@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: Boot_WB wrote: @Tigger Aside from the $150 dollars which went straight to the VAT man, plus S&H from the US to the UK, plus $25 to Amiga, plus $?? to Hyperion, plus $?? to the dealership... So, $300 difference - $150 -$25 = $125 Not much to split between the dealers and Hyperion really (neglecting intercontinental S&H). And beyond that $300 we're assuming that Eyetech's (small operation) overheads were of a similar level to Terrasoft's, so that Adam had something left above the bottom line to fund Eyetech with. There is so many problems with your analysis above, I'm not sure its fixable. You seem to want to argue about this and dont have any numbers, so you are adding VAT which isnt charged to a dealer and which isnt part of the prices I used, shipping from the US to the UK (for what I have no idea) since the boards werent made or shipped from the US. I'm sure Terrasoft would have made money on the boards as well, the make money on very piece of hardware they sell, and they actually provide warranties.

Actually, no.

You are stating that the retail price at which the boards were sold was $300 above the price charged by Terrasoft, and hence they were making $300 per board.
You are not stating that the price at which it was sold to the dealers was $300 above the price charged by Terrasoft.
VAT=Value Added Tax, in simple terms this is a 17.5% levy chargeable at the point of retail sale on any item sold in the EU. Although it is not charged in trade-trade sales, it is ALWAYS (with some exceptions like food, milk) charged on the final sale price to the end user, hence 1-1/1.175 of the retail sales price goes straight to the VAT man.

Quote:

Eyetech entered into the deal because they could make $300 a unit, Hyperion entered into the deal to get control of the OS and an eternal trademark license when AI went down. Neither company entered into the deal for the love of the Amiga platform. -Tig

Your statement does not bear close scrutiny. Whilst I agree that "love of the Amiga community" was not the driving force (when has love of any community been a driving force in business ?!?!?!) You take an assumed figure and state it as fact (as pointed out by Fairlanefastback more than once), and on closer inspection it just does not stand up.

Quote:

And in reality it doesnt matter if Eyetech made $312 more per unit then Terrasoft (as I think) or $260 or whatever, they made money on the boards, thats what the point is, this crazy concept I was answering that they did it for the love of community is silly. You ever actually look at Alan's prices for common items and then seriously say that? -Tig

What are you saying here - that Eyetech are baaaad people for making money on the boards? Or are you trying to insinuate that Eyetech was vastly overcharging their customers for the hardware? If so you should provide some evidence, such as numbers which bear scrutiny. The top line figure of $300 above the retail US direct-from-the-distributor price actually shows the opposite - that with the additional middle-man of distributing through a dealer network, price of OEM OS4, and tribute to Amiga.Inc Eyetech's EU (including VAT) retail prices were actually very reasonable by comparison to the US retail (VAT-free) price charged by Terrasoft.
Thankyou for the discussion, until this thread I did actually think that Eyetech were vastly overchargin for the Amigaone. I now see that the high price was unavoidable through this comparison.

And Bill, you might want to look back over the number, nature, and tone of your own posts before accusing others of "... seem[ing] to want to argue ...", "having no numbers" and "sounding like a broken record". imho

Last edited by Boot_WB on 17-Aug-2007 at 07:32 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: I think you've given some fair justification now. I appreciate it. So were you the only Amiga fan in the JSF crowd BTW? Funny you bumping into Alan not only as an Amiga user but as a defense contract worker! lol

At one point my entire staff was Amiga people and the NASA guys are still lots of ex-Amigans and I used to run into lots of my old lightwave tutorial customers at Lockheed. One of the managers was explaining 3D modeling to me, until someone explained that they had attended classed I'd taught on the subject. I still believe that the Lockheed win on the project, is just because of the video Foundation Imaging did for them, it was much cooler then the "artist" mockup that Boeing had.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

Boot_WB wrote: @Tigger [quote] Tigger wrote: You are stating that the retail price at which the boards were sold was $300 above the price charged by Terrasoft, and hence they were making $300 per board.

Where on earth do you think I said retail price, and I included the $25 for AI, because its part of the contract, we know about that. Its still more then $300 more profit then Terrasoft was getting.

Quote:

The top line figure of $300 above the retail US direct-from-the-distributor price actually shows the opposite - that with the additional middle-man of distributing through a dealer network, price of OEM OS4, and tribute to Amiga.Inc Eyetech's EU (including VAT) retail prices were actually very reasonable by comparison to the US retail (VAT-free) price charged by Terrasoft.

I accounted for the $25 for AI in my numbers, I am comparing apples to apples, while you are implying I am not, I am comparing non-VAT prices in both cases, you are the one who is making the silly comparison implying the reason AmigaOnes were high priced is VAT surely doesnt explain the high prices to the dealers or for that matter as retail prices in the US. Why exactly would we compare end user prices with VAT in the UK to Terrasoft prices in the US?
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

Where on earth do you think I said retail price, and I included the $25 for AI, because its part of the contract, we know about that. Its still more then $300 more profit then Terrasoft was getting.

Then perhaps you can show us some evidence of the two baseline figures which you are talking about, which show that Eyetech was charging $300 more than Terrasoft on a like-for-like basis.

Quote:

I accounted for the $25 for AI in my numbers, I am comparing apples to apples, while you are implying I am not, I am comparing non-VAT prices in both cases, you are the one who is making the silly comparison implying the reason AmigaOnes were high priced is VAT surely doesnt explain the high prices to the dealers or for that matter as retail prices in the US. Why exactly would we compare end user prices with VAT in the UK to Terrasoft prices in the US?

Incidentally, unless the dealers were VAT registered then yes, the price Eyetech charged them WOULD have included VAT if they were in the EU.
If they were outside the EU then the price they would have to pay to import the boards from Eyetech would not include VAT (obviously), but would would include import tax to that particular country.
Regardless of where in the world the boards are made, the dealers were buying them exclusively from Eyetech - a UK registered company.
Consequently, if they were produced in Korea and shipped directly to the US to a dealer, even if they did not physically enter the EU/UK, they would be charged import duty to the UK, and then exported to the US where they would be charged a further import duty to enter the US.
Compare that to Terrasoft importing them directly in a single-stage transaction to the US, and you have an additional import tax being charged on the Eyetech transaction.
So not exactly a like-for-like basis there really.

Perhaps if you could supply some actual figures, and even some actual references to back them up, we could assess the comparison ourselves?

Quote:

you are the one who is making the silly comparison

It's good to discuss different points of view in an adult fashion, don't you find?

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB, Tigger

If I remember correctly I paid about 680-700¤ for my µA1-C with 750GX and OS4 included.
If the Eyetech info is correct from back then the price for each µA1-C was about 540¤. This
including the dealer cut, OS4 and licences. But excluding VAT.

The price I paid is including VAT. VAT is 25% in Sweden (135-140¤).
The dealer cut was said to be around 100¤. The OEM price for OS4 has been suggested by
several people to range from 50$ to 100¤. The exact price is unknown to me. Then we have
the licence for the hardware and the OS to Amiga Inc. Was this 25$ and 20$?

Eyetech themselves listed (in the break down of costs) that they had 5% profit on each board.
Which suggest only 25¤, not over 300$.

So from this information I guess Tigger can calculate if Eyetech over charged. Because
he seems to have information on what Eyetech paid for the boards.

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

@Samwel

I have a hard time that two or three posters (not naming names) here really know the entire story on everything they are talking about, simply put they take sides to easily on things.. And they are always so sure of their information..

@Boot_WB

Quote:

Consequently, if they were produced in Korea and shipped directly to the US to a dealer, even if they did not physically enter the EU/UK, they would be charged import duty to the UK, and then exported to the US where they would be charged a further import duty to enter the US.

You have never done any of this, have you?

@Samwel

Thanks for the detailed info

@umisef
Quote:

umisef wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: Consequently, if they were produced in Korea and shipped directly to the US to a dealer, even if they did not physically enter the EU/UK, they would be charged import duty to the UK, and then exported to the US where they would be charged a further import duty to enter the US. You have never done any of this, have you?

No, I am speaking from my best understanding of the UK import/export regulations, which I accept may be flawed.
The boards were imported bought by a UK company, and exported to a third party.
As far as the HM Customs are concerned the UK company has bought the product, and therefore import has occurred as money has left the EU. Consequently import duty would be due on it.
This is my understanding of the regulations anyway, and I accept that I may be wrong, the Regulations are rarely intuitive.
I'll try to find out more during the week.

EDIT - added thanks to Samwel.
EDIT - changed reply to Umisef.

Last edited by Boot_WB on 19-Aug-2007 at 05:41 PM.
Last edited by Boot_WB on 19-Aug-2007 at 05:35 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

Boot_WB wrote: Incidentally, unless the dealers were VAT registered then yes, the price Eyetech charged them WOULD have included VAT if they were in the EU. If they were outside the EU then the price they would have to pay to import the boards from Eyetech would not include VAT (obviously), but would would include import tax to that particular country. Regardless of where in the world the boards are made, the dealers were buying them exclusively from Eyetech - a UK registered company. Consequently, if they were produced in Korea and shipped directly to the US to a dealer, even if they did not physically enter the EU/UK, they would be charged import duty to the UK, and then exported to the US where they would be charged a further import duty to enter the US.

Now you've completely shown that you dont understand how VAT works, both in the EU and with exports. First of all VAT doesnt apply to exports for the most part anyways. Secondly it doesnt apply to items that never enter the EU and you also dont pay import duties to a country it never visits, ie the UK. Go read wikipedia about VAT and then when you actually understand the tax system you work under we can discuss why your comments were incorrect.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger
Quote:

Now you've completely shown that you dont understand how VAT works, both in the EU and with exports. First of all VAT doesnt apply to exports for the most part anyways. Secondly it doesnt apply to items that never enter the EU and you also dont pay import duties to a country it never visits, ie the UK. Go read wikipedia about VAT and then when you actually understand the tax system you work under we can discuss why your comments were incorrect.

It's nice to see that you are learning to communicate in a friendly, polite manner which is conducive to a good discussion.

Nowhere above did I say that VAT applies to items that are for export outside the EU. In fact I explicitly said that:
Quote:

If they were outside the EU then the price they would have to pay to import the boards from Eyetech would not include VAT (obviously), but would would include import tax to that particular country.

Let's keep it simple and narrow it down to within the UK, rather than within the EU.
Within the UK VAT is chargeable by all VAT-registered companies from producer to retail purchaser, however, in each transaction where the buyer is VAT registered the VAT would be claimed back by the purchaser.
VAT is also chargeable on all items which are purchased from outside the EU, where the item is for sale within the EU.

Let's show this step by step:

Transaction 1:
VAT registered company A ---> VAT registered company B
VAT is charged on this transaction; the VAT charged would be paid to the VAT-man (simply speaking); company B would be able to claim this back from the VAT-man.

Transaction 2:
VAT registered company B ---> Non-VAT registered company C
VAT is charged on this transaction; the VAT charged would be paid to the VAT-man (simply speaking); company C would not be able to claim this back.

Transaction 3:
Non-VAT registered company C ---> Non-VAT registered company D
No additional VAT is charged on this transaction. The VAT has already been absorbed into the price in transaction 2 by company C.

This remaining issue under contention is whether purchasing an item from a supplier outside the EU, and shipping to a third-party outside the EU (eg the US) would accrue import duty into the UK. I believe it would, under the definition that import constitutes money going out of the EU system, however (unlike yourself) I am willing to concede that I may be wrong on this point, and will check with the customs this week (if I can get around to it).

In summary, this is an unlikely situation anyway - the chances are that Eyetech was importing the physical goods directly to the UK, and shipping them out from there after re-badging them. Consequently they certainly would have accrued import duty at both stages - entering the EU, and then again when being imported to the US.


Finally, and I'll put this in bold so so it's quite clear, I am not saying that Eyetech would be charging VAT on the transaction between the UK and the US. Assuming that Eyetech is/was a VAT registered company they would have claimed back the VAT paid at the import stage.
However VAT is not import duty - the two are quite different, and Eyetech would not be able to claim back the import duty even if they proved they were exporting the goods again.

EDIT: forgot quote

Last edited by Boot_WB on 19-Aug-2007 at 11:14 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

O.k. lets just say there is a law that demands import-tax based transaction been done by U.K-companies instead of demanding it just for goods coming into (and staying in) the U.K., do you really thing Alan wouldn't know the obvious trick to avoid those extra costs ????

Edit: Most of us are trying to leave "colour" wars behind us, may I suggest you do the same.

Last edited by _Steve_ on 20-Aug-2007 at 11:26 PM.
Last edited by _Steve_ on 20-Aug-2007 at 11:26 PM.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Why do you always write like the "reds" are stupid and the "blues" are the
intelligent ones??? This is ONE of the reasons I chose OS4 instead of MOS.
The MOS community (many of them) was (is?) so elitist.

You could have chosen to post without the first sentense you know...

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

@Samwel

And where did I write that "reds" are stupid ???? (/hint: carefull reading before answering comes handy from time to time ).

Again:
If there is such a bizzare tax-law in the UK, avoiding it (in a legal way) is very very simple.

Some people insinsting that Alan paid import tax for goods transferd from Taiwan to the US are therefor implying he ain't the brightest bulb in town.

These are the same people that are denying the possibility that the A1-prices were so high due to Alan putting in a high mark-up.

The same pattern can be witnessed when it comes to the ongoing legal mess, instead of accepting the obvious explaination (which would mean accepting that the choosen side has done bad things) we get the most absurd explaination,s implying an unbelieveable level of naivity both in the reader and the actors .....

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Tigger

Out of curiosity, did Terrasoft ever sell Teron boards with their Linux distro ?

A yes or no will suffice

I wonder if Alan had to do anything to the boards before shipping (Flash uboot etc,), because if not they could be shipped direct from the manufacturer to the dealers, But what if the manufacturer was unable/unwilling to ship in dealer (small) qauntities. I wonder where they were then sent and to whom.

God I wonder a lot when I don't know the facts/details.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@Kronos

Quote:

And where did I write that "reds" are stupid ????

In your tone and how you write degrading comments..

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

@Kronos

Btw I have always suspected that we didn't get the best price possible for the A1's.

* Alan picked a complete design. Cheaper than making your own.
* A1's where alot more expensive than comparable hardware. (Pegasos among others)
* There where no real openess about the price and the bugs.
* They where ordered in too small batches.
* Alan jumped ship without making a press release or anything.
* Warranty sucked. Although a selected few got service..

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

In order to go back on topic:

Are there any news about the trial(s) at the court(s)?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

No, we are waiting...for something.
I don't know what though.

_________________
AmigaOS or MorphOS on x86 would sell orders of magnitude more than the current,
hardware-intensive solutions. And they'd go faster.-- D.Haynie

@Manu

Quote:

No, we are waiting...for something.I don't know what though.

Hmm...this?

http://news.justia.com/cases/370498
(new entry August 21, 2007)

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*