Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Keirasplace said:
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..
Click to expand...

I think you are mistakingly applying the framework from the Wall-Street CEO scandals to this scenario because on the surface it vaguely looks the same.

First the CEO / Executive Board wasn't on the prowl to defraud anyone; they were trying to make a deal with Apple work.

Second by the time things were going south they had little power to change anything. Apple held too many cards--like making key decisions and withholding money. If they went to media and said "oh no, we are done zo" it would have been premature and a sign of giving up on making the project/deal happen; that is unacceptable.

Also their agreement with Apple most likely bared them from mentioning any issues anyways.

Third the selling of their stocks was them trying to mitigate their losses. If you were in their shoes then you would do the something. It wasn't like they were purposefully trying pump their stock before dumping it.

In short I don't see anything that makes it look like a sinister wall-street style scam.
 
Darrin Bell said:
Hadn't they ever heard "don't put all your eggs in one basket?" I'm about as far from the corporate world as you can get, so forgive me if this sounds simplistic: but isn't it unwise to limit yourself to one customer, no matter what they're offering you, unless they purchase your company?
Click to expand...


This is exactly how Sears and Roebuck acquired its house brands (Kenmore, Craftsman, etc.). It would get to the point where Sears was purchasing 100% of their output then announce their intention to buy them outright. The companies had very little choice, at that point, since Sears was their only customer.
 
bawbac said:
Apple is like the bank lender that tells a person they can sustain a $2000 a month payment on $15 hour income.

To make things easy, they will allow them to only make payments of $500 for 5 years so they can save up for the $2000 month payments.
Click to expand...


And, in your example, GT is the $15 an hour worker who isn't smart enough to say 'no'.

----------
swingerofbirch said:
I don't disagree with the sentiment entirely; although, I think Apple is guilty of being incompetent as well as skirting the law, especially with regard to taxes. But in 1984, IBM was the "Big Brother" alluded to in the ad.
Click to expand...


As far as (US) taxes, Apple isn't 'skirting' the law, they are following the law. Taking advantage of the parts of the law that benefit them.
 
linkgx1 said:
I agree with this. If something doesn't feel right with a deal, just leave it. I think those terms were too much for such a small company. Sure, it's Apple. But they could have used another company to use their furnaces.
Click to expand...

I am studying management, I am 39 and I am realizing how many terms there are to place anybody into "place". Apple took a chance but of course it had plan B. Obviously you can not rely an entire new product on one element from one small company. The experiment didn't work. But you bet Apple has experience with that and sure they smelled something fishy too.
 
I'm certainly no fan of large and dehumanizing companies, but I am a fan of Steve Jobs and Apple certainly has his DNA. But, all companies do this kind of stuff. I just want to believe that Apple just does just a little less of this, especially to consumers and the economy.

That being said, I wish Apple would BURY Google. It's my belief that Google is dangerous. Sorry if that was off topic, just needed to say it.

It sure would have been entertaining to see how Jobs personally played the Samsung/Google problem.
 
ToroidalZeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fine with chastising me for the lack of business acumen. I'm not bankrupt, they are.

Aside from that, my point is that you have not yet seen Apple's side, yet you are biased towards GTA because of their whining to the court. As a fact, GTA did not meet delivery schedules, weren't meeting delivery schedules from as far back as February, but did in fact state to the stockholders just prior to the missing payment that they were on track to see a profitable quarter.

That was a lie.

GTA would have known that they weren't meeting schedules, and so should not have expected Apple to hand over the last payment. If in fact Apple did in fact obstruct them from meeting schedules, they did not forewarn the stockholders, which they should have been doing as early as March.

I await Apple's side of this, but I don't see much to indicate that GTA was a soundly run operation.
 
nofunsir said:
I'm saying PERHAPS they took the contract, believing Apple would be nice, THEN Apple turned out to be a bully. Even in contracts, there used to be a certain gentleman's aspect to agreements, but I guess there is no gentleman's game anymore with companies like Apple. What you're really saying is Apple really is a bully, and no longer about the product, as we all secretly suspect.



Also, no need to name call. Execs at apple are somehow immune to your slimeball namecaling?
Click to expand...


Anyone who signs a contract assuming the other company is going to do anything other than look after their own best interest is too naive to be in business.
 
Michael Goff said:
I'm guessing if Microsoft was in the article in place of Apple, the blame would suddenly become theirs.
Click to expand...

Also I'd like to add that if it were about pizza instead of sapphire glass, people would blame soggy pizza crust for the deal gone bad. And while we are at it - I'm pretty sure (aka "guessing") if Golden Retriever Puppies was in the Artikel in place of Microsoft... errr... no, Apple, everyone would just go "awwwwwww", hug a puppy and get over the deal gone bad.

(But seriously: what is this with guys being on a mission to pull straw men out of their ass to try to prove some point of this entire forum being hypocritical?)
 
dec. said:
Also I'd like to add that if it were about pizza instead of sapphire glass, people would blame soggy pizza crust for the deal gone bad. And while we are at it - I'm pretty sure (aka "guessing") if Golden Retriever Puppies was in the Artikel in place of Microsoft... errr... no, Apple, everyone would just go "awwwwwww", hug a puppy and get over the deal gone bad.

(But seriously: what is this with guys being on a mission to pull straw men out of their ass to try to prove some point of this entire forum being hypocritical?)
Click to expand...

It isn't a straw man, it's a hypothetical. Also, not the entire forum. I'm just calling out those who rush to say how this is all GTAT at fault.
 
StyxMaker said:
Anyone who signs a contract assuming the other company is going to do anything other than look after their own best interest is too naive to be in business.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. The gentleman agreement is that.
It also part of just being good. Apple is not the what I call an ethical company. Do not ethical and legal are not the same thing. Apple pulls a lot of the same crap Walmart does but they are forgive because they are Apple.

If this story was the only negative one about Apple it would be one thing but it is in a long list of them. So it more cementing the fact Apple is not very ethical and they are very untrustworthy. They are not someone you want to to business with.
 
Michael Goff said:
It isn't a straw man, it's a hypothetical. Also, not the entire forum. I'm just calling out those who rush to say how this is all GTAT at fault.
Click to expand...

You're right, hypothetically I mean.

Other than that - must one assume that you think Apple is to blame or why exactly do you feel the urge to call out the ones who say "this is all GTAT at fault" but ignore those who blame Apple entirely?
 
It's not very "Big Boy" of them to go whining to the media that "Apple told us to pull up our big boy pants and deal with it!"

Who's running that company, 10 year olds?
 
TimelessOne said:
You missed the point. The gentleman agreement is that.
It also part of just being good. Apple is not the what I call an ethical company. Do not ethical and legal are not the same thing. Apple pulls a lot of the same crap Walmart does but they are forgive because they are Apple.

If this story was the only negative one about Apple it would be one thing but it is in a long list of them. So it more cementing the fact Apple is not very ethical and they are very untrustworthy. They are not someone you want to to business with.
Click to expand...

You throw that out there but you provide no evidence that Apple is in anyway equivalent to Wal Mart in its business ethics. Then you add the "long list" of similar transgressions, and again no evidence.

Biased much?
 
dec. said:
You're right, hypothetically I mean.

Other than that - must one assume that you think Apple is to blame or why exactly do you feel the urge to call out the ones who say "this is all GTAT at fault" but ignore those who blame Apple entirely?
Click to expand...

There are already plenty of people calling them or in proportion. It'd be like joining a lynch mob. Also, can't come up with a good hypothetical for the other side. I'm still trying to think of one that doesn't sound silly.
 
Last edited:
StyxMaker said:
Incoherence, much.
Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you:
A) There are a lot more people, in proportion, calling out people who are just blaming Apple. It'd be jumping on a bandwagon.
B) I couldn't think of a hypothetical that didn't sound silly to me. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't join the bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
So, I have this question: How does Apple gain - in any way - from their alleged action(s) causing GTAT to fail?
 
I'm an Apple fan, but if we accept what is said in the affidavit, for the purposes of discussion, then let's not defend bullying here just because Apple are the bullies. From this we can conclude that Apple's tactics are to build one sided deals where all the risk sits with the other party; to lure that party in by offering an order of magnitude opportunity; to interfere in a business' operations and assume that any decision they make is the best one and then to let their partner sink if it all goes wrong.

There is nothing admirable in that. Sorry. Don't use the excuse of it being the partner's responsibility to not sign the deal if it's unfavourable. Every government has laws against cons because it's always possible to build the right conditions to lure someone in. When a company uses tactics that have so much in common with how a conman would attempt to lure your ageing and senile grandpa in, but they do so within the law; don't forgive them: scream out loudly that you disapprove. Apple set a trap that they may not have needed if all had gone well, but they set a trap none the less and in the end GT had to walk right into it.

Again this assumes that the content of the affidavit is true. We need to know the other perspective, but can at least offer our disapproval in principle. To not do so just makes us look to others to be blind Apple fanboys and they'd be right if we blindly accept this.

----------
valkraider said:
So, I have this question: How does Apple gain - in any way - from their alleged action(s) causing GTAT to fail?
Click to expand...

They don't gain. It wasn't about gain. They don't suffer the financial impact of failure because they put all the risk with the partner. There are people, jobs and families at the other end of this choice. It's not just business.
 
jacobj said:
I'm an Apple fan, but if we accept what is said in the affidavit, for the purposes of discussion, then let's not defend bullying here just because Apple are the bullies. From this we can conclude that Apple's tactics are to build one sided deals where all the risk sits with the other party; to lure that party in by offering an order of magnitude opportunity; to interfere in a business' operations and assume that any decision they make is the best one and then to let their partner sink if it all goes wrong.

There is nothing admirable in that. Sorry. Don't use the excuse of it being the partner's responsibility to not sign the deal if it's unfavourable. Every government has laws against cons because it's always possible to build the right conditions to lure someone in. When a company uses tactics that have so much in common with how a conman would attempt to lure your ageing and senile grandpa in, but they do so within the law; don't forgive them: scream out loudly that you disapprove. Apple set a trap that they may not have needed if all had gone well, but they set a trap none the less and in the end GT had to walk right into it.

Again this assumes that the content of the affidavit is true. We need to know the other perspective, but can at least offer our disapproval in principle. To not do so just makes us look to others to be blind Apple fanboys and they'd be right if we blindly accept this.

----------



They don't gain. It wasn't about gain. They don't suffer the financial impact of failure because they put all the risk with the partner. There are people, jobs and families at the other end of this choice. It's not just business.
Click to expand...

Did we actually read the same thing!!! YOu seem to have no clue how a business actually run. Bullying. Good grief. If they felt they had a case they would have to court to break the contrast instead declaring bankruptcy. They had a very very weak case and we'll see how week those people had it when we see Apple'S info...

Man, Bullying... Get a dictionary and find the real definition of bullying please.

----------
Michael Goff said:
Let me break it down for you:
A) There are a lot more people, in portion, calling out people who are just blaming Apple. It'd be jumping on a bandwagon.
B) I couldn't think of a hypothetical that didn't sound silly to me. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't join the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how incoherently you write? That first sentence you wrote is a head scratcher.
 
jacobj said:
I'm an Apple fan, but if we accept what is said in the affidavit, for the purposes of discussion, then let's not defend bullying here just because Apple are the bullies. From this we can conclude that Apple's tactics are to build one sided deals where all the risk sits with the other party; to lure that party in by offering an order of magnitude opportunity; to interfere in a business' operations and assume that any decision they make is the best one and then to let their partner sink if it all goes wrong.

There is nothing admirable in that. Sorry. Don't use the excuse of it being the partner's responsibility to not sign the deal if it's unfavourable. Every government has laws against cons because it's always possible to build the right conditions to lure someone in. When a company uses tactics that have so much in common with how a conman would attempt to lure your ageing and senile grandpa in, but they do so within the law; don't forgive them: scream out loudly that you disapprove. Apple set a trap that they may not have needed if all had gone well, but they set a trap none the less and in the end GT had to walk right into it.

Again this assumes that the content of the affidavit is true. We need to know the other perspective, but can at least offer our disapproval in principle. To not do so just makes us look to others to be blind Apple fanboys and they'd be right if we blindly accept this.

----------



They don't gain. It wasn't about gain. They don't suffer the financial impact of failure because they put all the risk with the partner. There are people, jobs and families at the other end of this choice. It's not just business.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.

You want to ultimately hear both sides of the story, but in the meantime, and in principle, you feel it is necessary to blame Apple for setting a trap for GTA, "a con", because that's GTA's story?

What is fact is that GTA signed the contract. What is fact is that as early as February, Apple had delayed payment due either to missed shipment or unmet specs. What is a fact is that Apple did give three payments to GTA prior to the bankruptcy.

And finally, what is a fact is that Apple did withhold the last payment, and yet prior to that, GTA stated in its financials that they expected a profitable quarter, surely knowing that they would not meet the deadlines to receive the last payment.
 
valkraider said:
So, I have this question: How does Apple gain - in any way - from their alleged action(s) causing GTAT to fail?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Apple would want GTAT to be successful because it would mean they would get their supply of mass manufactured sapphire glass.

If Apple withheld payment, injected themselves into GTAT operations, etc or anything that adds risk to the success of getting their own supplies it wouldn't be just to because 'they are bullies'. So the question I would add is:

Why did Apple refuse to allow GTAT from making equipment changes?
Why did Apple need to embed itself into GTAT operations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back