21–30 of 52 posts
I work at Inter IKEA, which is actually a franchisor - the structure is a family run foundation sitting at the top, below the group that owns the concept and value chain, then the retailer licence to hold a franchise (https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/the-i...)
> Concretely, this means that no takeover of the company is possible without the Foundation’s approval. Even if Boris were to pass away, even if an irresistible investor came knocking, control of Infomaniak remains in the hands of a structure dedicated to its mission. This reads quite naive; if you want a legal entity to be ideologically driven then it needs to be controlled by a small number of ideologues. Committee…
The debian project here acts as a counter-example: The institution governing the project far outlived its original creator and the "debian social contract" clearly helped to that.
Additionally, Infomaniak seems to have registered here as a Swiss "public interest" foundation. This has several implications:
(1) Swiss authority regularly audit the foundation and verify that there is no conflict of interests with the registered chart.
(2) Usage of the money should be done in respect of the chart.
(3) If any of the previous conditions is not respected. The Swiss authorities can step it and dissolve the entire thing or even take control.
Reading this, it sounds very like what Ingvar Kamprad did with IKEA - although the structure is slightly different, the intent feels the same. I work at Inter IKEA, which is actually a franchisor - the structure is a family run foundation sitting at the top, below the group that owns the concept and value chain, then the retailer licence to hold a franchise ( https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/the…
I don’t think that's what Infomaniak is after. Not even in the same ballpark.
Reading this, it sounds very like what Ingvar Kamprad did with IKEA - although the structure is slightly different, the intent feels the same. I work at Inter IKEA, which is actually a franchisor - the structure is a family run foundation sitting at the top, below the group that owns the concept and value chain, then the retailer licence to hold a franchise ( https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/the…
I always assumed that IKEA being a non-profit was a tax evasion maneuver first and foremost. Even Wikipedia says that the goal of their convoluted corporate setup is to enable a "non-taxable for-profit" entity. I don’t think that's what Infomaniak is after. Not even in the same ballpark.
This is awesome news. I wonder if it has any impact on Infomaniak's earlier position on Switzerland's privacy laws, e.g.: https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/infomaniak-breaks-r...
I've received an email about this with the subject: "An (important) message from the founder of Infomaniak" Putting "important" in there, even in parentheses, is highly disrespectful, as it implies the necessity to be read immediately, whereas in reality this doesn't have any impact on customers at all. Infomaniak overall has a decent product offering, but I've noticed repeatedly incompetence and manipulative behavio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always assumed that IKEA being a non-profit was a tax evasion maneuver first and foremost. Even Wikipedia says that the goal of their convoluted corporate setup is to enable a "non-taxable for-profit" entity. I don’t think that's what Infomaniak is after. Not even in the same ballpark.
Of course. The reason IKEA was structured as it was, is to pay very little tax. Sadly this rational and admirable way of running the company has now gone out the window and the current ownership is way more woke than during the golden era. But now they are big enough to do what they want, so it doesn't really matter that much.
not sure how being directly responsible for illegal wood-cutting in eastern europe, worsening quality, higher prices, low wages and treating your employees like cattle is woke. were you bothered by them pink-washing themselves with rainbow flags?
in other words i'm always surprised about people choosing "wokeness" as criticism when there are things way more impactful and worse to actually care about.
> pay very little tax [...] rational and admirable
okay. i get the rational part, from a business perspective. still dislike that it's being done, but who am i. admirable? are you libertarian by any chance? (genuine question, i can't imagine how one can find tax evasion admirable if they're not wealthy or businessman-first-human-second themselves.)
> Concretely, this means that no takeover of the company is possible without the Foundation’s approval. Even if Boris were to pass away, even if an irresistible investor came knocking, control of Infomaniak remains in the hands of a structure dedicated to its mission. This reads quite naive; if you want a legal entity to be ideologically driven then it needs to be controlled by a small number of ideologues. Committee…
> Any institution quickly becomes a corrupt shadow of what it was originally envisioned as once the original people involved move on. The debian project here acts as a counter-example: The institution governing the project far outlived its original creator and the "debian social contract" clearly helped to that. Additionally, Infomaniak seems to have registered here as a Swiss "public interest" foundation. This has s…
Reading this, it sounds very like what Ingvar Kamprad did with IKEA - although the structure is slightly different, the intent feels the same. I work at Inter IKEA, which is actually a franchisor - the structure is a family run foundation sitting at the top, below the group that owns the concept and value chain, then the retailer licence to hold a franchise ( https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/the…
I always assumed that IKEA being a non-profit was a tax evasion maneuver first and foremost. Even Wikipedia says that the goal of their convoluted corporate setup is to enable a "non-taxable for-profit" entity. I don’t think that's what Infomaniak is after. Not even in the same ballpark.