GT Seeks to Void 'Oppressive and Burdensome' Agreements With Apple, Outlines Sapphire Wind Down Process

[nt5672]

What??

GT signed a BUSINESS contract with Apple. Apple has no obligation or "moral" reason not to hold them to their agreement. How is Apple being a bully? They loaned GT half a billion dollars, and since this story broke, Apple has said that at this time, they are not looking for the repayment of their loan. So where does "bully" and "arrogant" come in?

Having been in these agreements with larger companies before, all I can say is that just because there was an agreement does not mean that Apple followed it. In fact, it is quite common for the Big Dog just to do what they like, regardless of the agreement. Not saying it happen in this case, because we don't know the facts. What do we know? We know one or the other of them, wanted out.

Eventually we might learn why? If it was Apple, then Apple will just buy their way out of the situation and we may never know. That's just what Big Dogs do. If it was GT, then Apple will probably dump on them and we'll know exactly what they did or did not do.

 

[OatmealRocks]

That has nothing to do manufacturing in the United States. I'm not sure where the production problems are occurring, but from the rumours it sounds like it's in China from third party vendors.

The problem does not sound like US manufacturing but rather US management. If Apple iPhones are having manufacturing problems, the cause is not US manufacturing. The sapphire boules are made in the United States like many intel cpu's are made in the US. If a third party messes up the processing or integration of the American product, it not the fault of US manufacturing.

Even if GT was responsible for the sourcing of the third party it would still not be the fault of US manufacturing but rather US management.

Much more information is needed before we get the entire story. But if the sapphire boules that GT made were up to spec I do not see this as a negative for US industry. If Anything it could be a positive as the Chinese were the bottleneck.

I think too many people are jumping the gun with this, lets just wait for the entire story. Once we have that, you could be correct.

A third party vendor caused GT to go bankrupt? You stated a lot of assumptions on the vendor. Regardless if management or production to get the appropriate available product downstream. GT didn't delivery period. If the product was fabricated to spec and per requirements it is 3rd party's issue not GT but that didn't happen. A really far stretch for you to say the bottle neck is China rather than GT. Who has experience in manufacturing at this scale? Not GT that's for sure. Regardless GT messed up on many levels and now talking bad on their agreement is just the icing on the inexperience and unqualified manufacturer of sapphire at a large scale. Not sure what's going to happen after but I can guarantee they will not have a larger customer than Apple. Back to their low earnings and small scale.

 

[SlipSlidinAwa]

Didn't they agree for these terms when they signed up to get half a billion dollars from Apple? They are just using bankruptcy to get away from keeping their part of the deal. It's could be a setback for bringing back hi tech manufacturing to US.

There is such a thing as an unfair contract and with the juicy carrot Apple dangled in front of them, plus they would have no choice but to accept the terms that would be grounds for this defence as such a dominant customer may be in breach of Anti-Trust legislation. Actually with this and Beats/Bose Apple is becoming Mr. Nasty and they might lose some customer loyalty if they don't watch out.

 

[BobertKennedy]

I'm just speculating here, but this could be attempt by Apple to conduct a buyout of GTAT:

• GTAT's sapphire business was based primarily on producing equipment related to its advanced sapphire furnaces - but the agreement made with Apple in October 2013 changed GTAT's sapphire business model from being primarily an equipment supplier to being a sapphire materials supplier - with Apple being the primary consumer for GTAT's sapphire products.
• GTAT stock price began its death spiral after Apple announced they were going with glass for the iPhone 6 display on 9/9/14. Consequently, GMAT stock price dropped from $17.01 on 9/9/14 to $11.03 on 10/3/14. When GMAT announced chapter 11 bankruptcy on 10/6, their stock fell from $11.06 to $0.80 in a single day - a drop of 95%.

Would it not serve Apple (and it's shareholders) to own a producer of sapphire crystal for in-house production purposes? With GTAT's stock being worthless, and the company backed up against the ropes, what better way to acquire a such company than to force them into bankruptcy and leverage a buyout.

 

[OatmealRocks]

I'm just speculating here, but this could be attempt by Apple to conduct a buyout of GTAT:

• GTAT's sapphire business was based primarily on producing equipment related to its advanced sapphire furnaces - but the agreement made with Apple in October 2013 changed GTAT's sapphire business model from being primarily an equipment supplier to being a sapphire materials supplier - with Apple being the primary consumer for GTAT's sapphire products.
• GTAT stock price began its death spiral after Apple announced they were going with glass for the iPhone 6 display on 9/9/14. Consequently, GMAT stock price dropped from $17.01 on 9/9/14 to $11.03 on 10/3/14. When GMAT announced chapter 11 bankruptcy on 10/6, their stock fell from $11.06 to $0.80 in a single day - a drop of 95%.

Would it not serve Apple (and it's shareholders) to own a producer of sapphire crystal for in-house production purposes? With GTAT's stock being worthless, and the company backed up against the ropes, what better way to acquire a such company than to force them into bankruptcy and leverage a buyout.

To buy out? Unlikely in this round about way. If Apple wanted to buy GT they would. The bean counters probably thought this piece of the component is best served as a purchase and to help GT ramp up to production in a much larger scale. Nothing more. Same reason Apple doesn't buy their chip maker, most likely keeping their focus on design rather than purchasing everything in the up and down stream.

A

 

[SlipSlidinAwa]

The big assumption that nearly everyone is making here is that GTAT couldn't keep up with the production. As MR reported a few weeks before launch, the sapphire deadline was missed by weeks due to something UP the chain from GTAT:

https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/11/sapphire-display-iphone-6-missed/

"According to Margolis' sources, the issue was not GT's production, as the company is said to have been steadily shipping out sapphire from its factory in Mesa, Arizona. The issue appears to have occurred in the next step in the supply chain, where finishers in China struggled with yield issues turning the sapphire into display covers."

GTAT was able to provide high quality sapphire, but the Chinese assembly was not able to finish it, so they returned all of the sapphire back to GTAT. In turn, GTAT didn't get paid for this.

When you sign an agreement stating that your sole customer is Apple, produce tons of sapphire for it and held up your end of the bargain, only to find out that Apple changes the manufacturing stream and sends back all of your material, you don't have many options here aside from getting out of the original contract, no?

You're just stuck with a ton of material you can only sell to one person. Unfortunately for GTAT they ceased all other types of work and focused solely on this contract. GTAT has been around for many years (formerly GT Solar, producing sapphire for solar panels and LEDs).

I can understand this. When you're in business and someone as big as Apple wants your product, you have two options:

1.) Keep doing what you're doing
2.) You take a risk and try and work with Apple. The reward is worth the risk. It also may have clouded their judgement.

Unfortunately for GTAT they didn't have a Plan B similar to the Plan B that Apple had with iPhone 6 displays being made from glass.

Would your scenario constitute an unfair contract in which case they have a defence. I guess they went into Chapter 11 so Apple couldn't get them for 1cent on the $.

 

[uwdude]

It sounds like, rather than going to Apple and working with them and asking them to keep GT afloat until they can be the sapphire producer for next year's iPhone, GT just decided they were going to take their toys and go home and push Apple away and try to get out of the contracts.

It makes me wonder what Apple said to them after the decision to go with glass for this year, or if there was any communication at all. The first thing I would have done as GT would have been to contact Apple and ask how this is going to affect our contracts, will you use sapphire for next year, will you keep us going until then, etc.

 

[dysamoria]

Is there anyone that didn't see this coming the moment GT announced bankruptcy filing?

I wonder what the oppressive terms were? Fair wages, benefits, and conditions for their employees? Product delivered when agreed to be delivered? Product not be flawed?

Did someone claim they'd be able to deliver a thing in a certain way by a certain time and then not do so, causing Apple to decide not to purchase the resulting material late and flawed? Is that bad "leadership" maybe?

 

[catplusplus]

Just buy the factory

Not forever, just until it can be resold to an operator able to maintain it long term. It's not like Apple is lacking cash. At the same time GT will get money to deal with their other problems.

 

[kas23]

Thats because Apple's products are extremely sellable, anyone involved in part of their manufacturing or R&D process supply chain will simply whore themselves to Apple to get their contract, its a quick cash cow which is why Apple has their pick of suppliers who will readily give favourable terms to get that Apple cash. Just because it has not worked out for GTAT doesn't mean others are getting screwed either.

Others are not getting screwed because they are multi-billion dollar industries with a diverse clientele (credi card companies, banks, record labels) and can endure an unfavorable contract because they know in the long-run (greater than 5 years down the line) they'll benefit. Not so with GT. They basically signed an exclusivity, make-or-break, contract with likely unfavorable short term returns. Too bad. If they still exist after this, their CEO should be removed.

 

[HyperZboy]

How is this "milking" Apple?

Apple won't buy their product. Their contract states no one else is allowed to buy it. What else would you have them do?

EXACTLY! The FIRST action the bankruptcy court is going to do for the sake of shareholders is to THROW OUT APPLE'S "agreement" and/or restrictions on who GT can sell to.

After that it's open season as to who wants to buy GT or its product.

That Apple "agreement" that requires GT to only sell to Apple and no one else but yet also restricts GT from selling to anyone else will simply NOT hold up in bankruptcy court. PERIOD.

I mean, think about it. If Apple really didn't want the product, why the hell would they invest so much money in it? And if Apple really got swindled by GT, then Tim Cook is certainly no Steve Jobs! LOL

That is all.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Bet GT's CEO found a way to funnel all the money up towards himself and his people while disregarding his contractual obligations. Screw them. I hope Apple eats them alive.

 

[name99]

Apple is a bully and arrogant. They're like the guy yelling at the gate agent at an airport, "Do you know who I am?!"
Like businesses should kiss their feet because it's a big contract.

This "Apple is a bully and arrogant" is an oversimplification.

MOST new technology has the characteristics that
- initial costs (R&D, tooling) are MASSIVE
- per unit costs are a LOT cheaper

This means that the prices of these products basically live in two equilibria. Either you sell at a very high price (and very few units) or at a low price (and massive numbers of units). But getting from the one point to the other is not easy. (For example, we have seen this historically with FW not being able to make the transition relative to USB2, and we may be seeing it with TB relative to USB3.)

In such a world, for some new technologies, Apple is willing to push hard to force that transition, by GUARANTEEING the large numbers to make the transition. But this is not risk-free on Apple's part. They have to rely on the manufacturer being able to ramp up to volumes, and, if they want this tech to take off permanently, they have to have guessed correctly the lower equilibrium price. In return for taking on this risk, the deal is basically that the vendor of the new tech will give Apple a good price BUT will benefit from mass market sales to everyone else.
This is not an abuse of position, it's basically a way to align incentives --- the vendor gets their biggest payoff by doing what they and Apple both want --- ramping up to large, cheap, volumes as fast as possible rather than playing the "dribble out the technology and drop the price by 10% every six months" game that is the alternative at the high priced equilibrium.
CDs (read only then RW), WiFi, and USB are all examples of technology where Apple followed this strategy to push down prices, to everyone's advantage.

Where things go wrong is if the vendor promises more than they can deliver, so the whole thing collapses in a cock-up of undelivered product and no way to drop prices fast enough. This appears to be what happened with GT, though it's not clear if their engineers were too optimistic, if their execs flat-out lied, or if there were some accidents or other unexpected events that are no-one's fault, really.

Apple does not strike as being unreasonable in these things. I've aware of a similar situation where Apple did NOT adopt the technology (YET!?)
There was a frank (and honest!) discussion between management and Apple about prices and feasible delivery volumes, and a conclusion that it simply was not possible to move from the current high equilibrium price to the dramatically lower price that Apple needed for this to be feasible. So both sides parted, and presumably in maybe three years, they will revisit the situation and see if anything has changed. But management did not lie to Apple (or even "mislead" them, or be "overly optimistic") in some sort of hope that once Apple has committed to the business, a miracle will happen.

 

[Kissaragi]

Basically they overestimated what they could do and now want a way out.

 

[MrX8503]

EXACTLY! The FIRST action the bankruptcy court is going to do for the sake of shareholders is to THROW OUT APPLE'S "agreement" and/or restrictions on who GT can sell to.



After that it's open season as to who wants to buy GT or its product.



That Apple "agreement" that requires GT to only sell to Apple and no one else but yet also restricts GT from selling to anyone else will simply NOT hold up in bankruptcy court. PERIOD.



I mean, think about it. If Apple really didn't want the product, why the hell would they invest so much money in it? And if Apple really got swindled by GT, then Tim Cook is certainly no Steve Jobs! LOL



That is all.

GTAT wouldn't even have those sapphire screens to sell without Apple's loan. That's why the contract states that they can't sell it to other vendors.

Apple was not obligated to buy the sapphire. GTAT screwed up and over promised what they couldn't deliver.

 

[rGiskard]

Tim Cook tried to be so patriotic, the much delayed Mac Pro being assembled in the USA, now his home made Sapphire is turning into a nightmare.
Maybe he should have used foreign companies to do the job. I love Apple, but this is quite amusing from a European point of view.

Easy there, cowboy. Earlier reports claim that the problem was downstream of GT's Sapphire production. GT supplied plenty of high quality boules, but the company responsible for cutting and polishing the boules into display covers couldn't get their yields up.

If that report is true, then GT got punk'd by Apple. Instead of postponing the iPhone launch a few weeks, they decided they didn't owe GT anything. Contractually they did not, but morally they did.

On the other hand, it's a fishy report. Why would Apple have glass display covers ready to go at launch time if they had planned on Sapphire covers?

Also, Apple does not realy solely on GT for Sapphire. They have producers in Japan and China. Why no news on those producers going belly up due to the last second switcharoo to Gorilla Glass?

Could be, the report on a switch from Sapphire to Gorilla Glass was pulled out of an analysts arse to cover for his earlier prediction of an iPhone 6 Sapphire screen cover, which incidentally was also pulled out of his arse.

So ultimately, we have no freakin' idea what events conspired to bring GT down. All the conjecture in this thread is pissing in the wind.

 

[megadon]

What??

GT signed a BUSINESS contract with Apple. Apple has no obligation or "moral" reason not to hold them to their agreement. How is Apple being a bully? They loaned GT half a billion dollars, and since this story broke, Apple has said that at this time, they are not looking for the repayment of their loan. So where does "bully" and "arrogant" come in?

I've read that Apple has been forcing GT to repay it's loans to Apple at an accelerated rate. Because if you look at the financials, GT has been burning through their cash like crazy, and they haven't been building anything new recently, so people think that Apple has forced GT to repay the loan thus causing it to burn through its cash, which makes sense. Then apple lied saying they're willing to help GT knowing they have a confidenciality clause that would cost GT $50 million per violation. So apple can come out and flat out lie and say anything they want, knowing GT can't afford to go public with the real info.

At the end of the day, it's just business and I can see why Apple would want its money back.

 

[MellowFuzz]

I suspect the resounding silence from Apple's PR department means GTAT met the product specs, or they'd be instantly all over this like the recent software-related issues. If they reveal as such, then it'd be admitting they pulled the operational rug from under GTAT's feet and ruined their business (since they are the business), thereby justifying GTAT's attempt to ensure their survival.

Apple can have back their machines and facilities, GTAT can sell of the existing boules that they made (which Apple refused to pay for) and they can go their separate ways. It's like a bad marriage where one partner made a promise to the other that they'd have kids but then went back on it a few years later. I don't blame the one who entered the marriage optimistic for kids - I blame the one who changed their mind.

 

[Keirasplace]

I've read that Apple has been forcing GT to repay it's loans to Apple at an accelerated rate. Because if you look at the financials, GT has been burning through their cash like crazy, and they haven't been building anything new recently, so people think that Apple has forced GT to repay the loan thus causing it to burn through its cash, which makes sense. Then apple lied saying they're willing to help GT knowing they have a confidenciality clause that would cost GT $50 million per violation. So apple can come out and flat out lie and say anything they want, knowing GT can't afford to go public with the real info.

At the end of the day, it's just business and I can see why Apple would want its money back.

Forcing how, they send a hit squad, they threw Apples at them till they bled? If they were asking for anything it has to be IN THE CONTRACT. Apple can't ask for anything that's not there in black and white. People never signed a contract before here?

If you sign a contract, you and the other party are responsible if it blows up in your face.

Apple was forced to change plans and go with another supplier while potentially losing hundreds of millions in loan (so they paid the price for their signature) while also suffering some PR issue. They probably think that trusting GTAT was a bad decision now.

Same thing GTAT; they signed a contract they couldn't deliver on (hopefully they didn't know they couldn't deliver or they're in a world of hurt when investors sue them blind) and are now near death with hundreds losing their jobs.

----------

I suspect the resounding silence from Apple's PR department means GTAT met the product specs, or they'd be instantly all over this like the recent software-related issues. If they reveal as such, then it'd be admitting they pulled the operational rug from under GTAT's feet and ruined their business (since they are the business), thereby justifying GTAT's attempt to ensure their survival.

Apple can have back their machines and facilities, GTAT can sell of the existing boules that they made (which Apple refused to pay for) and they can go their separate ways. It's like a bad marriage where one partner made a promise to the other that they'd have kids but then went back on it a few years later. I don't blame the one who entered the marriage optimistic for kids - I blame the one who changed their mind.

Right... Total inventiion passed as fact. Create a better conspiracy, this one is kinda weak; post of Youtube video, all good conspiracies have a youtube video.

----------

Easy there, cowboy. Earlier reports claim that the problem was downstream of GT's Sapphire production. GT supplied plenty of high quality boules, but the company responsible for cutting and polishing the boules into display covers couldn't get their yields up.

If that report is true, then GT got punk'd by Apple. Instead of postponing the iPhone launch a few weeks, they decided they didn't owe GT anything. Contractually they did not, but morally they did.

On the other hand, it's a fishy report. Why would Apple have glass display covers ready to go at launch time if they had planned on Sapphire covers?

Also, Apple does not realy solely on GT for Sapphire. They have producers in Japan and China. Why no news on those producers going belly up due to the last second switcharoo to Gorilla Glass?

Could be, the report on a switch from Sapphire to Gorilla Glass was pulled out of an analysts arse to cover for his earlier prediction of an iPhone 6 Sapphire screen cover, which incidentally was also pulled out of his arse.

So ultimately, we have no freakin' idea what events conspired to bring GT down. All the conjecture in this thread is pissing in the wind.

You do know that moving the launch one month on the say so of someone who is ALREADY LATE, in the pre christmas season has potentially a consequence of SEVERAL TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS... Considering that Apple also has a massive supply chain in many countries with stringent schedules to worry about, you think they can move things around like that.. Are you for real?

That's not even considering the fact that they had to ask Corning to start producing screen in huge numbers and Corning has to ramp up for that.

I truly wonder what kinda of agenda some very specific people here have in spinning EVERYTHING in a very specific consistent way...

----------

There is such a thing as an unfair contract and with the juicy carrot Apple dangled in front of them, plus they would have no choice but to accept the terms that would be grounds for this defence as such a dominant customer may be in breach of Anti-Trust legislation. Actually with this and Beats/Bose Apple is becoming Mr. Nasty and they might lose some customer loyalty if they don't watch out.

Really, Anti-trust... I'm not sure you know what your talking about. Is Apple the only potential client for Saphire? No, Is GTAT the only supplier of this scale for Apple, yes they are. So, who has the monopoly here?

Saying you were "forced" to enter into a business deal is very laughable. If you lawyers can't read it is not Apple's fault.

 

[iososx]

It's easy for Apple advocates sitting in the cheap seats to take pot shots at this company.

It reveals the shallow character of the shooters. With next to no information, facts or figures the popcorn munching masses condemn this company.

There is far more to this story than we're being told. Huge contracts like this are many pages long, involve hundreds of elements, and are not as simple as the crowd here thinks. There is far more yet to be revealed.

Relax haters, certainly you've got better things to do.

 

[cfedu]

A third party vendor caused GT to go bankrupt? You stated a lot of assumptions on the vendor. Regardless if management or production to get the appropriate available product downstream. GT didn't delivery period. If the product was fabricated to spec and per requirements it is 3rd party's issue not GT but that didn't happen. A really far stretch for you to say the bottle neck is China rather than GT. Who has experience in manufacturing at this scale? Not GT that's for sure. Regardless GT messed up on many levels and now talking bad on their agreement is just the icing on the inexperience and unqualified manufacturer of sapphire at a large scale. Not sure what's going to happen after but I can guarantee they will not have a larger customer than Apple. Back to their low earnings and small scale.

You could be correct, I'm basing my remarks on this
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/11/sapphire-display-iphone-6-missed/


This has been the only information I know of besides the chapter 11 filing.

What is the reason that you feel US manufacturing at GT was the issue. The fact that GT filed for bankruptcy does not meen that they had their own production problem.

It could very well be that GT's production was the issue but until there is more information I can not state that as fact. Is GT responsible for their bankruptcy? I would say so, if they signed a contract that put them in jeopardy by the actions of a third party.

Can you please cite the source that GT's own production was the weakest link in the production of sapphire displays? Its a simply question.

 

[megadon]

.

----------

Forcing how, they send a hit squad, they threw Apples at them till they bled? If they were asking for anything it has to be IN THE CONTRACT. Apple can't ask for anything that's not there in black and white. People never signed a contract before here?

If you sign a contract, you and the other party are responsible if it blows up in your face.

Apple was forced to change plans and go with another supplier while potentially losing hundreds of millions in loan (so they paid the price for their signature) while also suffering some PR issue. They probably think that trusting GTAT was a bad decision now.

Same thing GTAT; they signed a contract they couldn't deliver on (hopefully they didn't know they couldn't deliver or they're in a world of hurt when investors sue them blind) and are now near death with hundreds losing their jobs.

----------



Right... Total inventiion passed as fact. Create a better conspiracy, this one is kinda weak; post of Youtube video, all good conspiracies have a youtube video.

----------



You do know that moving the launch one month on the say so of someone who is ALREADY LATE, in the pre christmas season has potentially a consequence of SEVERAL TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS... Considering that Apple also has a massive supply chain in many countries with stringent schedules to worry about, you think they can move things around like that.. Are you for real?

That's not even considering the fact that they had to ask Corning to start producing screen in huge numbers and Corning has to ramp up for that.

I truly wonder what kinda of agenda some very specific people here have in spinning EVERYTHING in a very specific consistent way...

----------



Really, Anti-trust... I'm not sure you know what your talking about. Is Apple the only potential client for Saphire? No, Is GTAT the only supplier of this scale for Apple, yes they are. So, who has the monopoly here?

Saying you were "forced" to enter into a business deal is very laughable. If you lawyers can't read it is not Apple's fault.

Not exactly sure why you think recalling a loan is a hit squad, but sure...

"At least one analyst Business Insider heard from after the announcement sees one possible reason for the sudden change from GT Advanced: Apple pulled the plug.

Jeffrey Osborne, an analyst with Cowen & Co., wrote that Apple, which lent GT $578 million as part of a supply agreement last November, "had the ability to call the interest free loan back and it appears they have done that."

http://www.businessinsider.com/gt-advanced-files-for-bankruptcy-oct-6-2014-10

article goes on to say

""Repayment was initially scheduled to begin January 2015 and follow a five-year schedule," Osborne wrote. "In its repayment terms, it is most likely that a substantial amount of additional current portion of prepayment was triggered as a result of covenant terms held between GTAT and Apple in relation to operating and financial metrics that the company likely failed to meet."

Osborne also noted that GT's cash and equivalents fell to $85 million on Monday from $333 million back in June, and while Osborne hasn't yet been able to confirm this, it seems this drawdown most likely resulted from early repayment triggers in the Apple loan."

 

[ghettochris]

Apple put the contract in place. They wanted exclusive access to the sapphire. Now apple don't want it and GT can't sell it to anyone else.

Actually, more likely that GT failed to meet quality or quantity that they promised, so Apple wasn't required to buy it. If they satisfied the quality or quantity's stated in the contract, then Apple chose to not buy it, there would almost certainly be a clause in the contract to say they could then sell to other people.

 

[rish]

I'm just speculating here, but this could be attempt by Apple to conduct a buyout of GTAT:

• GTAT's sapphire business was based primarily on producing equipment related to its advanced sapphire furnaces - but the agreement made with Apple in October 2013 changed GTAT's sapphire business model from being primarily an equipment supplier to being a sapphire materials supplier - with Apple being the primary consumer for GTAT's sapphire products.
• GTAT stock price began its death spiral after Apple announced they were going with glass for the iPhone 6 display on 9/9/14. Consequently, GMAT stock price dropped from $17.01 on 9/9/14 to $11.03 on 10/3/14. When GMAT announced chapter 11 bankruptcy on 10/6, their stock fell from $11.06 to $0.80 in a single day - a drop of 95%.

Would it not serve Apple (and it's shareholders) to own a producer of sapphire crystal for in-house production purposes? With GTAT's stock being worthless, and the company backed up against the ropes, what better way to acquire a such company than to force them into bankruptcy and leverage a buyout.

Yes it would even if it was for the Apple Watch alone.

 

[jimbo1mcm]

Here's what I know:

Really, nothing. So I won't comment anymore.