Apple Hits Back at Supplier Imagination for 'Inaccurate and Misleading' Statements in Contract Dispute

[danckwerts]

There are probably faults on both sides but, for a company which likes to parade its ethical credentials, Apple seems to be pretty ruthless, as it has also shown in its other dealings (e.g. with Qualcomm). It is quite hard to see why they would poach Imagination staff unless they wanted to get their hands on the company's IP. I'll be interested to see Imagination's response to Apple's latest claims. If they are true, Imagination's directors are in big legal trouble.

 

[TechGeek76]

Your point 3, casting aspersions on Apple, is moot, because you haven't understood the difference between the "notice" and the "announcement" dealt with in this article.

The "notice" was given to Imagination by Apple more than two years ago!

In fact, Apple had not been licensing "new" technology from Imagination since that time!

"The "financial collapse" was a result of the recent announcement by Imagination itself -- in March of this year! This announcement "pulled the rug" out from under Imagination's investors, who thought everything was hunky dory for the last two years!
[doublepost=1499467871][/doublepost]

Where there is a difference in what is being said, I would put money on Apple telling the truth. Despite the picture painted in the media, Apple is actually one of the most transparent tech companies there is -- not about their product roadmap, but about their business. Apple actually gives a lot of hard numbers, for example; whereas others like Amazon, Samsung, MS, and Google don't break them out as much, or purposefully obscure them between different divisions and Profit-Loss statements.

You can put your money wherever you like. I wouldn't put it past them to not be telling the truth. But as I said, none of us know.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

There are probably faults on both sides but, for a company which likes to parade its ethical credentials, Apple seems to be pretty ruthless, as it has also shown in its other dealings (e.g. with Qualcomm). It is quite hard to see why they would poach Imagination staff unless they wanted to get their hands on the company's IP. I'll be interested to see Imagination's response to Apple's latest claims. If they are true, Imagination's directors are in big legal trouble.

Being ruthless [in business] and being ethical are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact tend to be a perfectionist with regards to your own work - you are less likely to be forgiving of others lack of perceived standards. It is funny you bring up Qualcomm as an example because it is a prime example of being both ruthless and unethical at the same time. So much so that they withheld a billion dollars because Apple dared to co-operate with authorities that were investigating Qualcomm for what in effect is their lack of ethics (which in this case is also illegal activity).

Apple is hiring or has hired lots of silicon/chip experts in addition to acquiring P.A. Semi., Intrinsity, Prime Sense and a few others.... Highly qualified people in this field are sought after and hired... many jumping back and forth between many companies who are working on important chip products (AMD being one that has hired some away, Google being the most recent). Just because some of them are from Imagination -- does not mean they were hired for the IP -- they were hired because they were talented and had the skills necessary.

Imagination Technologies is a mismanaged company who has squandered their fortunes away by diverting attention to things other than their core business. It is fine to get into other businesses, but you can never rest in the businesses you are in -- or you will join many other companies in the history books.

 

[vvswarup]

Apple is the kind of company that only uses you long enough to learn how your technology works and then once they devise a way to get around your patents, shut you out and replicate the functionality of your solution. Alternatively they just buy you. Like they did with Siri, TouchID and so on.

EDIT:// I can see I rattled a lot of cages with this comment. Many of you replying are saying things like "welcome to capitalism" and "that's what every company does". And to that I say, well duh, that's what I just explained with my comment, it's the entire reason imagination is salty.

If you agree that every company does it, then why make a statement that singles out Apple?

 

[Arndroid]

As a business owner I can tell you that anytime a majority your revenue is driven by just one or two customers, you're going to eventually have a problem. It was on Imagination to grow their business beyond Apple and that didn't happen. As for Apple using companies products/IP and eventually dumping them, why wouldn't they? When Apple initially launched the iPhone, they had no intellectual capital or IP for a vast majority of the technologies used by the phone. As such they pay royalties everywhere as everyone wants a piece of the action. Over they years, Apple has developed its own technology and evolved it to the ever-changing needs of their product. As such it is natural that they would eventually move away from some suppliers, pulling some work in-house. Additionally, it isn't surprising to see new suppliers come on board as a result of the technology evolution and changing needs of the iPhone platform.

Yeah Apple keeps pushing for unique technological advantages and it is impossible to protect that with third party suppliers.

 

[mwd25]

Speaking from a position of complete ignorance and lack of understanding here, why did this company make this dramatic announcement that ended up shocking investors and hurting their share value? That decision seems counter to their interests.

Is there a larger strategic advantage to such an announcement that I'm overlooking? Was it required by law?

Which, once you read Apple's response, makes complete sense. Imaginations position "sounds like" we have one product that we have chosen to place our whole business life on, and now that the gravy train is coming to an end we think we can just somehow force you to use our product. I find it very reasonable that they have been warned all along that they better start diversifying. They, of course, sat on that information, knowing that their value would take a nose dive as soon as it was revealed. So they hid it from their investors hoping that some deal could be made or they could sell the company to someone and not tell them Apple wouldnt be using their tech going forward. Seems like they gambled, stuck their heads in the sand and just "hoped" Apple wouldnt be able to develop their own tech. Now it hasnt worked out for them (surprise) and they want to act like its all new info and they were blindsided. Nice try.

If Apple was trying to develop their own tech, which its clear they were, what would have been the benefit to them to hide it???? Nothing. I'm just not buying Informations story.
[doublepost=1499567555][/doublepost]

Does seem like poor business etiquette to throw a long time supplier under the bus with the announcement. A buyout of a company is usually based on the share price so it seems rather obvious the announcement is part of a planned strategy to make it a cheap buyout but if Apple is not showing interest then who are they colluding with? Perhaps it's another instance of selling out the West to Chinese central government judging by what's going on at Cypress Semiconductor.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/02/23/cypress-semiconductor-rodgers-canyon-bridge.html

Tim Crook has already demonstrated his allegiance using untaxed money hidden offshore to fund an Uber rival. This character and his cronies need to serve time at Gitmo.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/04/apple-invest-didi-chuxing-china-uber-merger/

Your link provides zero information on supposed "untaxed money hidden offshore" that Apple invested in Didi Chuxing. I guess I'm just supposed to see you provided a link and believe it says what you say. Not actually read it. If your going to provide links that propose to back up your argument, dont editorialize. And Apple made the investment, not Tim "Crook" He isnt the sole owner, making all decisions. Apple is a corporation, with a board that must approve of decisions, as far as investments go.