Again, this is the way to stay ahead. Apple works on batteries, processors, and now screens. Invent, develop and patent technology that your competition can't use (unless your S*) and you get a technology leap.
We see the really thin design and charge of the batteries in Apple's products, and we see great functionality in the Ax chip with regards to both GPU and CPU performance.
Engineers design stuff, not (generally) manufacturer it.
That's simply not true (ignoring the typo). Some engineers design. Some are involved in manufacturing, because manufacturing is not just about running CNC machines or assembling parts. Quite often, design and manufacturing overlap significantly. To say engineers only design and do not manufacture "stuff" reflects a poor understanding of engineering.
If Apple is considered a US based company, are they allowed to directly own factories in X nation? The laws of that nation would apply.
Ah yes, they are allowed in general. Sure, approval by local governments is required. But this happens all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple seems to invest in a lot of infrastructure that is housed within the factories of manufacturing partners. This makes sense if these manufacturing partners cannot afford the upfront investment. Apple provides either equipment or funds earmarked for specific use. This means they can't necessarily be used to pay creditors in the case of a company like Sharp. They're relatively secure. It's not necessarily profitable or simple to just bring everything in house. The necessary audits alone might take thousands of hours and reveal incompatibilities. This is fairly safe route if Apple is confident they can get what they pay for.
These reasons kind of make more sense. But, IMO, there are more important, relevant factors:
- Apple wants to guarantee capacity. Owning equipment at the suppliers' plants does that.
- Apple sometimes designs and dictates manufacturing processes, specifying the exact machines they want to use which the manufacturing companies may not have.
- Unless a company has done business before with Apple, it is unlikely they have the "spare" capacity read to go.
- To tool up as Apple specifies, a manufacturing contractor needs to make back their capex investment and may charge higher prices to achieve that (and may demand a longer commitment than Apple desires). By providing tooling, Apple can negotiate better pricing (hence increasing GM) and better dicate term of commitment.
AI, again, leaving out juicy information that would make Apple look bad.
Tsk tsk.
why would this make Apple look bad? Industry poaching is a common thing and normally are not poplularly reported. Eric S worked on the Apple's board in the past before he joined Google. It was only known because he allegedly stole Apple's iphone concept for Google.
Comments
We see the really thin design and charge of the batteries in Apple's products, and we see great functionality in the Ax chip with regards to both GPU and CPU performance.
Originally Posted by Galbi
AI, again, leaving out juicy information that would make Apple look bad.
Tsk tsk.
Your imagination is broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Engineers design stuff, not (generally) manufacturer it.
That's simply not true (ignoring the typo). Some engineers design. Some are involved in manufacturing, because manufacturing is not just about running CNC machines or assembling parts. Quite often, design and manufacturing overlap significantly. To say engineers only design and do not manufacture "stuff" reflects a poor understanding of engineering.
There are also many engineers who do neither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your imagination is broken.
I get what it means for someone to have an active imagination.
I get what it means for someone to not have a particularly active imagination.
But what is a broken imagination? Does it conjure up many ideas that make no sense? Does it spin in circles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
If Apple is considered a US based company, are they allowed to directly own factories in X nation? The laws of that nation would apply.
Ah yes, they are allowed in general. Sure, approval by local governments is required. But this happens all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple seems to invest in a lot of infrastructure that is housed within the factories of manufacturing partners. This makes sense if these manufacturing partners cannot afford the upfront investment. Apple provides either equipment or funds earmarked for specific use. This means they can't necessarily be used to pay creditors in the case of a company like Sharp. They're relatively secure. It's not necessarily profitable or simple to just bring everything in house. The necessary audits alone might take thousands of hours and reveal incompatibilities. This is fairly safe route if Apple is confident they can get what they pay for.
These reasons kind of make more sense. But, IMO, there are more important, relevant factors:
- Apple wants to guarantee capacity. Owning equipment at the suppliers' plants does that.
- Apple sometimes designs and dictates manufacturing processes, specifying the exact machines they want to use which the manufacturing companies may not have.
- Unless a company has done business before with Apple, it is unlikely they have the "spare" capacity read to go.
- To tool up as Apple specifies, a manufacturing contractor needs to make back their capex investment and may charge higher prices to achieve that (and may demand a longer commitment than Apple desires). By providing tooling, Apple can negotiate better pricing (hence increasing GM) and better dicate term of commitment.
Originally Posted by stelligent
Does it conjure up many ideas that make no sense?
That was my thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
And before LG, this guy worked at Samsung.
AI, again, leaving out juicy information that would make Apple look bad.
Tsk tsk.
why would this make Apple look bad? Industry poaching is a common thing and normally are not poplularly reported. Eric S worked on the Apple's board in the past before he joined Google. It was only known because he allegedly stole Apple's iphone concept for Google.