GTAT "faces scrutiny..." "...now under even more scrutiny"
It would be helpful to know by whom?
Probably SEC.
Well yes, but even you are being speculative.
It was a content question really, or rather the omission of...well, the significant fact that backs up the headline and article byline.
Generates a lot of hot air tho'
Not necessarily. Apple has to sign off on any final bankruptcy resolution.
Not exactly.
GT's board filed for "debter in possession". That means that they will stay in control by getting another lender for the money required.
That new lender gets put at the front of the line, and has the ability to take possession of everything.
But, Apple could take on that new role, and then they would be the debter in possession.
Otherwise, apple could just take possession of the equipment in the plant, as they own the plant itself, and the equipment was bought with a loan from apple. But I'm not sure that would work with this in place, assuming the court agrees to it tomorrow.
By the way, it seems that the reason for the quick bankrupcy filing is that apple didn't come through with an additional $139 million loan. I'm assuming that was because of a failure to meet performance goals set out as a requirement for the additional loan.
Correction. Apple wouldn't become the debtor in possession, that would remain the board. What I meant was that Apple would become the effective debtor, and the board would grant them a lot of leeway, sorry I didn't explain that correctly above.
Why would anyone sign to those terms and conditions. Those are ridiculous. The GTAT CEO basically sold his company to Apple for pennies on the dollar (if they owe Apple money, as is indicated, they will probably try to repay in the form of assets, such as a certain foundry to create Sapphire glass. And they will do it for pennies on the dollar because Apple is pretty much the entire market for that foundry, so it is worthless to anyone else).
It's chapter 11, not chapter 7... no one is liquidating anything yet.
If this article and the next one (WSJ) are to be believed, Apple had performance clauses that basically said, we stop loaning you production money if you don't hit performance goals (what those were, whether they were to make glass for the 6 the 6+ or the Watch, we don't know).
$139Million in loans payments withheld is a huge amount (1/4 of the deal), especially if you only have $85M in reserve. If GTAT has $139 million in debt to suppliers, they need to restructure that.
if Apple Calls the loan for what ever previous payments were made, my guess Chapter 7 or someone does purchase GTAT for pennies, and sees if Apple still wants Sapphire in bulk.
What's interesting is if the report is to be believed that Apple owns the rights to all output from that factory, but will only 'pay' for the output if it meets their specs. That may be an albatross around GTAT's neck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
Pure speculation. Esp the bit about the deal between Cook and the company
It appears the speculation is coming true, or at least the WSJ is reporting the held payment.
It is hyperbole to paint this as Tim "I Eat underperforming suppliers for breakfast and Sh*t them out before supper" Cook's draconian methods. However, This is how Tim made his bones... making the supply chain super taut. You hit your performance marks or you get dinged.
If this deal was structured as a loan, that's amazingly good for Apple, and if GTAT performs, great for them (Apple pays for factory, and buys all the product).
For all those screaming Apple should buy a chip foundry... this is why you don't. The risk is huge - balky technology, silly little things like the laws of physics, uncertain timelines to QA the processes at scale. Apple 'loaning' GTAT money to build a foundry makes Apple a creditor, not an owner, and therefore deflects a huge amount of risk.
Agree, thats why Apple did not state that the 3 new alloys, in the Apple Watch, are manufactured using LiquidMetal Technology's IP.
Again ... if Apple has an aluminium alloy that is 60% stronger, then why was it not used for the iPhone6...
They didn't state it, and we have no reason to suppose it is LiquidMetal. If it were, one would expect that they would have a reference to it. It isn't something that they would want to conceal as it would be a selling feature.
So perhaps, if they will use it, they will announce it when the watch actually is available next year.
They didn't state it, and we have no reason to suppose it is LiquidMetal. If it were, one would expect that they would have a reference to it. It isn't something that they would want to conceal as it would be a selling feature.
So perhaps, if they will use it, they will announce it when the watch actually is available next year.
They also didn't state that the screen is Gorilla Glass, just that its strengthened glass, Gorilla Glass would be a selling feature, but it was never mentioned. They also never stated the sim tool is a LiquidMetal alloy,
Many references where made to it, "60% stronger" aluminium, "40% harder" steel, "up to twice has hard" gold, "new thermal treatment", "our own custom alloys", "cold forged". All these terms scream amorphous alloys and not surprising after about 4 years of R&D and many patent applications with LiquidMetal Technology's Crucible IP.
I'm always amazed at how people think its no big deal for Apple to launch a new niche product with 3 new niche alloys that each outperforme their crystaline counterparts. Apple has never launched a product that comes in a minimum of 3 different materials housings, different colour yes but not different metals, it would be costly to CNC manufacture and maintain the supply of 3 different casing materials for just 1 niche device, unless its manufactured using the cost effective "Injection compression molding of amorphous alloys" patent, where the left over injected metal is just put back into the melt crucible ready for the next molding.
I agree that they might state it when the Watch is available for public sale, thats about the same time the Swatch Group's licence to use LiquidMetal Technology ends.
They also didn't state that the screen is Gorilla Glass, just that its strengthened glass, Gorilla Glass would be a selling feature, but it was never mentioned. They also never stated the sim tool is a LiquidMetal alloy,
Many references where made to it, "60% stronger" aluminium, "40% harder" steel, "up to twice has hard" gold, "new thermal treatment", "our own custom alloys", "cold forged". All these terms scream amorphous alloys and not surprising after about 4 years of R&D and many patent applications with LiquidMetal Technology's Crucible IP.
I'm always amazed at how people think its no big deal for Apple to launch a new niche product with 3 new niche alloys that each outperforme their crystaline counterparts. Apple has never launched a product that comes in a minimum of 3 different materials housings, different colour yes but not different metals, it would be costly to CNC manufacture and maintain the supply of 3 different casing materials for just 1 niche device, unless its manufactured using the cost effective "Injection compression molding of amorphous alloys" patent, where the left over injected metal is just put back into the melt crucible ready for the next molding.
I agree that they might state it when the Watch is available for public sale, thats about the same time the Swatch Group's licence to use LiquidMetal Technology ends.
edit:typo niche
Apple has stated number out times in the past that they use Gorilla glass. Jobs made a big deal out of it when they first began using it, as it was Apple that got Corning to show them the glass in the first place when Apple went to Corning for glass, the first manufacturer to use glass, at least, in a real mass produced phone and music player. So we all know that it's Gorilla glass. Apple doesn't have to repeat it every iteration.
The sim tool, which I still have, wasn't a feature. It was an experiment. Nothing that was going to sell a phone do you think that people would have rushed out to buy an iPhone because the sim tool was Liquidmetal? I don't think so. Most people have lost theirs years ago.
There is injection molding of many metals, not just Liquidmetal. I've done it myself. Camera manufacturers use precision casting for very complex, and large camera parts that require minor amounts of machining, mostly for mating parts and threads. Nothing new there.
Let's not overthink this. While it's still possible they will announce something when the watch comes out, with all that they said already, it's odd they haven't already, as it would lead to more interest over time, and a great deal of talk about the alloys, rather than just a few lines here and there. I've been closely following this in the horological magazines, as I have a great deal of interest in watches. All they say about the alloys is that they don't know what apple is doing. If Apple announced that it was liquidmetal, there would be numbeous articles about that, it would puff up interest in the watches. Not only would the low end watch be of more interest, though I dk t think it would be affordable to do it for that price. But for the gold watch, having something that's unique among high end gold watches, which only sell about 5% of high end watches, would be of major interest. So if Apple does use this, they have done something very unusual for them in marketing, which donr see Shiller as doing—they blew it.
Apple has stated number out times in the past that they use Gorilla glass. Jobs made a big deal out of it when they first began using it, as it was Apple that got Corning to show them the glass in the first place when Apple went to Corning for glass, the first manufacturer to use glass, at least, in a real mass produced phone and music player. So we all know that it's Gorilla glass. Apple doesn't have to repeat it every iteration.
The sim tool, which I still have, wasn't a feature. It was an experiment. Nothing that was going to sell a phone do you think that people would have rushed out to buy an iPhone because the sim tool was Liquidmetal? I don't think so. Most people have lost theirs years ago.
There is injection molding of many metals, not just Liquidmetal. I've done it myself. Camera manufacturers use precision casting for very complex, and large camera parts that require minor amounts of machining, mostly for mating parts and threads. Nothing new there.
Let's not overthink this. While it's still possible they will announce something when the watch comes out, with all that they said already, it's odd they haven't already, as it would lead to more interest over time, and a great deal of talk about the alloys, rather than just a few lines here and there. I've been closely following this in the horological magazines, as I have a great deal of interest in watches. All they say about the alloys is that they don't know what apple is doing. If Apple announced that it was liquidmetal, there would be numbeous articles about that, it would puff up interest in the watches. Not only would the low end watch be of more interest, though I dk t think it would be affordable to do it for that price. But for the gold watch, having something that's unique among high end gold watches, which only sell about 5% of high end watches, would be of major interest. So if Apple does use this, they have done something very unusual for them in marketing, which donr see Shiller as doing—they blew it.
So the point about screen is that Apple did not mention its Gorilla Glass but we all know it, as apposed to the alloy where it is not mentioned as amorphous and we don't all know about it.
So the point about the sim ejector tool is that LiquidMetal alloys are not all expensive or difficult to manufacture and that it was never mentioned as such, regardless if it is a selling feature or not, Gorilla Glass is a feature but again it was not mentioned.(marketing blown on that)
So Metal Injection Molding and Powder Injection Molding (die casting) is completly different from how Amorphous metals are made, just look at all the patents lodged by Crucible IP, its a huge difference between the old way and the new way with new BMG alloy mixtures. You can't say that the new patents lodged by Apple and LiquidMetal are invalid because MIM has existed prior, or that there is nothing new in what Apple and LiquidMetal have been developing.
You said it best, that it would puff up interest in watches if Apple mentioned that the 3 new alloys are amorphous. Swatch Group has a license to use LquidMetal IP in watches until March 2015 and i am sure they would be very interested if Apple mentioned it. Maybe thats why they didn't mention it, instead Apple mentioned the new properties of the 3 alloys rather than promote another companies production methods or bring attention from an existing licensee.
Comments
Well yes, but even you are being speculative.
It was a content question really, or rather the omission of...well, the significant fact that backs up the headline and article byline.
Generates a lot of hot air tho'
Not exactly.
GT's board filed for "debter in possession". That means that they will stay in control by getting another lender for the money required.
That new lender gets put at the front of the line, and has the ability to take possession of everything.
But, Apple could take on that new role, and then they would be the debter in possession.
Otherwise, apple could just take possession of the equipment in the plant, as they own the plant itself, and the equipment was bought with a loan from apple. But I'm not sure that would work with this in place, assuming the court agrees to it tomorrow.
By the way, it seems that the reason for the quick bankrupcy filing is that apple didn't come through with an additional $139 million loan. I'm assuming that was because of a failure to meet performance goals set out as a requirement for the additional loan.
Correction. Apple wouldn't become the debtor in possession, that would remain the board. What I meant was that Apple would become the effective debtor, and the board would grant them a lot of leeway, sorry I didn't explain that correctly above.
Why would anyone sign to those terms and conditions. Those are ridiculous. The GTAT CEO basically sold his company to Apple for pennies on the dollar (if they owe Apple money, as is indicated, they will probably try to repay in the form of assets, such as a certain foundry to create Sapphire glass. And they will do it for pennies on the dollar because Apple is pretty much the entire market for that foundry, so it is worthless to anyone else).
It's chapter 11, not chapter 7... no one is liquidating anything yet.
If this article and the next one (WSJ) are to be believed, Apple had performance clauses that basically said, we stop loaning you production money if you don't hit performance goals (what those were, whether they were to make glass for the 6 the 6+ or the Watch, we don't know).
$139Million in loans payments withheld is a huge amount (1/4 of the deal), especially if you only have $85M in reserve. If GTAT has $139 million in debt to suppliers, they need to restructure that.
if Apple Calls the loan for what ever previous payments were made, my guess Chapter 7 or someone does purchase GTAT for pennies, and sees if Apple still wants Sapphire in bulk.
What's interesting is if the report is to be believed that Apple owns the rights to all output from that factory, but will only 'pay' for the output if it meets their specs. That may be an albatross around GTAT's neck
Pure speculation. Esp the bit about the deal between Cook and the company
It appears the speculation is coming true, or at least the WSJ is reporting the held payment.
It is hyperbole to paint this as Tim "I Eat underperforming suppliers for breakfast and Sh*t them out before supper" Cook's draconian methods. However, This is how Tim made his bones... making the supply chain super taut. You hit your performance marks or you get dinged.
If this deal was structured as a loan, that's amazingly good for Apple, and if GTAT performs, great for them (Apple pays for factory, and buys all the product).
For all those screaming Apple should buy a chip foundry... this is why you don't. The risk is huge - balky technology, silly little things like the laws of physics, uncertain timelines to QA the processes at scale. Apple 'loaning' GTAT money to build a foundry makes Apple a creditor, not an owner, and therefore deflects a huge amount of risk.
Apple rarely talks about the brands of components used in their products. Intel, nvidia, and AMD being the notable exceptions.
Agree, thats why Apple did not state that the 3 new alloys, in the Apple Watch, are manufactured using LiquidMetal Technology's IP.
Again ... if Apple has an aluminium alloy that is 60% stronger, then why was it not used for the iPhone6...
and who says the investment community is at or above average intelligence?
That may be fair, but the rumor was picked up (or maybe started) by WSJ. That's not quite the same as buying on a rumor from DigiTimes.They didn't state it, and we have no reason to suppose it is LiquidMetal. If it were, one would expect that they would have a reference to it. It isn't something that they would want to conceal as it would be a selling feature.
So perhaps, if they will use it, they will announce it when the watch actually is available next year.
They didn't state it, and we have no reason to suppose it is LiquidMetal. If it were, one would expect that they would have a reference to it. It isn't something that they would want to conceal as it would be a selling feature.
So perhaps, if they will use it, they will announce it when the watch actually is available next year.
They also didn't state that the screen is Gorilla Glass, just that its strengthened glass, Gorilla Glass would be a selling feature, but it was never mentioned. They also never stated the sim tool is a LiquidMetal alloy,
Many references where made to it, "60% stronger" aluminium, "40% harder" steel, "up to twice has hard" gold, "new thermal treatment", "our own custom alloys", "cold forged". All these terms scream amorphous alloys and not surprising after about 4 years of R&D and many patent applications with LiquidMetal Technology's Crucible IP.
I'm always amazed at how people think its no big deal for Apple to launch a new niche product with 3 new niche alloys that each outperforme their crystaline counterparts. Apple has never launched a product that comes in a minimum of 3 different materials housings, different colour yes but not different metals, it would be costly to CNC manufacture and maintain the supply of 3 different casing materials for just 1 niche device, unless its manufactured using the cost effective "Injection compression molding of amorphous alloys" patent, where the left over injected metal is just put back into the melt crucible ready for the next molding.
I agree that they might state it when the Watch is available for public sale, thats about the same time the Swatch Group's licence to use LiquidMetal Technology ends.
edit:typo niche
Apple has stated number out times in the past that they use Gorilla glass. Jobs made a big deal out of it when they first began using it, as it was Apple that got Corning to show them the glass in the first place when Apple went to Corning for glass, the first manufacturer to use glass, at least, in a real mass produced phone and music player. So we all know that it's Gorilla glass. Apple doesn't have to repeat it every iteration.
The sim tool, which I still have, wasn't a feature. It was an experiment. Nothing that was going to sell a phone do you think that people would have rushed out to buy an iPhone because the sim tool was Liquidmetal? I don't think so. Most people have lost theirs years ago.
There is injection molding of many metals, not just Liquidmetal. I've done it myself. Camera manufacturers use precision casting for very complex, and large camera parts that require minor amounts of machining, mostly for mating parts and threads. Nothing new there.
Let's not overthink this. While it's still possible they will announce something when the watch comes out, with all that they said already, it's odd they haven't already, as it would lead to more interest over time, and a great deal of talk about the alloys, rather than just a few lines here and there. I've been closely following this in the horological magazines, as I have a great deal of interest in watches. All they say about the alloys is that they don't know what apple is doing. If Apple announced that it was liquidmetal, there would be numbeous articles about that, it would puff up interest in the watches. Not only would the low end watch be of more interest, though I dk t think it would be affordable to do it for that price. But for the gold watch, having something that's unique among high end gold watches, which only sell about 5% of high end watches, would be of major interest. So if Apple does use this, they have done something very unusual for them in marketing, which donr see Shiller as doing—they blew it.
Apple has stated number out times in the past that they use Gorilla glass. Jobs made a big deal out of it when they first began using it, as it was Apple that got Corning to show them the glass in the first place when Apple went to Corning for glass, the first manufacturer to use glass, at least, in a real mass produced phone and music player. So we all know that it's Gorilla glass. Apple doesn't have to repeat it every iteration.
The sim tool, which I still have, wasn't a feature. It was an experiment. Nothing that was going to sell a phone do you think that people would have rushed out to buy an iPhone because the sim tool was Liquidmetal? I don't think so. Most people have lost theirs years ago.
There is injection molding of many metals, not just Liquidmetal. I've done it myself. Camera manufacturers use precision casting for very complex, and large camera parts that require minor amounts of machining, mostly for mating parts and threads. Nothing new there.
Let's not overthink this. While it's still possible they will announce something when the watch comes out, with all that they said already, it's odd they haven't already, as it would lead to more interest over time, and a great deal of talk about the alloys, rather than just a few lines here and there. I've been closely following this in the horological magazines, as I have a great deal of interest in watches. All they say about the alloys is that they don't know what apple is doing. If Apple announced that it was liquidmetal, there would be numbeous articles about that, it would puff up interest in the watches. Not only would the low end watch be of more interest, though I dk t think it would be affordable to do it for that price. But for the gold watch, having something that's unique among high end gold watches, which only sell about 5% of high end watches, would be of major interest. So if Apple does use this, they have done something very unusual for them in marketing, which donr see Shiller as doing—they blew it.
So the point about screen is that Apple did not mention its Gorilla Glass but we all know it, as apposed to the alloy where it is not mentioned as amorphous and we don't all know about it.
So the point about the sim ejector tool is that LiquidMetal alloys are not all expensive or difficult to manufacture and that it was never mentioned as such, regardless if it is a selling feature or not, Gorilla Glass is a feature but again it was not mentioned.(marketing blown on that)
So Metal Injection Molding and Powder Injection Molding (die casting) is completly different from how Amorphous metals are made, just look at all the patents lodged by Crucible IP, its a huge difference between the old way and the new way with new BMG alloy mixtures. You can't say that the new patents lodged by Apple and LiquidMetal are invalid because MIM has existed prior, or that there is nothing new in what Apple and LiquidMetal have been developing.
You said it best, that it would puff up interest in watches if Apple mentioned that the 3 new alloys are amorphous. Swatch Group has a license to use LquidMetal IP in watches until March 2015 and i am sure they would be very interested if Apple mentioned it. Maybe thats why they didn't mention it, instead Apple mentioned the new properties of the 3 alloys rather than promote another companies production methods or bring attention from an existing licensee.