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.
Mismanagement and Inexperience Contributed to GT Advanced's Sapphire Failures
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And finally the truth is showing up.....
The overpromised and undelivered. They weren't ready for the big boys game.
And failed.
R.I.P.
----------
THEY weren't so small... They had quite a lot of money. They were just very poorly managed.
----------
Except it's not true....
The overpromised and undelivered. They weren't ready for the big boys game.
And failed.
R.I.P.
----------
THEY weren't so small... They had quite a lot of money. They were just very poorly managed.
----------
Except it's not true....
In other words, it was the Gong Show of Apple component production.
But with a whole lot more money.
It would not surprise me if all the sapphire rumors spurred other manufacturers to sourcing their own sapphire screens ASAP and someone big (Samsung? Microsoft?) Is going to have handsets with sapphire screens ready to go in volume very soon.
I think they are more narcissists than psychopaths, though it's a fine line. Google is obviously run by psychopaths. Terrible choices right now. I'm rooting for Jolla.
I still find it hard to be that Apple (I would be more forgiving of other companies I admit) didn't vet/stay on top of GT.
I know there are many scenarios. Do we believe that GT was that good at hiding everything from a brand that is known for watching their vendors like a hawk (especially when it comes to a new technology)? That's a bit hard for me to swallow that Apple could be duped that much and for that amount of time.
And if that IS the case, then yes, I blame Apple to a certain level. Who provides the space and capital to a business with those types of contract specificity and doesn't maintain deep oversight of the project?
I simply don't think we truly know enough to judge either company and lay blame.
Nice catch. Interestingly, "Ion strengthened glass" is also the term they use for the Apple Watch Sport.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
And when they do, all consumers will be able to see is a transparent rectangle that looks no different than Gorilla Glass. There's no obvious, visible benefit to it beyond maybe being able to use the word sapphire in place of GG in the marketing spin. It is more scratch resistant but shatters just as readily if the phone is dropped.
I spend some time on this site and I very rarely see people griping about scratching their iPhone GG, so increasing it's scratch resistance seems more like a solution in search of a (mainstream) problem. I think the run at Sapphire was about 2 things:
1. the word and thus marketing spin. Sapphire is like "thinner" or maybe "retina HD" in that the buyers are not burning for any of those benefits(?) but the manufacturers roll them out anyway and spin them like they are a huge deal.
2. more profits in the screen repair business as the generic glass screen replacement availability might be replaced by screens that can only be sourced from Apple.
Show me lots of people faulting their iPhones for how easily the GG scratches and then you've got some justification for Sapphire. Show me lots of people griping about how their iPhone is "too thick" and then you've got some justification for trying to go even "thinner". Show me lots of people griping about the pixel density of "retina" and then you've got some justification for "retina HD". Otherwise, you've got gimmicky terms to spin in marketing spiels to try to motivate the crowd to buy anew.
Read that contract and think it over before signing. Don't be gutless and just sign what gets handed to you. The contract was only oppressive because you signed it as is.
For something big like this they'd have only copied the process had it been a success.
I could not understand why Apple did not manage the whole process themselves even so they may not have had any experience. For the amount of money they spent Apple could have managed and delivered much better for much less and have taken their time to get it right. Or buy the company outright and put their own management team in.
Also I have an idea Apple knew the minute they did a drop test that Sapphire was a bad choice and looked for a reason to back out, considering Gorrilla Glass was a proven product and much less expensive, not to mention better at drop tests. Scratch resistant and brittle. Not good.
Also I have an idea Apple knew the minute they did a drop test that Sapphire was a bad choice and looked for a reason to back out, considering Gorrilla Glass was a proven product and much less expensive, not to mention better at drop tests. Scratch resistant and brittle. Not good.
I don't disagree, and really could care less about sapphire since I have always had a high quality PLASTIC screen protector on all my phones/PocketPCs since around 2002, but you've got to admit, the world "sapphire" is *huge* for marketing departments everywhere who are drooling to use it in their copy.
Sorry, I thought it was purchased with the funds from Apple. I haven't read the details in awhile.
We might find out how much Apple lost on this misadventure with the next earnings report in January. I'd expect a one-time write-down of maybe a couple hundred million.
I knew more truth would come out about mismanagement and bonehead decisions!
I can hear the GTAT CEO/COO, "don't worry Apple (Tim), give us $440 million and we can do it".
"We know how to make the furnaces and they're even easy to run".
What a bunch of clowns, drove a great opportunity right into the ground!
I can hear the GTAT CEO/COO, "don't worry Apple (Tim), give us $440 million and we can do it".
"We know how to make the furnaces and they're even easy to run".What a bunch of clowns, drove a great opportunity right into the ground!
