GT Advanced COO: Apple Told Us 'Put On Your Big Boy Pants and Accept the Agreement'

[HyperZboy]

Articulated perfect!

Boy did you stretch reality. Did you just harvest Jobs famous Reality Distortion Field or something? lol

Seriously, Apple is only taking these extreme measures not because they're that happy wonderful company.

They're doing it because they know they're partially at fault now that all these documents are coming out, not to mention the bad PR.

Please please stop with the Pity & Excuses party for Apple. It's disturbingly inane nonsense that people have these ridiculous fanboy opinions.

----------

And yet, for you and yours, it's always Apple's fault, right? Regardless of the circumstances?

No, I'm simply stating that Apple is partially at fault and people here are saying it's not at all Apple's fault, which I think is a ridiculous opinion based on the documents released.

 

[rsocal]

And yet, for you and yours, it's always Apple's fault, right? Regardless of the circumstances?

You're so right! People accuse me of defending Apple, when all I'm really doing is giving my opinion of GTAT's actions! I don't understand how anyone can defend GTAT after the COO/CEO's actions prior to BK.

Problems became known back in February and I'm sure they actually started sooner. This is why stock sell off is suspect, and then the GTAT BK after Apple put the brakes on last loan payment. A loan payment that seems GTAT would have taken, knowing they had already failed and seems to have already been planning BK. This is speculation on my part and strictly my opinion!.

 

[Renzatic]

Every competent leader knows that you do not put all of your companies eggs in one basket. While you're hunting the elephant, you have to catch the deer and the rabbits to bring in enough to keep yourself fed.

From the sound of it, Apple forbade GT from doing just that. They tempted them with a sweetheart deal at the start, started to draw up terms while requiring exclusivity, then slowly started changing the terms of the deal as time went on, putting GT into a worse and worse position. By the time it came to sign the contract, they felt they had no other choice.

This isn't an unusual tactic for larger companies, and Apple is hardly the only one around to tempt a smaller company with a bunch of dollar signs before pulling the rug out from underneath them, but it's still a slimy thing to do.

 

[rsocal]

Boy did you stretch reality. Did you just harvest Jobs famous Reality Distortion Field or something? lol

Seriously, Apple is only taking these extreme measures not because they're that happy wonderful company.

They're doing it because they know they're partially at fault now that all these documents are coming out, not to mention the bad PR.

Please please stop with the Pity & Excuses party for Apple. It's disturbingly inane nonsense that people have these ridiculous fanboy opinions.

----------



No, I'm simply stating that Apple is partially at fault and people here are saying it's not at all Apple's fault, which I think is a ridiculous opinion based on the documents released.

I think you are taking all this a little to serious, everyone here is just a Monday morning quarter back! We really don't know what went down, and just speculating!

My opinions are more about GTAT's actions then defending Apple, but GTAT's
actions defend Apple!

BTW, I love my Reality Distortion Field!!! Very peaceful!

 

[valkraider]

GT Advanced COO: Apple Told Us 'Put On Your Big Boy Pants and Accept the Agre...

Good on GT for remaining ethical.

The open mic night comedy forum is two rooms down, on the left...

 

[MacAddict1978]

Then don't sign the agreement. Big deals take along time. No one is just going to give you their money without adequate protections in place.

I can always tell when people do not have a business acumen and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, and I apply this to all similar comments.

It is not that simple. Start ups require cash. When a company begins exclusivity agreements, other companies won't come near you because often there are agreements in place that could bite them.

This is also a new product platform. Other companies are not looking at Saphire right now, which makes other prospective clients small. It's also a premium item, and few companies are going that route in todays market.

Without landing a contract with a major player like Apple, the odds of the company surviving are slim. 8 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year!

How many other companies are making Saphire right now? How many companies are using this in their products? How much money does it take to keep a very EXPENSIVE new venture running when you don't have contracts and sales, and how likely are you to raise capital without these things?

GT had very few options.... and Apple knew this and exploited it. Why do you think Apple struck one deal, and then demanded another? Because they had time to realize that they were GT's obi-wan and their only hope.

Apple screwed them. Had Apple not screwed them, who knows....

This is Wal-Mart economics. Do you know how many start ups have been put to ruin by these same business dealings? "Well, u contactually can't sell to anyone else now, and now we want it at a price that will bankrupt you, but we don't care because we can replace you with someone else tomorrow."

Sure Apple generously let GT out of their agreement, when it was clear that they were under, couldn't produce anything, and in such ruin that no other company was going to deal with them and get an edge over Apple.

This is sadly just business. Was Apple scummy? Sure! But Apple is known for doing business this way. Just as Wal-mart is known for it. If the devil gives you a contract, you do have a choice not to sign it. GT was dead if they didn't because the initial rounds with Apple black listed them.

So in the end... they really had no choice, because not signing was a guaranteed death sentence to the company, and signing potentially could have made the company huge.

But to make these blanket statements everyone is making without having any educated idea of how these things works is foolish.

If you knew you were going to die in under 30 days, and the only chance you had was an experimental transplant to give you a monkey heart, what option do you pick? You're pretty much already dead.... might as well sign on the dotted line...

 

[cjmillsnun]

Mate, you need to read the documents released today and put aside whatever blind love affair you have with Apple! Than come back and post an educated comment. Apple is clearly at fault here and many people will not be giving thanks to Apple this thanksgiving nor will they be having a Merry Christmas.

Registered Nov 2014, both posts here in this thread. Are you one of GTAT's Lawyers??

 

[TMay]

Mate, you need to read the documents released today and put aside whatever blind love affair you have with Apple! Than come back and post an educated comment. Apple is clearly at fault here and many people will not be giving thanks to Apple this thanksgiving nor will they be having a Merry Christmas.

You are aware that these are GTA's documents and hence GTA's version of events. Lets wait until Apple's version of events comes out before you start the lynching process.

So much for your "educated" comments...

 

[rsocal]

You are aware that these are GTA's documents and hence GTA's version of events. Lets wait until Apple's version of events comes out before you start the lynching process.

So much for your "educated" comments...

I hear you!

I don't know how anyone can blame Apple, they had everything to gain by helping GTAT! Apple will never get all their money back! Apple didn't get where they are by stepping on their own ding dong.

 

[TMay]

I can always tell when people do not have a business acumen and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, and I apply this to all similar comments.

It is not that simple. Start ups require cash. When a company begins exclusivity agreements, other companies won't come near you because often there are agreements in place that could bite them.

This is also a new product platform. Other companies are not looking at Saphire right now, which makes other prospective clients small. It's also a premium item, and few companies are going that route in todays market.

Without landing a contract with a major player like Apple, the odds of the company surviving are slim. 8 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year!

How many other companies are making Saphire right now? How many companies are using this in their products? How much money does it take to keep a very EXPENSIVE new venture running when you don't have contracts and sales, and how likely are you to raise capital without these things?

GT had very few options.... and Apple knew this and exploited it. Why do you think Apple struck one deal, and then demanded another? Because they had time to realize that they were GT's obi-wan and their only hope.

Apple screwed them. Had Apple not screwed them, who knows....

This is Wal-Mart economics. Do you know how many start ups have been put to ruin by these same business dealings? "Well, u contactually can't sell to anyone else now, and now we want it at a price that will bankrupt you, but we don't care because we can replace you with someone else tomorrow."

Sure Apple generously let GT out of their agreement, when it was clear that they were under, couldn't produce anything, and in such ruin that no other company was going to deal with them and get an edge over Apple.

This is sadly just business. Was Apple scummy? Sure! But Apple is known for doing business this way. Just as Wal-mart is known for it. If the devil gives you a contract, you do have a choice not to sign it. GT was dead if they didn't because the initial rounds with Apple black listed them.

So in the end... they really had no choice, because not signing was a guaranteed death sentence to the company, and signing potentially could have made the company huge.

But to make these blanket statements everyone is making without having any educated idea of how these things works is foolish.

If you knew you were going to die in under 30 days, and the only chance you had was an experimental transplant to give you a monkey heart, what option do you pick? You're pretty much already dead.... might as well sign on the dotted line...

Your post is full of misinformation.

First there are many worldwide manufacturers of synthetic sapphire, and GTA was not a startup. What GTA was tasked to do was to provide larger boule in higher quantities. GTA would have to scale their current processes and by signing the contract with Apple, they agreed that they could do that and in the timeframe.

It's fair to note that many of GTA's other businesses were in recession, so of course, this would have been an attractive contract. GTA complained of the change in scope after many months of contract negotiation; welcome to the real world. That's what happens as companies negotiate.

As for sapphire, many companies are or will be looking at sapphire for wearables spurred on by Apple creating sapphire watch components, and many people have argued that Apple cannot both control who GTA sells sapphire from the plant to and whether Apple even has to purchase the sapphire. Why would Apple allow its competitors to use GTA as a source considering Apple's investment?

Sorry, but the scope of work for this was noted to be seven years. If GTA have met the minimum requirements for specifications and deliveries, we might be looking at our iPhones with GTA produced sapphire for the next seven years, surely enriching GTA, but alas, that opportunity was lost to late delivery, and GTA didn't get its cookie.

Sucks to be them. Such is the real world.

And for the record, I am a small business owner and I am very wary of taking on work from larger companies. Maybe I'm not as desperate as GTA was.

 

[Medic311]

What benefit does Apple have treating its suppliers like that? If anything Apple should go above and beyond for their suppliers to develop loyalty against the competition.

Seems to me Apple ran them into the ground which was the plan all along, then Apple will buy them up for pennies on the dollar or have a side business entity do it for them.

 

[H2SO4]

If you didn't like the terms, don't sign the contract. I'm really tired of people acting like they were forced into situations. Unless they have proof that Apple literally put a gun to their heads, stop crying.

What I find funny is that a lot of the people here are the same ones that click Ok on the EULA without reading it.
The same ones that think Apple is at fault over the In App purchase thing. Those same ones that despite what it says on the software or song or DVD that it’s their album and they are entitled to make copies for ‘fair use'.

----------

Registered Nov 2014, both posts here in this thread. Are you one of GTAT's Lawyers??

Seriously. That’s what makes his opinion worth less?

 

[TMay]

What I find funny is that a lot of the people here are the same ones that click Ok on the EULA without reading it.
The same ones that think Apple is at fault over the In App purchase thing. Those same ones that despite what it says on the software or song or DVD that it’s their album and they are entitled to make copies for ‘fair use'.

----------



Seriously. That’s what makes his opinion worth less?

New forum member. Trollish language in his first post and subsequent posts.

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

 

[rmatthewware]

If GT is to get upset with anyone, it's their lawyers. They should have advised their client that this was a bad deal and demanded better concessions from Apple. Of course a buyer is going to try to get the best deal.

 

[rsocal]

I can always tell when people do not have a business acumen and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, and I apply this to all similar comments.

It is not that simple. Start ups require cash. When a company begins exclusivity agreements, other companies won't come near you because often there are agreements in place that could bite them.

This is also a new product platform. Other companies are not looking at Saphire right now, which makes other prospective clients small. It's also a premium item, and few companies are going that route in todays market.

Without landing a contract with a major player like Apple, the odds of the company surviving are slim. 8 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year!

How many other companies are making Saphire right now? How many companies are using this in their products? How much money does it take to keep a very EXPENSIVE new venture running when you don't have contracts and sales, and how likely are you to raise capital without these things?

GT had very few options.... and Apple knew this and exploited it. Why do you think Apple struck one deal, and then demanded another? Because they had time to realize that they were GT's obi-wan and their only hope.

Apple screwed them. Had Apple not screwed them, who knows....

This is Wal-Mart economics. Do you know how many start ups have been put to ruin by these same business dealings? "Well, u contactually can't sell to anyone else now, and now we want it at a price that will bankrupt you, but we don't care because we can replace you with someone else tomorrow."

Sure Apple generously let GT out of their agreement, when it was clear that they were under, couldn't produce anything, and in such ruin that no other company was going to deal with them and get an edge over Apple.

This is sadly just business. Was Apple scummy? Sure! But Apple is known for doing business this way. Just as Wal-mart is known for it. If the devil gives you a contract, you do have a choice not to sign it. GT was dead if they didn't because the initial rounds with Apple black listed them.

So in the end... they really had no choice, because not signing was a guaranteed death sentence to the company, and signing potentially could have made the company huge.

But to make these blanket statements everyone is making without having any educated idea of how these things works is foolish.

If you knew you were going to die in under 30 days, and the only chance you had was an experimental transplant to give you a monkey heart, what option do you pick? You're pretty much already dead.... might as well sign on the dotted line...

Are you saying that GTAT was a start up? They were an exsisting business and had the experience with sapphire.

"I do not mean this to be disrespectful either"
If you believe that getting a contract in your company's favor or using your power to leverage is "scummy" shows me you're not at all familiar with business let alone big corporations. That's how it works, where do you think the term, "don't take it personal it's just business" comes from? No, it wasn't the God Father.......

In my business industry insurance companies strong arm us, wear us down with their power, and attitude daily! I hear the phrase, "make a business decision" constantly. They use their power to leverage everyday, "we have plenty of people willing to do what we want" and they do! However when we perform what's expected, it's very profitable. Trust me, it's not easy having to concede to them sometimes, but it really does pay off. When I hear, "make business decision" I cringe, they might as well say "bend over" means the same.

The insurance companies have all the power in my industry, and they use it to dictate, and I do mean dictate! But a little "follow the leader", walks you down to the bank.
I've seen first hand this type of business practice, and some we have had to say no too, knowing they would go to a competitor. Deals that could have been very lucrative. But we have yet to put all eggs in one basket.

If Apple came knocking on our door, I'm sure I would lose some business sense and maybe chew off more then I could chew.


Just giving some of my business experience, in my particular industry.

Please don't compare Walmart to Apple, nobody deserves that! Apple at least treats and pays employees well!

I've heard from a lot of very successful business men, including my father, "be careful what you wish for"!

----------

Your post is full of misinformation.

First there are many worldwide manufacturers of synthetic sapphire, and GTA was not a startup. What GTA was tasked to do was to provide larger boule in higher quantities. GTA would have to scale their current processes and by signing the contract with Apple, they agreed that they could do that and in the timeframe.

It's fair to note that many of GTA's other businesses were in recession, so of course, this would have been an attractive contract. GTA complained of the change in scope after many months of contract negotiation; welcome to the real world. That's what happens as companies negotiate.

As for sapphire, many companies are or will be looking at sapphire for wearables spurred on by Apple creating sapphire watch components, and many people have argued that Apple cannot both control who GTA sells sapphire from the plant to and whether Apple even has to purchase the sapphire. Why would Apple allow its competitors to use GTA as a source considering Apple's investment?

Sorry, but the scope of work for this was noted to be seven years. If GTA have met the minimum requirements for specifications and deliveries, we might be looking at our iPhones with GTA produced sapphire for the next seven years, surely enriching GTA, but alas, that opportunity was lost to late delivery, and GTA didn't get its cookie.

Sucks to be them. Such is the real world.

And for the record, I am a small business owner and I am very wary of taking on work from larger companies. Maybe I'm not as desperate as GTA was.

Spot on! IMHO!

 

[HyperZboy]

Your post is full of misinformation.

First there are many worldwide manufacturers of synthetic sapphire, and GTA was not a startup. What GTA was tasked to do was to provide larger boule in higher quantities. GTA would have to scale their current processes and by signing the contract with Apple, they agreed that they could do that and in the timeframe.

It's fair to note that many of GTA's other businesses were in recession, so of course, this would have been an attractive contract. GTA complained of the change in scope after many months of contract negotiation; welcome to the real world. That's what happens as companies negotiate.

As for sapphire, many companies are or will be looking at sapphire for wearables spurred on by Apple creating sapphire watch components, and many people have argued that Apple cannot both control who GTA sells sapphire from the plant to and whether Apple even has to purchase the sapphire. Why would Apple allow its competitors to use GTA as a source considering Apple's investment?

Sorry, but the scope of work for this was noted to be seven years. If GTA have met the minimum requirements for specifications and deliveries, we might be looking at our iPhones with GTA produced sapphire for the next seven years, surely enriching GTA, but alas, that opportunity was lost to late delivery, and GTA didn't get its cookie.

Sucks to be them. Such is the real world.

And for the record, I am a small business owner and I am very wary of taking on work from larger companies. Maybe I'm not as desperate as GTA was.

And your post if full of misinformation too so join the club.

According to GT, Apple chose and supplied the equipment, stipulated all kinds of things that GT claims made success impossible or caused cost over-runs that Apple refused to cover as part of the deal.

You don't see the judge in the case slamming GT by the way. If anything, her denying Apple's requests shows she thought the contracts were a little onerous. She's hardly taken Apple's side in this.

See, there are 2 sides to every story. Bankruptcy judge wins. That's why Apple was so "surprised."

+1 GT

 

[Keirasplace]

Everyone gets so moral and uppity with these things--don't.

This a bankruptcy proceeding, which only means that GT thought it was favorable to try to get this contract voided or restructured. This could be because they genuinely can't meet obligations as is, or it could be calculated to allow them more leverage with Apple for a different contract, get them out of the exclusivity portion of the contract, force a buyout, or simply get better terms. Regardless, GT's lawyers have to argue that the existing contract is grossly unfair to GT, and you really can't read anything into the claims being made.

If GT is in an exclusive contract with Apple, bankruptcy is one of the few tools GT can get back some bargaining power. Sounds like Apple decided to front the costs for the equipment and something went wrong.

Now GT owes Apple liquidated damages (very dubious and hard to enforce), repayment for the furnaces, and is locked into selling their product to Apple--who doesn't have to accept what GT produces--a hard place to be indeed for GT.

They got there and got their money by signing something... The execs lost NOTHING, documented. Lied about how their company was doing as stocks were about to be sold, thats also a fact. These people are utter slime and trying to get out of a signed contract is perfectly in character.

Apple would never agree to finance them to produce the product if they thought the competition would get it. That would be pure insanity to give a differentiation factor to someone else. GTAT sbould have realized that prior to signing. Again, pure amateurship. Apple would rather take the loss than give the saphire to someone else.

----------

And your post if full of misinformation too so join the club.

According to GT, Apple chose and supplied the equipment, stipulated all kinds of things that GT claims made success impossible or caused cost over-runs that Apple refused to cover as part of the deal.

You don't see the judge in the case slamming GT by the way. If anything, her denying Apple's requests shows she thought the contracts were a little onerous. She's hardly taken Apple's side in this.

See, there are 2 sides to every story. Bankruptcy judge wins. That's why Apple was so "surprised."

+1 GT

She denied a lot of crap GTAT said too. They're not getting what they want either. You have your own bias here.

----------

What benefit does Apple have treating its suppliers like that? If anything Apple should go above and beyond for their suppliers to develop loyalty against the competition.

Seems to me Apple ran them into the ground which was the plan all along, then Apple will buy them up for pennies on the dollar or have a side business entity do it for them.

Oh, right, losing 400M and getting a furnase and product that is seemingly inadequate and basically near useless... All part of their plan.... Another funny person. The CEO who signed the crazy contract is the one who drove the company into the ground.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Give it a rest; nothing is "quasi-boiler plate" The only reason model forms of contracts even exist is because of the continued effort to limit the bias in customer:contractor contracts. Whether Apple used strong-arm methods or instigated a punitive contract is somewhat moot; Apple was as blind as anyone in this mess; did their great contract realise them any sapphire and realise a strong supply chain to boot? No; they ended up with nothing either. Contracts that are fair to both often mean both get both want they want [assuming both perform]; one sided contracts usually end up bad for both, as in this case. Whoever negotiated this contract on behalf of Apple needs outing. If we presume that they didn't intend to send GTAT into the ground [why would they?] and actually wanted cheap mass-produced sapphire, then they failed miserably. At best, they couldn't see until it was very late, that they were working with a company incapable of meeting their demands. Apple also wasted a fortune and more importantly wasted a lot of time and also ended up with nothing.

Spot on, and perfectly nails the problem with the "big boy pants" argument. Squeezing a commodity supplier until the juice drips might be a good idea (and might not). Squeezing a supplier with which you are attempting to develop a substantial technical breakthrough and possibly market-changing feature, such that the incentives drive toward "win or die" behaviour, is never a good idea. Attempting to do so was a major failure on Apple's part.

I'd go a bit farther and say that for just a few hundred million more than already flushed Apple could have purchased GT outright. Then they would have had all the control they wanted, and even if the project failed to produce (as it did) they would have had a nice high-tech product line not incompatible with their core business with a revenue cycle different from the phone business. A bit of diversification without going down the road of becoming GAF.

I can always tell when people do not have a business acumen and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, and I apply this to all similar comments.

It is not that simple. Start ups require cash. When a company begins exclusivity agreements, other companies won't come near you because often there are agreements in place that could bite them.

This is also a new product platform. Other companies are not looking at Saphire right now, which makes other prospective clients small. It's also a premium item, and few companies are going that route in todays market.

Without landing a contract with a major player like Apple, the odds of the company surviving are slim. 8 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year!

How many other companies are making Saphire right now? How many companies are using this in their products? How much money does it take to keep a very EXPENSIVE new venture running when you don't have contracts and sales, and how likely are you to raise capital without these things?

GT had very few options.... and Apple knew this and exploited it. Why do you think Apple struck one deal, and then demanded another? Because they had time to realize that they were GT's obi-wan and their only hope.

Apple screwed them. Had Apple not screwed them, who knows....

This is Wal-Mart economics. Do you know how many start ups have been put to ruin by these same business dealings? "Well, u contactually can't sell to anyone else now, and now we want it at a price that will bankrupt you, but we don't care because we can replace you with someone else tomorrow."

Sure Apple generously let GT out of their agreement, when it was clear that they were under, couldn't produce anything, and in such ruin that no other company was going to deal with them and get an edge over Apple.

This is sadly just business. Was Apple scummy? Sure! But Apple is known for doing business this way. Just as Wal-mart is known for it. If the devil gives you a contract, you do have a choice not to sign it. GT was dead if they didn't because the initial rounds with Apple black listed them.

So in the end... they really had no choice, because not signing was a guaranteed death sentence to the company, and signing potentially could have made the company huge.

But to make these blanket statements everyone is making without having any educated idea of how these things works is foolish.

If you knew you were going to die in under 30 days, and the only chance you had was an experimental transplant to give you a monkey heart, what option do you pick? You're pretty much already dead.... might as well sign on the dotted line...

I'm really shocked at how few people in this thread bring up sensible points like you three.

 

[cliveren13]

Robots

I know this an Apple site but cmon Gt is a small company Apple the behemoth makes a lot of phones gt had a product that they thought a big company like apple would buy so yes they went all in not knowing that apple had no INTENTION of using their product because no other phone company out there is using that material for screens. maybe sometime in the future so apple set these guys up with false hope Gorilla glass 3 is the way to go for now apple knew this apple just wanted to see if it was possible to make this kind of glass it was an experiment for a giant company like apple who had nothing to loose but everything to gain.

 

[OatmealRocks]

And your post if full of misinformation too so join the club.

According to GT, Apple chose and supplied the equipment, stipulated all kinds of things that GT claims made success impossible or caused cost over-runs that Apple refused to cover as part of the deal.

You don't see the judge in the case slamming GT by the way. If anything, her denying Apple's requests shows she thought the contracts were a little onerous. She's hardly taken Apple's side in this.

See, there are 2 sides to every story. Bankruptcy judge wins. That's why Apple was so "surprised."

+1 GT

What the heck are you rambling about. If GT were competent in their business they would of not accepted the deal. Who's fault is it really? GTAT can't have it both ways, having someone fund the $ for the equipment and facilities AND be allowed to sell to OTHER customers. Seriously Apple or anyone would not allow that. Now in hindsight they are saying bunch of negative terms of the contract. They sure didn't speak up when the sign the contract and took the money. It would be Apple's interest to work with these guys when they couldn't meet deadline, anyone saying they stonewall GTAT is being silly. Apple invested almost half a billion. Do you actually think they have the time to play around? With deadlines with their manufacturing life cycle? GTAT just couldn't deliver blame the hand that feed them.

What's even more ironic is the fact GTAT CEO make a bunch of remarks saying they are doing well, push off earnings report (twice) hoping to wait for some $ before filling bankruptcy. Only company playing games here is GTAT and we have all seen the signs. Honestly their experience is only 1/15-1/20 of projected earnings with Apple. Who's really failed at their contract here?

----------

I know this an Apple site but cmon Gt is a small company Apple the behemoth makes a lot of phones gt had a product that they thought a big company like apple would buy so yes they went all in not knowing that apple had no INTENTION of using their product because no other phone company out there is using that material for screens. maybe sometime in the future so apple set these guys up with false hope Gorilla glass 3 is the way to go for now apple knew this apple just wanted to see if it was possible to make this kind of glass it was an experiment for a giant company like apple who had nothing to loose but everything to gain.

Who is saying Apple had no intention of buying? Or more to the fact they couldn't meet the quantity and specifications as stated in many articles. Yah sure Apple or any company loves throwing around $500million for fun and waste people time. How naive.

 

[rsocal]

And your post if full of misinformation too so join the club.

According to GT, Apple chose and supplied the equipment, stipulated all kinds of things that GT claims made success impossible or caused cost over-runs that Apple refused to cover as part of the deal.

You don't see the judge in the case slamming GT by the way. If anything, her denying Apple's requests shows she thought the contracts were a little onerous. She's hardly taken Apple's side in this.

See, there are 2 sides to every story. Bankruptcy judge wins. That's why Apple was so "surprised."

+1 GT

As you posted, "according" to GTAT? Yes, I agree 2 sides to every story? Do you have Apple's side of the story???

Judge wins? What did she win?:confused

Neither side has won anything! A BK is a loser period, for both parties(and Tax Payers)! The Judge is there to apply the law. A deal was worked out with both parties with Judge (Courts) approval.

Unfortunately the real losers are the people who lost jobs, and whoever bought stock in GTAT!

I can't wait for the SEC's report, that should shed some light on the COO/CEO's suspect behavior prior to and after Feburary.

+1 GT??? Please tell this to the 700 people without jobs before the holidays!

It's really a -1 for Apple, GTAT and 700+people!

 

[HyperZboy]

Missing in this discussion is that GT Advanced is not going out of business #1
Chapter 11 means reorganizing. Chapter 7 means end of all business operations.

#2 Apple claims to be continuing to work with GT in the future.

Someone explain that part. I know I can't.

And that's another reason why Apple is still partially responsible for the loss of all those jobs.

If this hadn't gone to bankruptcy court, Apple would have clearly had the upper hand, hence the "surprise."

Now it's out of their hands.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Your post is full of misinformation.

First there are many worldwide manufacturers of synthetic sapphire, and GTA was not a startup. What GTA was tasked to do was to provide larger boule in higher quantities. GTA would have to scale their current processes and by signing the contract with Apple, they agreed that they could do that and in the timeframe.

It's fair to note that many of GTA's other businesses were in recession, so of course, this would have been an attractive contract. GTA complained of the change in scope after many months of contract negotiation; welcome to the real world. That's what happens as companies negotiate.

As for sapphire, many companies are or will be looking at sapphire for wearables spurred on by Apple creating sapphire watch components, and many people have argued that Apple cannot both control who GTA sells sapphire from the plant to and whether Apple even has to purchase the sapphire. Why would Apple allow its competitors to use GTA as a source considering Apple's investment?

Sorry, but the scope of work for this was noted to be seven years. If GTA have met the minimum requirements for specifications and deliveries, we might be looking at our iPhones with GTA produced sapphire for the next seven years, surely enriching GTA, but alas, that opportunity was lost to late delivery, and GTA didn't get its cookie.

Sucks to be them. Such is the real world.

And for the record, I am a small business owner and I am very wary of taking on work from larger companies. Maybe I'm not as desperate as GTA was.

Most small business stay small business--stagnate--because their owner(s) lack the skills [business acumen] to expand into a medium or large size firm.

The other guys post was spot on. I don't want to repeat what he said but I do want to make one more important point.

APPLE [WITH]HELD PAYMENTS.

Think about that. GT couldn't deliver without Apple's financial support. Yet at the same time GT wasn't free to handle the situation as they pleased. Apple was tying their hands.

Like that guy you quoted said. Apple, to get the best margins possible, was squeezing their supplier (GT) Wal-mart style.

If GT had full control of the situation then it would make sense to put the blame on them--and to some degree they are inpart responsibly--but Apple is clearly the chief reason for their demise.

 

[rsocal]

They got there and got their money by signing something... The execs lost NOTHING, documented. Lied about how their company was doing as stocks were about to be sold, thats also a fact. These people are utter slime and trying to get out of a signed contract is perfectly in character.

Apple would never agree to finance them to produce the product if they thought the competition would get it. That would be pure insanity to give a differentiation factor to someone else. GTAT sbould have realized that prior to signing. Again, pure amateurship. Apple would rather take the loss than give the saphire to someone else.

----------



She denied a lot of crap GTAT said too. They're not getting what they want either. You have your own bias here.

----------



Oh, right, losing 400M and getting a furnase and product that is seemingly inadequate and basically near useless... All part of their plan.... Another funny person. The CEO who signed the crazy contract is the one who drove the company into the ground.

You nailed this on every point! Awesome!

Thread ends here!

 

[Doomtomb]

A company trying to make apple look bad? This is new.

Do you honestly believe Apple is a good company to do deals with?