still correct in the face of this evidence, or concede your point was false. Your casting of aspersions as to my 'basic comperehension' of this issue is not credible in the least, and rather a pathetic dodge.

Tell me-- are these rhetorical tics you use instead of discussion something you came up with yourself, or were you inspired by some deflection meister's example, and picked them up from someone else?

nAz
02-03-2012, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As you said was true, when you posted up some hack's published claim to that effect.

So what I understand now is that you should explain how you are still correct in the face of this evidence, or concede your point was false. Your casting of aspersions as to my 'basic comperehension' of this issue is not credible in the least, and rather a pathetic dodge.
</div></div>

http://i43.tinypic.com/oat6wl.jpg

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 11:36 AM
Well said!

LWW
02-03-2012, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, I understand it fine. </div></div>

What is a capital gain?

No googling.

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 06:04 PM
Nobody really thinks that 'management fees' could possibly be 'capital gains,' but that is the tax treatment for Bain Capital's management fees, improbably and improperly, using the term correctly.

Not just their actual capital gains (where money put into an asset yields more money upon sale of that asset), but THEIR MANAGEMENT FEES.

Our compensation in our company is taken as management fees, and S-corp distributions. Both are paid on personal tax schedules (top rate = 35%).

Oddly enough, two of our shareholders take their management fees as payments to personal corporations, intentionally taking the double taxation, so as to write off many personal expenses and most importantly, to shelter up to $45,000 a year in an ESOP retirement plan, saving the marginal rate on that sum, put away.

LWW
02-04-2012, 03:38 AM
Thank you for not answering the question.

Soflasnapper
02-04-2012, 01:52 PM
I answered it, although very briefly, above.

In the parenthetical phrase-- that's the definition I would use.

When someone buys or has an asset, later sold for more money than it cost originally, that is a capital gain. (The difference in sales price to original price, if it's more.)

LWW
02-04-2012, 06:06 PM
Actually ... you didn't.

A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.

Per WIKI ... and that is the generally stated definition used by investors who incur capital gains and losses.

By that definition, when one profits from stock one is profiting from the profits of the company one invested in.

Let me make it easy for you.

Let's say I own 10% of the stock of a company which makes $100,000,000.00 this year and that causes the stock price to double so I sell or hold and receive dividends, or my share of the profits.

The company profits, which I am profiting from BTW, are taxed and then I am taxed again on my share of the profits.

I didn't think you knew, and I was positive snoop had no idea, what a capital gain actually was.

Soflasnapper
02-04-2012, 07:57 PM
There's not an eyelash between what you said and what I said.

That ought to be clear enough.

The rest of what you said is partially true only.

Many stocks do not pay dividends, despite the company earning net profits. Other companies may always pay dividends, regardless of whether there are profits that year or not.

Your stock may rise (or fall) without regard to any change in the company's profit or prospective profit picture, as when the market runs up triple digits in a day on the Dow, and for varying reasons, stocks with a given profit and P/E ratio that haven't changed somehow become a lot more desirable in the market, and investors are willing to pay more for them, just because. (Making for a richer, higher P/E ratio-- people today paying a higher price for a stock with a given profit expectation.) And conversely, if the general market tanks triple digits in a day, you can 'lose' money on your stock (if you had to sell it quickly) with no different profit prospects for the company.

A common tactic for many companies these days is to take their profits and buy back from the market shares in the company, to impact the price of the stock eventually by creating less supply in the public's hands.

None of this relates to Bain Capital's various PRIVATE companies, not traded on the open market at all, which to an N-1 certainty (about 99%+), don't pay double taxation given their corporate structure. All those shares remain valued at their par value set at the time of their creation.

LWW
02-05-2012, 04:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">None of this relates to Bain Capital's various PRIVATE companies</div></div>

It has everything to do with it.

BAIN's earnings are based on capital gains and losses from the companies in which they invest.

BAIN partners are dividing capital gains which were already taxed.

The only remaining question in this discussion is whether you are playing dumb because your handlers have told you to do so, or if you are actually as clueless as the snoop?

Soflasnapper
02-06-2012, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bain and its partners decided to buy the mill for $75 million. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bain put up about $8 million to gain majority control of the company</span>, renamed GS Technologies Inc. GE Capital, former Armco executives and Leggett & Platt, a major customer for the mill's wire rods, chipped in the rest of the equity.

As part of the deal, Armco agreed to cover employee pension obligations if the plant closed within five years -- a $120 million liability, according to the Kansas City Business Journal.

THE BIG DIVIDEND

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bain got its money back quickly. The new company issued $125 million in bonds and paid Bain a $36.1 million dividend in 1994.

"Paying distributions with debt is not uncommon," said Campbell Harvey, a finance professor at Duke University. "The only thing that strikes me as a bit unusual is the size of the dividend. There would be logic in them saving some cash for a downturn."</span></div></div> From the Reuters report on Bain's steel company investment (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120106)

So, no on both counts. Bain Capital was paid not from profits, but from debt. In addition to this money, they were paid $900,000 a year in consulting fees or management fees, which are also neither profits or capital gains or interest, but money for work, which should be taxed as earned income.

From earlier in the same article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.</div></div>

LWW
02-06-2012, 12:53 PM
$900K is a pittance of BAIN's revenue ... you always manage to get under the bar, no matter how low it is set.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2012, 01:23 PM
You are so dishonest it's amusing.

So, is **$36+ million** a pittance of its revenues?

$36 million they got paid because they placed $125 million in debt on the company?

Is that a capital gain, based on a profit?

LWW
02-07-2012, 04:53 PM
BAIN has $66,000,000,000.00 in capital ... $900,000.00 works out to be about .0014%.

$36,000,000.00 would work out to be roughly .055%.

Both, IMHO, figures would qualify as a pittance.

Next ridiculous statement?

keith
02-07-2012, 07:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BAIN has $66,000,000,000.00 in capital ... $900,000.00 works out to be about .0014%.

$36,000,000.00 would work out to be roughly .055%.

Both, IMHO, figures would qualify as a pittance.

Next ridiculous statement? </div></div>

Next rediculous statement: If Obama wanted to spend .055% of the national budget on tin foil hats for guys like you, it would be fine with you, because it would qualify as a pittance?
Keith

LWW
02-08-2012, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BAIN has $66,000,000,000.00 in capital ... $900,000.00 works out to be about .0014%.

$36,000,000.00 would work out to be roughly .055%.

Both, IMHO, figures would qualify as a pittance.

Next ridiculous statement? </div></div>

Next rediculous statement: If Obama wanted to spend .055% of the national budget on tin foil hats for guys like you, it would be fine with you, because it would qualify as a pittance?
Keith

</div></div>

If he had the .055% it would be a pittance, he would however have to borrow it on top of the roughly 33% of fed spending that is already borrowed.

Next ridiculous defense of the most corrupt regime since Grant?

Soflasnapper
02-08-2012, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BAIN has $66,000,000,000.00 in capital ... $900,000.00 works out to be about .0014%.

$36,000,000.00 would work out to be roughly .055%.

Both, IMHO, figures would qualify as a pittance.

Next ridiculous statement? </div></div>

Ok, what is your next ridiculous statement? For all of this is a non sequitur, when not wholly wrong.

Tell me, in what respect does the company's CURRENT AMOUNT OF CAPITAL UNDER MANAGEMENT now, in 2012, tell us about what SHARE of its INCOME was represented by approx. $37 million, THEN, IN 1994 (nearly 20 years ago)? Considering the factoid that Bain Capital returned between 80% and 100% a year?

Explain how, regardless of whatever amounts were involved, that money paid to them out of their own borrowing was a 'capital gain.'

LWW
02-08-2012, 06:55 PM
You just answered it.

Soflasnapper
02-13-2012, 07:18 PM
I receive S-distributions, and management fees, both of which are taxed at regular income rates. As is standard for almost anyone. If I put those earnings onto a capital gains tax schedule and tried to pay at 15% instead of 35%, I would soon have a problem with the Internal Revenue Service, even though those earnings come directly out of a company I invested in to start it up.

The reason Bain Capital is allowed to take this as a capital gain is a loophole in the tax treatment for hedge funds with their carried interest break. It is wholly inconsistent with how any other company or those with earnings from companies have identical income treated under the tax law. The reason for it is undue outside influence from the very wealthy persons it benefits on the Congress.

Qtec
02-14-2012, 04:18 AM
This is all flack.

Truth is, Willard pays less tax on his income as the guy who drives his campaign bus and WILLARD is good with that. That's ALL we have to know.

Q

LWW
02-14-2012, 04:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is all flack.

Truth is, Willard pays less tax on his income as the guy who drives his campaign bus and WILLARD is good with that. That's ALL we have to know.

Q </div></div>

How many times will you run out this lie?

Qtec
02-14-2012, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many times will you run out this lie?</div></div>

How many times will you flap your mouth and still be wrong?

Lets say bus driver is single. Lets say bus driver makes long hours and drives through the night. Lets say bus driver makes $80,000 a year.

He pays % 16.125 on his income. How much does Willard pay on his $20,000,000?


Get real.

Q

LWW
02-14-2012, 06:10 AM
Cite me a link from the IRS which substantiates this?

Stretch
02-14-2012, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many times will you run out this lie?</div></div>

How many times will you flap your mouth and still be wrong?

Lets say bus driver is single. Lets say bus driver makes long hours and drives through the night. Lets say bus driver makes $80,000 a year.

He pays % 16.125 on his income. How much does Willard pay on his $20,000,000?


Get real.

Q </div></div>

LWW can't even "get fake". Getting real i'm afraid is still over the horizen for him. St.

LWW
02-14-2012, 07:04 AM
Would you care to have his back and document this?

eg8r
02-14-2012, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truth is, Willard pays less tax on his income as the guy who drives his campaign bus and WILLARD is good with that. That's ALL we have to know.
</div></div>Wow, lol you will believe any lie if it meets your predetermined bias.

eg8r

LWW
02-14-2012, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many times will you run out this lie?</div></div>

How many times will you flap your mouth and still be wrong?

Lets say bus driver is single. Lets say bus driver makes long hours and drives through the night. Lets say bus driver makes $80,000 a year.

He pays % 16.125 on his income. How much does Willard pay on his $20,000,000?


Get real.

Q </div></div>

Let's make this a realistic comparison first off.

Romney is retired.

His income is non IRA/401K retirement income.

Now, let's assume your bus driver invests their money well and at retirement has enough invested in non IRA/401K accounts to earn $80K a year ... or $800K a year ... or $80M a year. What would their tax rate be?

What's that?

The same a s Willard's?

Imagine that.

The class warfare game is being played so that the naive and the stupid will demand that the capital gains tax be raised ... and then they will one day sell their own home or stocks and realize that they supported their own doom.

Soflasnapper
02-15-2012, 01:02 AM
For your low end figure of earning $80k in interest, what principle sum earning 5%, a considerable rate in these times, would be required? $1.6 million dollars.

.05 x $1.6 million dollars = $80,000 dollars.

For a $800k return at 5%, $16 million dollars.

For $80 million return at 5%, $16 billion dollars.

What middle class earner is able to save $1.6 million dollars by retirement? To simplify numbers, assume a 40 year work time. $1.6 million in savings over 40 years = $40,000 a year.

Ok, so it's impossible, for any middle class person. Obviously, no question.

Yes, if you assume a higher return than 5%, you can get there with a little less per year. Not much less, and how do you now earn more than 5% anywhere, safely, considering it's your retirement money, not a casino trip?

Oddly, if either Romey or this mythical middle class retiree invested in municipal bonds, they'd each owe zero percent in federal income tax.

LWW
02-15-2012, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, so it's impossible, for any middle class person. Obviously, no question.</div></div>

That is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

A mere $32K investment in APPLE stock, over a short last 10 years, would have generated this.

Anyone who hit the IRA/401K hard ... in that income bracket ... starting in 1976, at age 25, would be at or near or beyond that number with 5 years to go.

Soflasnapper
02-15-2012, 02:23 PM
Perhaps I should amend what I said to: it's impossible, without extreme luck.

Yes, if you happen to pick THE stock that will soar a bit more than 23-fold in 10 years, AND if you have $32k to put into THAT ONE STOCK, you can score $736k today if you sold it all, minus the $32k basis, = a $704k gain.

(Here I note that it still doesn't get you an $800k gain, but moving on...)

Why doesn't EVERYBODY do this? Quite a mystery there. We'd all be much, much better off financially, if that could be done.

It CANNOT BE DONE with any regularity, as the future is... well, unknown. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, I've heard many an investment adviser state, accurately.

But if you disagree, give us a little insight into your lead-pipe cinch pick of a stock that will grow 23-fold plus over the next ten years. (Hint: it will certainly not be Apple from this point forward.)

LWW
02-16-2012, 05:34 AM
And there you go ... everyone doesn't do it because it involves the discipline to save and the willingness to take risk.

Those with the discipline to save will end up with more than those who do not.

Those who save AND are willing to put that capital at risk ... hint, that's why it's called capitalism ... will end up sometimes with way more than those who do not, and sometimes less.

That such simple concepts escape statists is a large part of why their world view is so distorted.

BTW ... with APPLE, there was no "LUCK" involved at all.

eg8r
02-16-2012, 08:57 AM
What is the incentive for Americans to save for retirement when we have lefties out there willing to steal from the producers to give to the consumers?

eg8r

LWW
02-16-2012, 09:26 AM
That would be a negative incentive.

And for the sofanapper, similar fortunes could have been accumulated over a 40 year career with routine investments at different times in:

- Microsoft

- Wendys

- Xerox

- McDonalds

- IBM

- Opening a business.

- Many other areas.

Luck has minimal, if any, impact.

Those who made a killing on APPLE were far more likely to do so from astute research compared to luck.

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there you go ... everyone doesn't do it because it involves the discipline to save and the willingness to take risk.

Those with the discipline to save will end up with more than those who do not.

Those who save AND are willing to put that capital at risk ... hint, that's why it's called capitalism ... will end up sometimes with way more than those who do not, and sometimes less.

That such simple concepts escape statists is a large part of why their world view is so distorted.

BTW ... with APPLE, there was no "LUCK" involved at all. </div></div>

That's some happy horsesh!t there! Please apply at your local chamber of commerce, but check yourself for diabetes, as that is SOME way-sugar-coated happy talk boosterism.

Yes, IN THE PAST, many stocks had phenomenal runups. Perhaps some may in the future, but the economy is far different now, AND the markets have been exposed as so risky and rigged that there is no retail involvement by the public at large-- it's been proven overly risky and individuals are probably going to stay out for a generation. The volume in the market is the high frequency trading of the big guys, marking up their flipping to themselves at fractions of a $0.0001 a time x 10 to the 8th power a second, 'making a profit.' By manipulation.

AND WHO SITS ON A 23x profit without taking substantial portions out well before reaching that level??? It's like doubling up your bet at the casino when you win, letting it ride, and then continuing to bet it all each time. That is nothing but a recipe for certain eventual loss, regardless of whatever phenomenal roll you are on.

I suppose some might do that as part of a larger diversified portfolio that was doing well enough to sit on such a growing profit without taking it out, but then your math breaks down, as to how much you would need to have saved and invested. And you'd also have to net out the losers.

But one typical smart move from an investor is, if a stock doubles in price, often half is sold to retrieve the original investment, and the other half represents all profit (although now only half of what the stock had reached in value, and only half the future value as well).

The 'buy and hold' value model of stock investing is broken, and now foolish. People saw their portfolios down 40% to 50% when the DJIA fell from the 14,000 range to the 7,000s, if they followed the buy and hold model. Which many did, including people I know, who were talked out of stop-loss orders by 'buy and hold' stock brokers.

Was Apple's stock price immune from the larger market tumbles? That would be a 'no.' Very large percentage dips in that price-- TWICE in a that most recent market turmoil.

As for it not being a lucky stock pick, please. The stock price rode a remarkable and probably unprecedented series of innovations which happened to hit it big. But did OTHER past technologies become category makers? The Newton, anyone?

As a Mac fan from the earlier '80s, I remember Apple was thought to be going out of business, as its market share had dropped to maybe 6% of the computers being sold. Where was the performance in its stock the PRIOR 10 years, before this huge runup? In the gutter, a poor also ran at the time.

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 11:50 AM
Luck has minimal, if any, impact.

Not really. First you need the 'luck' of an inflating economy. The runups from earlier stocks occurred in much higher inflationary times.

But Apple in particular has benefited from incompetence from major competitors. Microsoft OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ABLE to compete with the I-Pod, but failed with the Zune. RIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ABLE to better innovate their vastly higher market share Blackberry in the smart phone segment. They've failed. The tablet sector OUGHT TO BE ABLE to beat the I-Pad, with better functionality at a lower price, and THEY are failing.

There is no cinch investment, except in retrospect.

eg8r
02-16-2012, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tablet sector OUGHT TO BE ABLE to beat the I-Pad, with better functionality at a lower price, and THEY are failing.
</div></div>Your first two examples are plausible but not this one. There really was/is no tablet sector. Seriously what was out there prior to the iPad that even had a single change of competing? Maybe if you wanted to list other companies possibly beating Apple in the ultrabook sector (which Apple is creating and owning) but then again no one is beating Apple.

As far as tablets, no one else really had much of a chance because none of them controlled their own hardware and software. Apple chose to reinvent iOS prior to the iPad coming out. They rewrote the OS to be interchangeable between resolutions so that there would not be an issue with already existing apps yet also provide a specific platform for new apps. Not one single competitor had this fore thought. NONE. Google tried to play catch up but the problem yet again is a deviated OS that was never meant/designed for a tablet and it turned early potentially good products to shambles. Hardware companies would not listen to Google and pushed that Android OS into the tablets and the experience sucked. As far as better functionality, the number one reason why people were choosing Android in the beginning (besides to snub Apple) was the use of Flash. Turns out Jobs was right all along about Flash and even Adobe is not going to support mobile Flash moving forward.

Incompetence from major competitors is a huge issue as to why Apple has excelled the way they have but it is not the biggest reason. The biggest reason is providing products that users LOVE to use instead of products users are stuck with using.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 03:48 PM
Having incompetent competitors is a bit of luck that can be quite helpful.

Microsoft is an apparently crappy company when it comes to a lot of things-- never could get MS Money off the ground, even with their OS dominance. I believe they tried to buy the Intuit company (Quicken, Quickbooks) but that was quashed as too anti-competitive.

But companies with some record of technology innovation (Sony, and the other Japanese electronic companies) also have failed when trying to compete with Apple. Weird.

Also, however, Apple throws a clunker here and there. Not recently, as to new products' gee-whiz factor, but in execution, as with the battery problem and the disconnecting of calls for the I-Phone.

LWW
02-17-2012, 04:26 AM
What luck did APPLE have?

The luck to be visionary.

You may now resume your class envy sermon from the Gospel of State Dependency.