Using Apple & Samsung to compare GAAP and IFRS

The potential implications of international standards are illustrated by this example. There are two issues at play. The first issue is that comparability is poor here. Apple\\\\'s financial statements were produced according to US GAAP, which is by far the best standard for producing understandable financial statements. Samsung\\\\'s statements are produced using Korean IFRS. In terms of comparability, there are differences between how these two different methodologies arrive at some of these numbers. One of the major differences between GAAP and IFRS is with revenue recognition (IAS, 2018). Even with numbers that are seemingly consistent, such a top line revenue, the fact that they are compiled differently under the different systems makes it more challenging to compare companies like this.
The other issue is obvious from the times interest earned calculation. In the case of Apple, there isn\\\\'t one because Apple has a net gain from interest, because of its extensive financial holdings. But the way IFRS financial statements look, interest expense is not a line item. I wonder if \\\\"financial income\\\\" and \\\\"financial expense\\\\" are referring to interest, or some combination of interest and other things. The word \\\\"financial\\\\" is vague and open to interpretation. Its use here is sloppy, evidence that IFRS was not developed by native English speakers, who would have used wording that lends greater clarity. So I don\\\\'t know what the interest expense for Samsung was, and as such cannot even compute the times interest earned.
Another issue with IFRS presentation came in trying to calculate the debt to assets ratio. Taking this as \\\\"long-term debt\\\\", as opposed to \\\\"total liabilities\\\\" (again, consistent wording is important for comparability), the category of long-term debt is not given a subtotal in IFRS presentation. The ratios we calculate are designed for ease of use with GAAP statements, not IFRS statements. So using IFRS statements to calculate common financial ratios is sometimes challenging because of the way that the line items are presented.
Thus, we see the issue with IRFS and GAAP comparability. The way that the numbers are calculated can different significantly. To properly compare revenue of these two companies, we would need to see Samsung\\\\'s GAAP statements, or Apple\\\\'s IFRS ones. The other issue is that the way IFRS is presented is a clear step down from the specificity and ease of understanding of GAAP statements. Vague wording and lack of subtotals in IFRS statements makes parsing them that much more annoying, if not outright difficult.
We know enough from this analysis that Apple is clearly outperforming Samsung, but that\\\\'s all we really know at this point. If the numbers were closer, we would definitely want to get into the revenue figures, and some of the other ones where there is a significant difference between GAAP and IFRS.
References
Samsung Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from http://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/p5/global/ir/docs/2015_con_quarter04_all.pdf
Apple Form 10-K 2015. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/6130671598x0x861262/2601797E-6590-4CAA-86C9-962348440FFC/2015_Form_10-K_As-filed_.pdf
IAS (2018) Revenue recognition: Key differences between US GAAP and IFRS. IAS Plus. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from https://www.iasplus.com/en-us/standards/ifrs-usgaap/revenue