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
How old are you?
Business is all about making decisions. Sometimes cutting corners works and saves lots of money. Sometimes it blows up in your face.
Clearly Apple thought they could make it work so they didn't listen.
To rephrase. you are ASSUMING that Apple knew GT was right and they were wrong.
Oh, but that is not what I'm implying. I have a hard time believing people's arguments about how a deal was done, when they are under investigation for criminal practices. That's what I meant with "that there is probably more going on here" than just Apple being a bully.
I hear you. I think we are somewhat in agreement. Apple probably could have done more.
It does seem irresponsible for Apple to just drop GTAT altogether when they couldn't meet the sapphire display deadline for the iPhone 6, when they seemingly acted as partners. Sure, they put up $500m, but that obviously meant very little to them and they acted as much by letting GTAT flounder instead of helping them so that they can potentially deliver for the next iPhone/Apple product. Who knows, maybe it was a strategic bail-out by Apple after the less-than-stellar review of sapphire glass as compared to the new Gorilla glass. If so, that is pretty cold.
----------
I think they've been one for a few years at least.
What are you talking about? Apple (the purchaser & loan provider) does not have any legal responsibility or liability for another 3rd party company - especially a contractor (component supplier). They are 2 separate entities period. If any company were to take on another's liability & become responsible for that supplier - the supplier essentially becomes in-house.
Lastly - you don't like exclusive agreements for certain components? Welcome to reality. This is not just standard practice but part of any supply-chain/BoM contracts for non-commodity components.
Example: Company A has a new product. Buys component from supplier Company B. How can it be justified for Company B to then supply unique component to a competitor Company C?
It's not. And that's why it's not only an everyday clause - but a requirement in a supply-chain/BoM contract.
You're also forgetting that Apple did pay a great deal - and ultimately lost the most out of all parties. The only party that benefited was GTA by getting free access to capital, loans that were not paid back, and loan forgiveness. On top of that management profited handsomely from this - and now subject to SEC investigation.
I'm saying if Microsoft was buying the Sapphire and not Apple. I mean, Microsoft got the blame for supposedly killing a company that was going to die anyway on its own.
Exactly. It's the same people in every article that pile in like flies on a turd. Always having to point out the ways that Apple screwed up "x" or is evil because of "y". And you never see them casually discussing Apple products- they only participate in threads that allow them to spin things against Apple.
I mean, I'm not going to go into a Surface forum or an Android forum and complain about the people that love Microsoft or Google. And yet we have people here complaining... on an Apple forum... about people loving Apple.
Good grief.
Really? That's your argument? That Apple, a company that had never dealt with sapphire development before, somehow knew better than GT? And so they told GT to make it work, even though GT said it wouldn't work?
And you want to know how old I am? Question right back at you.
Seems to me, you just want this to be 100% on Apple for making the entire thing fail. My question is, why?
So now loving Apple means never seeing them as wrong? I love my mom, but I can still see when she's wrong.
Not necessarily!
Sometimes NDA needs to be signed even before the contract. And also, you have the issue of opportunities having been passed up while you were working the "big deal". It's a fact of life, sometimes you have to pass up opportunities in a good faith effort to work the new deal.
People are trying to lay ALL the blame at GT's feet and I don't think that's right. There's ALWAYS more to the story!
While the GT leadership made questionable decisions, Apple was obviously using it's size and buying power to pressure GT into signing the contract that had a very high chance of ending badly for GT. All of the risk was transfered to GT once Apple ensured that GT was too far commited to the project to cancel.
I'm not going to go into details but they're known for being very difficult
It's no wonder they're a billion $ corporation
They aren't the underdog
They aren't David
Apple is Goliath
Watch out for David
It was pretty much a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If they don't, they've just wasted months in time and money negotiating with Apple, no new customers because of the negotiations, plus they have to answer to their shareholders about why they rejected a deal with Apple. If they do, they are at the mercy of the stringent terms of the contract.
Yes, as I expect Apple would... Welcome to Business Mr. GT COO, Where other businesses will try to get what is best for them, just as you should be trying to get what is best for your company. It doesn't matter what Apple said, you signed the contract, and you agreed to the terms. I don't hear Apple beating at your door twisting your arm to pay back the money you borrowed, so really Apple must be playing somewhat nice.
I hear you. I think we are somewhat in agreement. Apple probably could have done more.
It does seem irresponsible for Apple to just drop GTAT altogether when they couldn't meet the sapphire display deadline for the iPhone 6, when they seemingly acted as partners. Sure, they put up $500m, but that obviously meant very little to them and they acted as much by letting GTAT flounder instead of helping them so that they can potentially deliver for the next iPhone/Apple product. Who knows, maybe it was a strategic bail-out by Apple after the less-than-stellar review of sapphire glass as compared to the new Gorilla glass. If so, that is pretty cold.
----------
I think they've been one for a few years at least.
What? How are they responsible at all? GTA is a separate entity with their own financial obligations and book keeping.
In any supply-chain/BoM relationship, Company A does not have any responsibility to a supplier - if supplier had a free-cash flow management error handling their finances. Why would they - that would be welfare?
Lastly, if supplier fails to produce the needed amount of components and at prearranged KPI standards - why would a company be obligated to purchase the unusable components anyway? Of course the company has to then look for an alternative supplier and sign a new agreement.
No, please don't put words in my mouth. Apple has certainly been wrong many times before, and they will be wrong many more times in the future. But there are people on these forums that only comment on things they think Apple is doing wrong- never on neutral things or good things. Which is certainly their right, but it makes me wonder what their motivations are.
I mean, if I could only find negative things to say about Apple, I would take that as a sign that I should probably stop buying Apple products and posting on Apple forums.
nonsense. apple bought them a freaking factory and loaned them half a billion. think about that. i dont get deals like that for my business.
USA is a free country -- youre free to sign, or not sign, your business deals.
but it sure is fun to come up w/ creative ways to think apple is baaaaad, isnt it....
And I'm just saying that it's possible they are being completely forthright about how they got into this mess. It's for the courts and history to decide.
"you have the issue of opportunities having been passed up while you were working the "big deal". It's a fact of life, sometimes you have to pass up opportunities"
And???
Yep, this is what I said, and it's right on the money. Again, I'm not saying GT is not to blame at all, but too many people here are trying to paint Apple as a saint.
In fact, if Apple is such a shrewd wheeler and dealer, then why did they kill their golden goose? Apple should have known better; should have known that their deal would hurt their supplier, especially the part about not letting them find other business for the "beta" product.
So there was a little bit of incompetence on Apple's part too!
Nothing unusual in these contracts. Standard operating procedure. What's all this whining about the contracts being so hard?
I think I made my point clear, and I'm trying not to mock you like you just did to me above. Both share the blame. So now you can stop beating me over the head with open-ended rudeness.