You missed the point. And you don't like being called out on the fact that what you stated to the OP (and with snark) is your assumption with bias. It's cool.
Perhaps you need to go back to the original exchange and reread it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You missed the point. And you don't like being called out on the fact that what you stated to the OP (and with snark) is your assumption with bias. It's cool.
Perhaps you need to go back to the original exchange and reread it.
Horace Dediu "I believe that Apple's late and unprecedented expenditure was to secure this asset. I further believe that the financing for this deal was done through a swap of "pre-orders". I encourage you to read the source.
Hardly the portrayal of a potential loss of $2B that you make it out to be.
But why would you reply otherwise? Your worldview depends on Apple as the antagonist.
"I believe"
"I further believe"
Do you understand what those statements mean? Conjecture. Perhaps educated conjecture. But conjecture nonetheless. And your criticizing the OP for supposedly not reading was wrong. Especially since you're making your own interpretations. Calling someone else wrong for theirs is inappropriate.
And every investment has risks and can be a potential loss. That's not inaccurate. Again - spin however you want.
And my worldview absolutely does not paint Apple as an antagonist. I love, own and use a lot of Apple tech. That doesn't mean I always think they are right, do the right thing, are the best, etc. I'm pretty technological agnostic. But - this is an Apple forum with lots of FUD. So if I come off as anti-Apple - perhaps it's because facts vs FUD/ignorance will always make someone look as if they are trying to poke a hole in someone's balloon of fantasy.
How complicated can this be.
I criticized your analysis. Even if Apple prepays $2B they aren't going to lose $2B unless they can't secure the asset, i.e., Sharp's production facility. I stated that Apple wouldn't have prepaid under the circumstances if they didn't have stipulation to control the asset in the event of a Sharp default.
The OP posted a link and text to ASYMCO, Horace Dediu. The OP rephrased a portion of the text, and added a quote from Horace, but otherwise provided no editorial opinion or analysis. Horace is not the OP.
Again, read the source of the original article, Horace Dediu at ASYMCO, and if you aren't a regular reader, maybe you should be. Horace speculated that Apple shifted a prepayment for parts up a quarter to "secure this asset". I believe his analysis to be very good, but it is educated speculation, where your statement that Apple could very well lose the $2B is conjecture of a probability with no analysis to support it.
I actually see my mistake. You specified that Samsung does not produce what Apple is seeking. I must have missed/misread that because I was agreeing with the OP (original poster not original post) that said that Apple, in short, paid 2B and was only getting 1B from Samsung. So I apologize.
That being said - I think you are putting far too much "weight" into my comment. To refresh, I wrote "They still paid 2B out of pocket which they may or may not ever see again."
I said may or may not. That's not an accusation or analysis. It's a logical statement. Regardless of what Apple negotiates - they may or may not get their value back. That's true about any business deal. Protected or not. I still believe it's a fair comment.
That being said - I think you are putting far too much "weight" into my comment. To refresh, I wrote "They still paid 2B out of pocket which they may or may not ever see again."
I said may or may not. That's not an accusation or analysis. It's a logical statement. Regardless of what Apple negotiates - they may or may not get their value back. That's true about any business deal. Protected or not. I still believe it's a fair comment.
Again, I don't discount your statement, just that you applied weight to it that Horace did not. It may be that Apple does ultimately lose the $2B, but Horace doesn't even mention the possibility.
As for Samsung, Apple will continue buying components until it isn't rational to continue. Note the recent "noise" about Apple moving away from Intel. Recall that it was Intel that pushed the Ultrabook market (remarkable late to be successful), a competitor to the MBA, with a $300/unit incentive to OEM's. Fair enough, but noted by the tech media and certainly by Apple.
To be frank - I don't really care what Horace wrote or didn't. I wasn't replying in response to Horace. I was replying to you who had replied to another poster.
But it seems we've "solved" this confusion
No, iPhone and iPad, RAM, display, NAND are all multisourced. Not in the past, but right now. Also Apple has moved from single sourcing of iPad displays to multi sourcing as time went by contrary to your claim.
Do you have evidence to back up your claim that Apple's moving towards single sourcing?
I'd think it's because you almost always consistently give the benefit of doubt to the side that's against Apple, rarely the other way around.
I think even in the past, they were all multi-sourced. NAND in the original iPhone was at least Samsung and Toshiba. And there were multiple screen types and digitizers as noted by the people who were complaining that some of their digitizers had a slightly visible grid.
Whatever the case, you're certainly right that they're not going towards single-sourcing.
I have been posting about 4K for quite a while. With Retina displays it need not be huge anymore.
Rocketman
Samsung is not going to be supplying anything going forward. That leaves Apple with one "reliable" supplier and one "dud" for every component. I may have wrongly used single source in the previous post, but my argument is same from the beginning. Only one reliable source to Apple for each component.
All good businesses cooperate with their partners. Almost every player in tech industry licenses and competes same time.
Asus which still has the best tablet model, designed Nexus 7 for Google. Nexus 7 is selling million a month. What does it imply.
Samsung designed Nexus 10 for Google.
LG designed Nexus 4 for Google.
Steve Jobs used to put an offensive posture, but also knew when to pull back.
Tim Cook is not able to draw that line. Fighting until bitter end.
I'm not seeing the desire for 4K for from consumers, yet anyway, but for workstations and gamers, 4K can't come soon enough.
Do you have any evidence for this? For example, do you have any kind of evidence Toshiba NAND or Elpida RAM tend to fail more Hynix equivalanets? Or one of them had more trouble making NANDs?
On a related note, Samsung hasn't supplied any of the iPhone retina panels even before the legal actions. There Apple diversify their supply chain more, not less, and not just two.
Right. I didn't mean that Apple didn't multisource in the past but rather that Apple has almost always been (or at least tried) multisourcing, not just in the past.
FOR ME Apple's mistake is to trust the legal system too much. The patent system is too complex.
Rest assured, Apple has very good lawyers who know American patent law well. Rather than this transaction exposing a legal strategy or a potential consumer issue, my guess is that Wall Street should be trying to understand Apple's solutions to its supply issues better.
I can't even get HD sports from my cable provider... the premium sports channels like NFL sunday ticket are mostly in (highly compressed) SD... what a drag!
4k pip? wow! that WOULD be awesome!
No but it does get old. Let's face it, Apple isn't a tech company anymore, they're a legal firm.
Their legal team and their computer teams are separate. The media exposes what the legal team do for their job just as much as what they expose the computer team to do these days because of other companies forcing their legal companies to act.
If you really hate it you should be complaining to macrumors for showing the legal info rather than Apple making their legal team do what they are meant to do in these situations...
----------
Yeah and do you see me crying all over the forum about that?
----------
not sure if typo or just..
Not necessarily that black & white, but certainly, tactically, it would reduce options for Apple, and in turn provide Samsung with some leverage to settle this battle favourably. Who knows though right? It's all speculation. The fact is it's rather better to be injecting money into a company you have a relationship with, than risk it falling into the hands of someone less sympathetic to you, or worse, an enemy.