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

[H2SO4]

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.

----------



Do you realize how incoherently you write? That first sentence you wrote is a head scratcher.

Do you?
What you probably meant is;
Did we actually read the same thing? You seem to have no clue how a business actually runs. Bullying. Good grief. If they felt they had a case they would have go to court to break the contract instead of declaring bankruptcy. They had a very very weak case and we'll see how weak those people had it when we see Apple's info...

 

[Michael Goff]

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.

----------



Do you realize how incoherently you write? That first sentence you wrote is a head scratcher.

The fact that I didn't catch that my phone put out portion instead of proportion confused you that much? I'm sure everyone else caught onto what I was saying.

 

[25ghosts]

What happened to GT is what happens to anyone who signs off on an impossible deal just to 'Land' the big deal.

Who in their right mind would sign off on

'Screw your future clients and deal ONLY with Apple who will NOT obligate itself to purchase your product'

The article states that GT Management stumbled over this contract-clause. Too bad they did not fall. And stop the deal.

No one bullied GT into signing off on that. They did that themselves. Motivated by 'Big Boys Pants' - big game, etc... They should have held their own and force Apple to buy them. Or tell Apple to go sniff on their ass.

A big company will try to swallow with impossible terms. A small company is flattered that big company shows interest and budges. If small company stays tough and has a unique product, big company will keep coming until they get what they want and pay 10 times the amount they initially offered.

 

[jacobj]

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.

----------



Do you realize how incoherently you write? That first sentence you wrote is a head scratcher.

On the contrary. It's my job and I'm very successful. But morality is the key.

 

[rsocal]

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.

I agree with you fully. I can't fathom anyone believing Apple forced the failure of their investment with GTAT.

 

[Michael Goff]

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

They only gain if you think that they're trying to scoop up a smaller company. The fact that they're not even agitating to do anything close to that kind of shoes down that theory.

----------

I agree with you fully. I can't fathom anyone believing Apple forced the failure of their investment with GTAT.

People will believe anything their biases lead them to.

 

[HyperZboy]

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

Apple doesn't gain because they were "surprised" by the bankruptcy. That's exactly why they requested that all these documents not be released. However, the bankruptcy judge sided with GT at least on this point by releasing them to the public.

GT claimed that they were limited in equipment purchases by strict Apple specifications that made it impossible to produce the quantity of product needed.

 

[jacobj]

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.
----.

Wow. Apple fanboys are really blind. I actually advise businesses on how to increase margins and improve overall performance. I am succesful too.


My point was that early comments in this thread blindly assume Apple's innocence and we have to question that based on the contents of the affidavit.

It is perfectly possible to bully even large companies into a deal that has too highee risk. They understand the impact, but try to believe the likelihood is low. The other side plays on this desire.

I think I want to challenge the assumption that Apple is beyond question. We all have an obligation to be succesful and drive the world forward whilst attempting to improve the world. So I am challenging the status quo and not assuming that business is for the big boys and we all have to embrace the methods that make the most money and justify it by believing we are more literate than others

 

[mercuryjones]

Wow. Apple fanboys are really blind. I actually advise businesses on how to increase margins and improve overall performance. I am succesful too.


My point was that early comments in this thread blindly assume Apple's innocence and we have to question that based on the contents of the affidavit.

It is perfectly possible to bully even large companies into a deal that has too highee risk. They understand the impact, but try to believe the likelihood is low. The other side plays on this desire.

I think I want to challenge the assumption that Apple is beyond question. We all have an obligation to be succesful and drive the world forward whilst attempting to improve the world. So I am challenging the status quo and not assuming that business is for the big boys and we all have to embrace the methods that make the most money and justify it by believing we are more literate than others

One - once you use the term "fanboys" you pretty much lose any respectability in the argument.
Two - Again, to what end would it benefit Apple to tell another company that they cannot use the appropriate equipment to do their job, when their job is producing supplies for Apple? I've yet to see anyone answer this question.

The only reason that Apple would do this, is because they wanted GTAT to fail, which is ridiculous. Apple, as far as i know, had no dealings with GTAT before hand, so there's no "bad blood". No company goes into a deal hoping the other company fails and goes bankrupt.
GTAT took on a deal that they thought was going to elevate them to the majors, and they didn't seem to think it through. Now, they are claiming that Apple "forced" them into a bad deal. No, your greed and ambition forced you into the deal. You could have said no at any point, and based on the documents, they should have said no. But, they didn't and now they paid for it.

 

[newyorkone]

What a moronic, loud, mouthed, whiny, cry-baby

The COO better hope he gets to keep the proceeds from his shady insider trading stock sales because no company will ever hire him to flip burgers, much less be a COO.

So unprofessional.

 

[kdarling]

Two - Again, to what end would it benefit Apple to tell another company that they cannot use the appropriate equipment to do their job, when their job is producing supplies for Apple? I've yet to see anyone answer this question.

Forcing others to use inappropriate tools, happens all the time when one group has power over the other.

The only reason that Apple would do this, is because they wanted GTAT to fail, which is ridiculous.

Yes, that's ridiculous. Nope, it's not the only reason.

Usually the reason is that the power group thinks they know a better way.

In this case, it was reportedly partly because Apple was using GTAT to try out some new sapphire manufacturing ideas, instead of just leaving them alone to do it their own way.

Reminds me a bit of how Jobs tried to lecture the Corning CEO on how to make hardened glass.

 

[mercuryjones]

Forcing others to use inappropriate tools, happens all the time when one group has power over the other.



Yes, that's ridiculous. Nope, it's not the only reason.

Usually the power group "thinks" they know a better way.

In this case, it was apparently partly because they were using GTAT to R&D some sapphire layering ideas.

Apple "thought they had a better way" of doing something that they had no experience in? That's the argument?
Sorry, but as the company with the experience in doing the job, they should have been a lot more adamant about what was needed to get the job done. Based on the documents, it sounds like GTAT was intimidated by Apple, and they let it overshadow the entire process. That's may be partly Apple's fault, but GTAT should take the lion's share of the blame for this, simply because they have shown they weren't ready for this.

 

[kdarling]

Based on the documents, it sounds like GTAT was intimidated by Apple, and they let it overshadow the entire process.

I think everyone agrees on this. Apple clearly used its dominant position to entice and cajole GTAT into signing contracts that they were hesitant about.

That's may be partly Apple's fault, but GTAT should take the lion's share of the blame for this, simply because they have shown they weren't ready for this.

Conjecture.

We don't know if GTAT could've delivered if Apple had not meddled with their manufacturing processes.

GTAT certainly thought they could've, since they signed the contract.

 

[mercuryjones]

I think everyone agrees on this. Apple clearly used its dominant position to entice and cajole GTAT into signing contracts that they were hesitant about.



Conjecture.

We don't know if GTAT could've delivered if Apple had not meddled with their manufacturing processes.

And, we only know one side of this argument so far - GTAT's. So, conjecture abounds in this thread.
Apple didn't force them to sign anything. GTAT had every right to not accept the deal, and they chose not to. Again, greed and not weighing the possibilities of failure. That's poor business decision 101.

 

[H2SO4]

The COO better hope he gets to keep the proceeds from his shady insider trading stock sales because no company will ever hire him to flip burgers, much less be a COO.

So unprofessional.

I bet he will. This kind of thing happens time and again with far more scandalous subject matter.

 

[kdarling]

Apple didn't force them to sign anything. GTAT had every right to not accept the deal, and they chose not to. Again, greed and not weighing the possibilities of failure. That's poor business decision 101.

They were both greedy.

Yet they were both counting on things working out.

I've had experience with companies folding like this before. It's usually because one side was afraid to tell the other that things were falling behind, or that their interference was causing trouble.

Therefore I'd like to know who the Apple liaison / project manager was. Clearly there was a massive failure in communication and/or cooperation.

 

[jacobj]

One - once you use the term "fanboys" you pretty much lose any respectability in the argument.
Two - Again, to what end would it benefit Apple to tell another company that they cannot use the appropriate equipment to do their job, when their job is producing supplies for Apple? I've yet to see anyone answer this question.

The only reason that Apple would do this, is because they wanted GTAT to fail, which is ridiculous. Apple, as far as i know, had no dealings with GTAT before hand, so there's no "bad blood". No company goes into a deal hoping the other company fails and goes bankrupt.
GTAT took on a deal that they thought was going to elevate them to the majors, and they didn't seem to think it through. Now, they are claiming that Apple "forced" them into a bad deal. No, your greed and ambition forced you into the deal. You could have said no at any point, and based on the documents, they should have said no. But, they didn't and now they paid for it.

I use the word fanboy because it enrages me that people here seem to believe that anything Apple does is acceptable.

I don't believe that Apple wanted them to fail. I have seen many examples in my career where arrogance from success slips in and people stop listening to others. I can conceive of a situation where Apple's success in their own operations would have led them to believe they knew better than GTAT and therefore they did not listen to the technical elements of GTAT's argument.

Again, I don't believe that Apple wanted them to fail, but it is possible that they strong armed the smaller partner into taking all the risk. I don't think that the GTAT management are above blame, but my point is that GTAT are employers and there are families that rely on its continued existence. If Apple strong armed them into an argument that meant these families were taking all the risk to protect Apple's bottom line, then we have to question the morality of that decision.

Some companies have a sense of Corporate responsibility because they care and others do it because it is good marketing. Which one is Apple?

Again this is all based on the assumption that there is some truth to the affidavit, which may not be the case.

 

[harpott]

Get real

C'mon, dont you guys see whats going on here? There's a reason why the affidavit is granular, down to the specialization of the counsel on Apple's team. (bankruptcy)

If you're not a lawyer, then let me induct you into the world. What Apple did here was basically an "acquisition" at an undervalue. IN other words, force a firm into bankruptcy and u can buy its assets at half the price. Why pay full price, when the there a great discount opportunity? Was this clever, definately. Legally objectionale? Probably not. Morally abhorrent? Imho you betcha.

In case you guys don't know, a lien basically gives u possession of and the right to use the facility if the loan is not repaid.

Sure, it will be tough sell in court to legally prove that Apple abused GT's corporate personality or bankruptcy rules or that it intended for this to happen all along. But at least for intellectual curiosity, understand how you can get robbed. (and that's the magic of this strategy in the first place).

 

[TimelessOne]

Apple "thought they had a better way" of doing something that they had no experience in? That's the argument?
Sorry, but as the company with the experience in doing the job, they should have been a lot more adamant about what was needed to get the job done. Based on the documents, it sounds like GTAT was intimidated by Apple, and they let it overshadow the entire process. That's may be partly Apple's fault, but GTAT should take the lion's share of the blame for this, simply because they have shown they weren't ready for this.

Clearly you have never been on the other side or seen how stuff like this works. Very few people work in a company and are in a position to know about this craziness. Also it only takes one or 2 people to really screw things over and nore often than not those people are from the larger company who's power has gone to their head.

I have been on the other side and saw the results. We where the experts other person not so much. We got screwed and lost a pretty penny on it.
This is not an Apple only issue. This is a big powerful company vs small one. Big companies power gone to their head and they want control and make you depend on them to stay alive.

Apple cost while high to most was pocket change to them so it was not a huge risk. They used their size and power to get control. Sadly more common than you thing.

 

[Oracle1729]

Won't negotiate my ass.

I can easily picture Philly Schiller making the big boy pants comment.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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

They don't. They will lose money.

 

[TMay]

Reminds me a bit of how Jobs tried to lecture the Corning CEO on how to make hardened glass.

My recollection is that Jobs went to Corning and then created the market for Corning screens with his demanding ways, so I'm very doubtful the the Corning CEO regrets the "lecture".

 

[TMay]

They were both greedy.

Yet they were both counting on things working out.

I've had experience with companies folding like this before. It's usually because one side was afraid to tell the other that things were falling behind, or that their interference was causing trouble.

Therefore I'd like to know who the Apple liaison / project manager was. Clearly there was a massive failure in communication and/or cooperation.

Apple wouldn't have to be told that GTA was falling behind. Apple would have known from the production schedules, something the liaison/project manager on site would have had in realtime, and in fact, Apple held out the first payment in February due to either missed delivery or unmet spec.

Your conjecture about Apple's relation with GTA missed a simple fact; Apple has demonstrated supply chain management, but GTA was not be a volume producer of sapphire until the contract. If Apple was interfering, it might have been due to disagreements on procurement/deliveries of essential equipment, installation, or yes, even process, in which Apple would have certainly obtained advisors with sapphire production experience.

None of this necessarily leads to a conclusion that Apple was causal in the bankruptcy due to lack of communication though there certainly appears to be cooperative issues. About the only detail that is a given is that the schedule was extremely tight, and GTA missed it.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Do you?
What you probably meant is;
Did we actually read the same thing? You seem to have no clue how a business actually runs. Bullying. Good grief. If they felt they had a case they would have go to court to break the contract instead of declaring bankruptcy. They had a very very weak case and we'll see how weak those people had it when we see Apple's info...

Nits will be picked...

----------

Won't negotiate my ass.

I can easily picture Philly Schiller making the big boy pants comment.

Perhaps, but as Sr. vp of sales and marketing, it seems unlikely that he would be responsible for supplier selection or purchasing, much less negotiating purchasing contracts.

 

[Keirasplace]

Do you?
What you probably meant is;
Did we actually read the same thing? You seem to have no clue how a business actually runs. Bullying. Good grief. If they felt they had a case they would have go to court to break the contract instead of declaring bankruptcy. They had a very very weak case and we'll see how weak those people had it when we see Apple's info...

Do you even have a point?