It was just greed and inexperience on GT's part. All they saw were $$$$ and thought they could outsmart the big dog.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GT Advanced COO: Apple Told Us 'Put On Your Big Boy Pants and Accept the Agreement'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was just greed and inexperience on GT's part. All they saw were $$$$ and thought they could outsmart the big dog.
Just step back for a minute. Apple's goals were aligned with GTs. They wanted to produce high quantities of sapphire. GT though apparently over stated their ability to deliver and Apple did what was in their best interest and offered only the option of a very one sided deal. GT clearly wasn't as capable or knowledgeable in the production of sapphire and couldn't deliver to the degree they thought. Apple didn't tell them to over commit, they told them with the contract that they needed to make sure they knew what they were doing and to not over commit.
This is the reality of being the big guy. This was a very lucrative contract and because of that, Apple has the ability to set terms that are great for them with the promise of great income for the supplier who is able to meet the contract they agreed to. These contracts exist because landing one of them could mean massive rewards for the company that delivers. GT didn't deliver.
...ensuring none of these people will ever run anything again.
In my industry, if I did what they've done, and handled it like they have, I would be jobless, penniless, and homeless within days, and have a long future of filling potholes or washing dishes to look forward to.
In my industry, if I did what they've done, and handled it like they have, I would be jobless, penniless, and homeless within days, and have a long future of filling potholes or washing dishes to look forward to.
You "hate" them..seriously? Has that business done something to you personally or your family?
I wonder how many people in this thread that are making pathetic comments about GT have actually ran a business.
I'm sure the execs knew this would happen. They took the deal knowing they could individually cash out before *hit hit the fan. Screwed their employees over royally to make a quick profit. I'm glad the SEC is looking into them now.
Exactly and this whole ordeal gives a good insight into how Apple deals with it's suppliers.
Yeah, because Walmart is really suffering for their extreme terms with distributors.
What does Walmart have to do with Apple? Deflection much?
I'm sure this happens all the time. Apple saw them as a tech that if they couldn't have it, no one should, used their stance to lure them into a deal, if they could pull it off, apple wins, if they couldn't, no one wins, meaning Apple still wins.
The point is the ceo and such of gt weren't smart enough to see this up front and put themselves in this position and were lured in by the amount of money Apple offered.
The point: if something is to good to be true, it probably is. Lessened learned, move on gt.
The point is the ceo and such of gt weren't smart enough to see this up front and put themselves in this position and were lured in by the amount of money Apple offered.
The point: if something is to good to be true, it probably is. Lessened learned, move on gt.
Wow!!!
I know usually big companies get to control contract terms and be a bit bullying in their favor... but I really didn't expect Apple to be so much bullying that it costs GTAT to completely loose their business and wind up causing job loss for nearly a thousand people...
Now Apple is not 100% directly responsible for this... but a few people at Apple should think about how their "bullying" had cost people their jobs... some of them may have left their previous jobs for this one in hopes of options rewards one day....
I know usually big companies get to control contract terms and be a bit bullying in their favor... but I really didn't expect Apple to be so much bullying that it costs GTAT to completely loose their business and wind up causing job loss for nearly a thousand people...
Now Apple is not 100% directly responsible for this... but a few people at Apple should think about how their "bullying" had cost people their jobs... some of them may have left their previous jobs for this one in hopes of options rewards one day....
Basically. Apple could've made those people a ton of money if in the off chance they were able to deliver on the product. Apple is trying to experiment with new stuff from smaller vendors. It's not anything other companies don't do. However, they need to protect themselves. Apple has more to lose if production deadlines aren't met.
It is the same thing. You claim that being the big guy with the strong arm never works, yet Walmart is the crown jewel of all the companies to get distribution in still today.
Apple strong arming a supplier is not going to stop and while I hope they treat them to the letter of the contract, they have no reason to stop giving themselves favorable terms until suppliers decline those terms.
Good job calling me out for deflection, despite only making generalized claims while I provide information.
strong′-arm` (adj.)
1. using, involving, or threatening the use of physical force or violence.
2. to use violent methods upon; assault.
3. to rob by force.
Nope it wasn't strong arm force at all. It was pure greed on the behalf of GT. If they felt the deal was too in favor of Apple then don't sign the deal, it is as simple as that.
Apple would have a whole department for supplier contracts that are experts in their field, how many people do you think GT have?
Apple is evil because some stupid company signed a contract to do things they didn't have the ability to do? Ok then.
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.
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.
You provided no information and your only point was to bring in a completely different company that wasn't even being discussed.
Massively onesided deal??
Ok.. Did Apple also put a gun against your heads while telling you to put on big boys pant?
You cant recignize a good deal ... Why sign? What are you getting paid for as ceo or cfo or etc?
Ok.. Did Apple also put a gun against your heads while telling you to put on big boys pant?
You cant recignize a good deal ... Why sign? What are you getting paid for as ceo or cfo or etc?