Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This has nothing to do with "China mentality". Apple actually has one of the best records in the industry with regards to contractors.

In this particular case, I don't think the demands Apple made on GT were "insane" at all. Remember, Apple threw down half a billion dollars to buy them a facility to use and equipment. GT didn't have to front that overhead. If you were investing that much money in a company, wouldn't you make sure you had appropriate oversight over said company?

Besides, as others have noted, it's absurd to cry foul after the fact. If the GT execs found the contract so burdensome, they shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

To be fair they would have just bought the company if they had high expectations for it, $500 million, I hate to say it, but it's really just pocket change for Apple.

----------

If this contract was so one sided, why did they sign it?

Wouldn't you want to be manufacturing for one of the biggest electronic companies in the world?
 
So. A COO is dumb enough to sign a contract that was so potentially debilitating to his company, and then he blames Apple for signing next to his name?
Interesting...

And Apple was dumb enough to give $500 million to a company that couldn't come close to doing what Apple required. Apple has the most egg on it's face in this venture.
 
Isn't Apple rich enough? Like seriously who creates possible fines of $300,000.

People who understand that contracts are designed to be met and protect their money. If there were no repercussions to a contract what incentives do you have to actually keep up your end?
 
I don't think he's saying it's all Apple fault - he merely points out that some of the bad decisions were made on Apple's side as well. In this forum though people live in a bubble where everything Apple makes and does is perfect.
 
I don't understand why everyone is blaming GT for this.

GT needed business badly enough, evidently, that they were willing to accept such draconian terms.

I'm personally a bit shocked that Apple wrote up such terms - what on earth did they think the end result would be? There was some chance that GT would work out, but most likely GT would break and Apple would be left with nothing. There was no possibility of a middle ground where GT wouldn't quite deliver the exact materials on the exact date at the exact price point, but they would be within tolerance on all three.
 
Apple online led them to a huge scrolling massive amount of pages that had an "agree" button at the very top. Just like when we get new terms regarding iTunes or iCloud.

And then they hired a budget lawyer that didn't read it and just clicked accept. I see. So it was Apple's fault they signed the contract which agreed to these things, not their own.
 
This is like buying a car you aren't sure you can afford, then getting mad at the bank for approving the loan and charging you crazy late payments... You'd think with half a billi on the table, there'd be a more logical approach/analysis of your companies capabilities... This COO is a moron
 
If this contract was so one sided, why did they sign it?

Because of a stock boost. The company may have gone under, but many people made a killing on the announcement of them becoming an Apple supplier.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on the word of a SEC investigation.

About the only one coming out clean on this one is Corning and their "I told you so!" attitude they are keeping to themselves to just close the deal on the current and next generation of Apple products.

Corning has been doing transparent materials research for almost a century. They have pioneered some of the first structural and super-hard glass materials.

No doubt they have been messing with sapphire-based transparent materials for a while. I am sure they have a good reason not taking this deal.
 
Apple online led them to a huge scrolling massive amount of pages that had an "agree" button at the very top. Just like when we get new terms regarding iTunes or iCloud.

When you are borrowing 1/2 billion, you read the contract, every, single, word. And then you hire lawyers and they read every, single, word. Only an idiot wouldn't read such a contract. Or a CEO planning to dump stock when it suited him.
 
Well why was the contract signed by GT Advanced in the first place if the COO thought it was too strict? It's not Apple's fault that GT went bankrupt. That's like blaming your mortgage company because you can't make your monthly mortgage payment, even though you signed a contract that you could.
 
GT should have never accepted such a 1-sided contract unless they knew they could deliver.

They did not, and they deserve everything coming to them.
 
Alternative headlines

GT Advanced COO Not Forced to Sign Contract; Blames Self For Claiming They Could MEET Strict Terms

or:

CT Advanced COO Claimed They Could Deliver for Certain When It Was Actually a Gamble; Took Apple's Money Anyway and Now Wants to Pass Blame
 
Exactly, they signed a bad contract and now his made about it. What he is essentially saying is that I don't know how to protect the company on deals.

It's wasn't a bad contract; it was strict/tough and turned out to be negative for GT Advanced because they couldn't meet deadlines but the contract was sound.
 
Well why was the contract signed by GT Advanced in the first place if the COO thought it was too strict?

GT was excited that they were signing on with Apple and thought they were going to ride the wave to massive profits. Apple thought they had a deal with a supplier that they mostly controlled and had the inside track on the hottest new material.

Unfortunately, both companies grossly underestimated the level of effort and resources required to manufacture the material. GT is bankrupt, Apple doesn't have the sapphire parts they required, and 800 people lost their jobs.

Everyone lost in this deal.
 
Welcome to the big leagues

Sometimes it better to stay small.......when you take someones money, you become their servant. Cashflow it yourself, if you want to live by your terms
 
This seems like a case of sour grapes given that GTAT wasn't able to perform it's contractual obligations which it signed on to. Having said that, there are always two sides to every story. Sometimes small companies have difficulty expanding quickly and maintaining production goals to meet a purchaser's requirements. Apple is well experienced in parts shortages and probably was attempting to mitigate that risk.

Contracts are written by human beings and therefore are inherently fallible. I'm sure both parties bear some responsibility.
 
Apple is not at fault.

Legalistically, no - agreed. It's really a stretch of the word "partner" though, and Apple clearly is in a position to have been a little softer on their smaller "partner." Moralistically, therefore, it's a bit difficult to absolve Apple of *all* blame...

It's wasn't a bad contract; it was strict/tough ...

Exactly. Not "bad," just "tough."
 
I know that everyone will get on GTAT's back about this, but I respect his point. Apple has billions upon billions of dollars, they don't. GTAT took a chance, and failed. It should be respected that they tried.

This is also a loss for Apple. Obviously, Apple wanted this work done, and they wanted the expertise that GTAT had. Perhaps if Apple was not as heavy handed with the contract terms, this would have worked out for all.

It's not necessary for Apple to flex its corporate muscle all the time. Sometimes it can backfire.

Not sure that this is more of Apple flexing their corporate might or GT over promising. This agreement was signed at some point and obvisously they couldn't meet the timelines stated.
 
This is also a loss for Apple. Obviously, Apple wanted this work done, and they wanted the expertise that GTAT had. Perhaps if Apple was not as heavy handed with the contract terms, this would have worked out for all.

You mean if Apple had been nicer with the contract terms, the sapphire production would have worked as expected?

Apple wanted a product. Their own production depended on it, so they had to work that dependency into the contract as penalties. How is that heavy-handed?

Whenever there is a product release by Apple, people complain that there are not sufficient supplies. Many even claim that Apple is limiting the supplies on purpose, or they are claiming Apple is just too stupid, stating that they should just build more factories - because that is sooo easy. Do you think these same people will understand if a new iPhone is delayed by half a year, because Apple decides not to "flex its corporate muscle" and allows a supplier to take whatever time they need to get their act together?

If Apple played as nice as some people here seem to expect, we'd probably just be seeing the first few people with an actual iPhone 1 in their hands.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.