Did Apple Spend $2 Billion to Bail Out Sharp?

[likemyorbs]

Sharp is in desperate need of a logo redesign. Their current logo reminds me of 80's tv sets.

[fertilized-egg]

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

Apple has no choice because they screwed their relationship with Samsung.

Apple cornered itself to one major vendor for every component.

Other than the processor, what component is Apple "cornered" to a "one major vendor", let alone "every component"?

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Sharp is in desperate need of a logo redesign. Their current logo reminds me of 80's tv sets.

Ummm ok. Not sure what this had to do with anything.

I would have tried to get Sharp at a discount ... a distressed sale of sorts.

[peterdevries]

Originally Posted by lilo777

They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).

nonono, it makes perfect sense, because this investment if it is indeed true enables Apple to dictate the pricing of the screens they get from Sharp and increase margins on their products while keeping the sales price equal.

Apple will not invest 2 Billion of the shareholders funds into a business for charity. They need a return, as it is an investment. Since Apple has some really top-notch finance capability, I'm sure the ROI will be very favorable.

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by TMay

You are "loosing" your ability to read. Apple is prepaying for product that Samsung doesn't produce, IGZO displays.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my ability to read. Here is a reading for you that you might find interesting (original source):

LTPS AMOLED is Coming on Gen 8

Supply chain - Low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS) has been the semiconductor material of choice for making the thin-film transistors used to switch pixels in active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) display panels. It was not easy to scale the laser crystallization process used to convert amorphous silicon to LTPS on substrate sizes greater than Gen 4, but Samsung did it for their successful Gen 5.5 fab. The Gen 5.5 uses a crystallization tool from AP Systems (APS), we are told by Barry Young, Managing Director of the OLED Association and CEO of Young Market Research (YMR).

It has been Samsung’s plan for some time to use LTPS on its first Gen 8 AMOLED fab, and to then switch to Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) for its second Gen 8 AMOLED fab. This plan embodies what appears to be a rational assessment of the time it will take for IGZO to be ready for volume production of AMOLED backplanes.

LG Display, in an attempt to leapfrog Samsung as the undisputed AMOLED leader, gambled on a much earlier IGZO roll-out for Gen 8, and apparently pushed the technology too far too fast, since the company missed its announced London Olympics introduction date for 55-inch AMOLED-TV, and then missed two subsequent introduction dates.

But Samsung continued to work diligently on LTPS, and successfully introduced an up-scaled APS tool on its Gen 8 pilot line. The company has now ordered a high-volume Gen 8 production tool from APS, says Young.

In the production tool, the laser beam is optically broadened to a line that can be as large as 1300mm, and is swept along the substrate in the long direction (see figure). The 55-inch displays are produced 6-up in a 3×2 matrix. The line beam makes one pass from the top and one from the bottom, so the sweep edge does not cross any display and stitching in not needed.

Expect to see the first 55-inch AMOLED-TVs with LTPS backplanes in 2013.

Sharp is not the only company that is working on IGZO. I suspect that Samsung devices may have IGZO before Apple. Not only that, they will be IGZO and AMOLED.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

They're not really though. Had they played nice, they wouldn't be forced to rely on Sharp and could use Samsung's production facilities. Instead, they didn't play nice and this 2 billion bailout is a consequence.

Except that Apple didn't go to Sharp for displays, they went to LG. (for iPads) Sharp failed to make what Apple wanted. So far. And now that their future is in doubt, who knows.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by jessica.

Ummm ok. Not sure what this had to do with anything.

You really wasted the time to call me out on a random comment about sharp?

[paul4339]

The $2B is probably more a temporary lifeline. Like any business, if/when Sharp defaults on interest payment then creditors can jump and take over the business and/or liquidate ... whatever is more profitable.

If Apple did pay Sharp, it's likely that a good portion went towards forward interest payment to ensure the company will stay afloat for X amt of time... Or Apple could have just bought out some of the debt (became a creditor themselves) in exchange for continued access to strategic equipment if Sharp when under.

And if the company did change ownership, they'll have to just sell the factories to another competitor (LG, AU, Samsung, Sony, etc.), to which Apple will have to again do business with.

.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by lilo777

They will. Apple winning $1 billion by suing Samsung and loosing $2 billion because it had to prop Sharp to get the components they could easily get from Samsung. That makes perfect economic sense (and APPL trend proves it).

My guess is that you have an elementary/rudimentary economic/financial background. The two events are unrelated; furthermore, Apple didn't lose (which is the proper word, not loose) $2 billion. It is an investment for which Sharp will pay back with interest, or perhaps Apple is planning a buyout and is already a partial stakeholder in the company with the transaction.

It makes perfect economical sense because Sharp doesn't compete with Apple in the mobile, smartphone, tablet, iPod, etc (any market), where as Samsung does. I think its only logical that Apple try to keep afloat arguably the ONLY non-competitor screen manufacturer for Apple. Not to mention that the Sharp LCD used in the iPhone 5 is considered the best LCD screen for any smartphone to date.

[iChrist]

Originally Posted by gmanist1000

Makes sense if they want to move away from Samsung displays.

Makes sense if they want to move away from LG screens.


.

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

You really wasted the time to call me out on a random comment about sharp?

Nope. I wasn't wasting time, I was multitasking so it was no bother at all. And if you call that "calling out" then I'd hate to see your reaction to someone really calling you out. Smooches.

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by lilo777

Sharp is not the only company that is working on IGZO. I suspect that Samsung devices may have IGZO before Apple. Not only that, they will be IGZO and AMOLED.

AMOLED is overrated - give me the full sRGB IPS LCD display on the iP5 any day.

[Prof.]

Originally Posted by globalhemp

Perhaps Apple will skip past standard HD and go for Ultra-HD (aka "4K").

Check out this 84" Sony XBR Ultra-HD TV that has 4X the resolution than standard "full HD" (1080).

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...ntifier=S_4KTV

$25k for a TV?! No thanks!

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by jctevere

My guess is that you have an elementary/rudimentary economic/financial background. The two events are unrelated; furthermore, Apple didn't lose (which is the proper word, not loose) $2 billion. It is an investment for which Sharp will pay back with interest, or perhaps Apple is planning a buyout and is already a partial stakeholder in the company with the transaction.

It makes perfect economical sense because Sharp doesn't compete with Apple in the mobile, smartphone, tablet, iPod, etc (any market), where as Samsung does. I think its only logical that Apple try to keep afloat arguably the ONLY non-competitor screen manufacturer for Apple. Not to mention that the Sharp LCD used in the iPhone 5 is considered the best LCD screen for any smartphone to date.

AU Optronics makes screens for Apple as well - not a competitor in the smartphone arena. Sharp actually has made phones - though I don't believe with any real success.

But I get what you mean =)

----------

Originally Posted by Prof.

$25k for a TV?! No thanks!

They actually are retailing in the US for the low-low price of just $16,999

[Pman17]

Originally Posted by KdParker

What does sharp make for Apple?

Retina Displays

[Matrixfan]

Apple's lawyers just SHARPened their penciles in preparation of the transfers. Sorry

[CWallace]

Originally Posted by abhishake

Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?

Because Sharp produces a great many products that Apple could care less about. They only need LCD panels from Sharp, so it makes fiscal sense to support that part of the business.

Originally Posted by samcraig

(Apple) still paid 2B out of pocket which they may or may not ever see again.

They'll see it back with every LCD panel delivery now that they have secured this factory for long-term production of said panels.

Originally Posted by paul4339

The $2B is probably more a temporary lifeline.

The original article that this thread is based on noted that what Apple did was effectively buy the factory by pre-paying for it's production for a number of years. So even if Sharp liquidates, this factory is no longer one of it's assets and cannot be recovered by the creditors.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by jrswizzle

They actually are retailing in the US for the low-low price of just $16,999

That's not bad. 4K projectors are mostly still up around $30k, I believe. Little TVs like that should cost less.

[bedifferent]

Someone mentioned "Sharp"'s HDTV market "dried up".

Not entirely true. "Pioneer", which was arguably one of the best plasma TV manufacturers, closed their "Elite" plasma division a few years ago. "Panasonic" and "Sharp" bought most of "Pioneer"'s tech, with "Sharp" securing the rights to "Kuru" technology.

"Sharp" has released an amazing LED LCD that rivals the blacks on plasma's (most videophiles prefer plasma display's for their deeper blacks that LED LCD's have difficulty in displaying due to the nature of the tech). I'd wager "bailing out" "Sharp" may be due to Apple's use of "Sharp" technology in the rumored television. Remember, Apple stores used "Pioneer" plasma's for their "AppleTV" displays (now "Sony" is their goto manufacturer). Since "Sharp" owns "Pioneer"'s "Kuru" tech and is making strides in that market, it's a rather safe wager.

http://elitelcdtv.com

Notice "Sharp" isn't branded any where on the product, however the company is the manufacturer.

[maxwelltech]

I think this is a signal that Apple is going to move away from Samsung for manufacturing parts.

[BornAgainApple]

Just helping out an old friend.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by fruitpunch.ben

Right, because you know better than Apple, and Apple is in the habit of wasting billions of dollars propping up failing companies
Or maybe is it that Apple knows something you don't?

Which is more likely?

Most likely is Apple's purchase or whatever was earlier this year. Sharp continued down since then, the results of last quarter and their announcement last week are not fake.

[joesegh]

Originally Posted by abhishake

Why not just buy Sharp at a steep discount?

Because they're hemorrhaging money?

[JAT]

Originally Posted by bedifferent

Someone mentioned "Sharp"'s HDTV market "dried up".

Not entirely true. "Pioneer", which was arguably one of the best plasma TV manufacturers, closed their "Elite" plasma division a few years ago. "Panasonic" and "Sharp" bought most of "Pioneer"'s tech, with "Sharp" securing the rights to "Kuru" technology.

Yes, but this market is tiny. Like a few thousand worldwide. They could be selling Elite's at twice expected demand and a drop of 5% of "regular" TVs (that average folks buy) would drown out Elite sales like a drop of water in a lake.

[bedifferent]

Originally Posted by JAT

Yes, but this market is tiny. Like a few thousand worldwide. They could be selling Elite's at twice expected demand and a drop of 5% of "regular" TVs (that average folks buy) would drown out Elite sales like a drop of water in a lake.

The same could be stated for Apple computers, and (until recently) was the justification

Sometimes, you pay a higher price for better quality.